Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_654.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-15 | 19KB

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/4cKSIjW00WBw4Mrk59>;
          Sat, 15 Jun 91 06:00:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 06:00:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #654

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 654

Today's Topics:
             Refueling Satellites
        Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?
              Re: Privatization
           Jonathan's Space Report, May 22
          Re:  SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
Re: Pregnancy in space (was Re: Rational next station design process)
         Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?
      Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition
            SPACE Digest V13 #580
           RE:RE:USF, Inc. : Brought to you by the

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: 26 May 91 03:35:41 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Refueling Satellites

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

> Replacing the station keeping system would invlove, at least, screwing in
> bolts. Refueling just requires