Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_422.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/gc3HN6m00WBw4VEk4J>;
          Thu, 18 Apr 91 02:01:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 91 02:01:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #422

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 422

Today's Topics:
    Re: SSF Micro-g (Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
             Re: NASA & Executive Branch
            Re: The first VOSTOK in space
             Re: NASA & Executive Branch
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
              Re: lawsuits etc.
            Re: Mylar, not Teflon
             Re: Voyager CD-ROMs On-Line
         Re: Questions about pioneer/Voyager
        Credit for use of the Magellan images
             Re: NASA & Executive Branch
         Re: "Bussard Ramjets" AKA duct space drives
              Cape York launch facility

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 14:52:41 GMT
From: widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: SSF Micro-g (Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Sheppardson) writes:
>>Actually, this was a pretty gutsy move by NASA...

>   For what 'politically unpopular design changes' did the micro-g
>   community ask?

You need to ask Nick that but I would guess he means the life science
centrifuge. The micro-g people didn't like it and Congress cut funds for it
last year.

>   In what way did NASA tell the people who sign the checks to go to hell?

The Appropriations Subcommittee which signs the checks for the station has
said several times they wanted Freedom as a microgravity facility first and
formost. The current restructuring says it will be a microgravity platform
for a few years until PMC and then it becomes life sciences. It therefore
is now life science first and formost with microgravity as available.

   Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 17:26:56 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA & Executive Branch

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> ... The President can
>> order NASA to do it, but only Congress can authorize spending money on it.
>
>Then should Congress be included in this lawsuit from Hughes?

It is.  Hughes can't sue part of the US government any more than they can sue
your left arm.  Naming NASA specifically may be convenient but has no legal
significance.

>One of the
>things you have mentioned several times that NASA did not do, was to place an
>order for expendable launch vehicles to be made available to its displaced
>shuttle customers.  How could it get a hold of the founds for this without
>Congressional intervention to authorize it?

It couldn't.  But it could have asked Congress for the money, in exactly
the same way it does when one of its normal projects runs into unexpected
expenses.  That is exactly what happened this time:  its launch contracts
could not be fulfilled using the originally-planned method, and extra
money would be needed to fulfill them.

>... So how can it be held accountable for not
>doing something it did not have the money to do?

When a company signs a contract to do something and then finds out it can't
afford to follow through on that promise, the situation is known as
"impending bankruptcy".  You don't get to just cancel the contract for
your own convenience.  You keep your promises, renegotiate them, or go
under.  If the problem is that your boss won't let you have the money
needed to keep the promise you made on his behalf, he gets sued.  Which
is precisely what's happening.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 11:59:36 GMT
From: world!ksr![e-mail]  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: The first VOSTOK in space

In article <[e-mail]>, George_Muzyka@kcbbs (George Muzyka) writes:
>We all call the first Soviet Vostok manned spacecraft, piloted by Yuri
>Gagarin in April 1961, VOSTOK 1.

When Radio Moscow announced the launch, they referred to it simply as Vostok,
with no number.  It wasn't until Vostok 2 that Gagarin's craft was called
Vostok 1.  Similarly, Voskhod 1 didn't acquire its number until Voskhod 2 had
been launched.  Soyuz 1, however, was called Soyuz 1 from the start, fuelling
speculation that there was supposed ot have been a Soyuz 2 launched to
rendezvous with it.

>Well on Radio Moscow World Service last week an item on this 30th anniversary
>mentioned that the technicians back then called Gagarin's Vostok by
>the name of VOSTOK 3A.
>
>So could it be that the name VOSTOK 3A refers to the third major phase
>in the first V8Aec!$JJ.*P3)aft? Any light on this, anyone?

I've heard that there were three variants of early Vostoks.  The first was an
"electrical analogue" and had no heat shield.  Korabl Sputnik 1 was the only
known launch of this type.  The second and third variants had heat shields and
were capable of returning their payload and passengers to earth.  The
differences between the two were minor; I recall that there was some
improvement in the orientation system.  Korabl Sputniks 2 through 5 were all
Vostok spacecraft under a different name, and all carried a dog or two as well
as other biological cargo (rats, seeds, etc.).  All except KS 3 were successes;
KS 3 burned up due to an incorrect reentry angle.  I believe it was the first
test of the new, improved Vostok (!), but by the time Gagarin flew, KS 4 and 5
had already validated the design and flown successful one orbit missions, so
the go-ahead was given for Gagarin's launch.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 13:44:38 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs.org![e-mail]
Subject: Re: NASA & Executive Branch

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Would it be possible then for the President to declare by Executive Order that
>>NASA is returning to the moon and skip all the haggling with nearsighted
>>Conressmen?
>
> Apart from the difficulty of getting such a forthright order out of any
> recent president :-(, alas, no.  Checks and balances.  The President can
> order NASA to do it, but only Congress can authorize spending money on it.
> --

Then should Congress be included in this lawsuit from Hughes?  One of the
things you have mentioned several times that NASA did not do, was to place an
order for expendable launch vehicles to be made available to its displaced
shuttle customers.  How could it get a hold of the founds for this without
Congressional intervention to authorize it?  If NASA were really a business, as
Hughes seems to think it is, then NASA would have control of it own purse
strings, but it evidently does not.  So how can it be held accountable for not
doing something it did not have the money to do?

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

Date: 16 Apr 91 15:26:20 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>No, they're official, not diplomatic.  Maroon instead of navy blue.  I
>don't know what color diplomats have.  I have two passports, in two
>names, and both are current and correct.

Two passports in two names? Hmmm, subcontracting out to three-letter agencies
these days, eh?


     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 21:46:56 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: lawsuits etc.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>1)  Unless the Scout, originally a sounding rocket launched from Wallops
>Island, has been considerably upgraded, it does not have the lifting power to
>get a Hughes comsat to the desired orbit.

I never said it did.  The mention of Scout was an incidental aside on the
matter of NASA owning expendables.

>2) NASA at the time did not have funds available to place the type of "launch
>order" you are suggesting...

And it did have funds to put the same payloads up on shuttle launches?
One can argue about relative costs, but the shuttle certainly isn't any
cheaper than expendables.

>Beside, were not Martin Marrietta and General
>Dynamics trying to get into the launch business on their own?  They could have
>dealt directly with Hughes, bypassing NASA entirely...

MM and GD were interested in the idea but not, at the time, actively
pursuing it.  And Hughes couldn't have dealt directly with them without
breaking its contract with NASA.  Contracts are binding on both parties.

In fact, taking NASA "out of the loop" is a Good Thing in general.  But
in this case, it could have been done quite nicely by saying "NASA will
take no more orders for launches, but will buy expendable launch services
to fulfill the contracts already signed".  This would have gotten at least
one commercial launch provider going with a bulk order, something whose
rarity in the launch business shows in the prices.

> the hold up was and
>still is one of the Gov't Depts (Commerce and/or Transportation) requiring
>regulations and paperwork that stiffle this effort.

Details, please?  While I'm not happy with all aspects of OCST (Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, part of DoT), so far they have mostly done
a commendable job of simplifying regulations and paperwork for commercial
launches.  In particular, they have *not* "stifled" it, and a small number
of commercial orders have indeed gone to US launch firms.  The reason there
weren't more is that the US firms weren't prepared to provide immediate
launches after Challenger, and Arianespace was.  (Note that in my proposed
approach, existing NASA launch contracts would have remained in effect, so
the satellite owners would go up on NASA's choice of launcher, which wouldn't
be Ariane!)
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 00:24:04 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu![e-mail]  (RAMontante)
Subject: Re: Mylar, not Teflon

| You do remember Echo, don't you?  Sitting out on the lawn just after
| dark, watching it flash by?

Not in Chicago --- we just stole the hubcaps off anything with flashing
lights, and then we ran away  :-)  :-)

"lawn" ???

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 18:15:24 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!convex![e-mail]  (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Voyager CD-ROMs On-Line

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (baalke, ron) writes:
>
>     Peter Yee and I are pleased to announce a major addition to the SPACE
>archive at NASA Ames Research Center.
>
>     There are eight CD-ROMs that contain about 16,000 images taken by
>Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 on their encounters with Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus.
>Images from these Voyager CD-ROMs are now available on-line at the Ames SPACE
>archives.. A new Magellan CD-ROM and three new
>Neptune CD-ROMs are also available, and will be quickly be placed on-line when
>Peter receives them.


Are the Magellan and Neptune CDs available for purchase?  I just got
the eight Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus CDs from the University of Colorado,
but the order forms I got with them didn't mention any new additions.
If they are available, can somebody tell me how to order them?

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 17:28:09 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Scott A Geels)
Subject: Re: Questions about pioneer/Voyager

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>am aware of.  There is also an RTG (radioactive thermonic generator) from

Actually, RTG = Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator

>John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
>NeWave Communications                       ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john

Scott Geels

[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 17:27:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Credit for use of the Magellan images

Just a quick reminder to users of the CD-ROM data I am supplying:  if you
incorporate any of the images or data into a formal presentation, paper,
or other similar work, please acknowledge Magellan Team Leader, Dr. Gordon
Pettengill, the Planetary Data System, and the National Space Science Data
Center.  Thanks for your understanding.

                        -Peter Yee
                        [e-mail]
                        ames!yee

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 16:18:21 GMT
From: orca!bambam![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: NASA & Executive Branch

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alan Parker) writes:

> Does it bother others that so many don't seem to understand how our
> government works?   We shouldn't expect everyone around the world to
> understand the limits of a President and the role of Congress; but
> certainly every American kid in school is taught about these things.

Thinking back I realize I learned about it by reading about it in an
encyclopedia. An encylopedia I had at home. I wasn't allowed to read
the same encyclopedia in the library of the US public school I
attended because it was "above my grade level." Can't let the little
buggers learning something they're not supposed to learn now, can we?

Oh sure they talked about checks and balances, but never about the
mechanisms for enforcing the checks and balances. I doubt I ever had a
teacher who understood how it worked.

> If Henry has to start telling posters how our government works, then we are
> in big trouble.   I'm sure few of us can tell him how his works!

We are already in big trouble. US public grade and secondary schools
don't teach. Few of the teacher can teach and the ones that can teach
aren't allowed to.

How does this relate to sci.space? If you want the US to be a presence
in space, we'd better fix our %#@&ing schools.

--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
   [e-mail] or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

                         Tools, not rules.

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

Date: 17 Apr 91 20:07:07 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!csrd.uiuc.edu!s28.csrd.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Carl J. Beckmann)
Subject: Re: "Bussard Ramjets" AKA duct space drives

>Questions:
>1) How big would the scoop have to be?  ...

>2) ...  Is it possible to make a scoop out of an E-M field to
>gather the fuel so as to avoid this obstacle?

I can't give you any "real" answers, but if I remember my Niven
correctly, he was saying the scoops were on the order of hundreds
of kilometers.  Also, I'm pretty sure his spaceships used electromagnetic
scoops, or more precisely, lage static magnetic fields.  I presume
this implies the hydrogen being scooped up is in ionized form...


-Carl Beckmann            |early to rise, early to bed
[e-mail]        |makes a man healthy, wealthy and dead

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 15:34:47 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!metro!cs.uow.edu.au!bhpcpd![e-mail]  (Steve Lechowicz)
Subject: Cape York launch facility



Does anyone know what the current  situation is with the launch facility
proposed  for the Cape  York  peninsula?  If so I would  appreciate  any
information.  Thanks in advance.

Steve.
--
Steve Lechowicz, Research Officer                     ([e-mail])
BHP Coated Products Division, Research and Technology Centre
Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #422
*******************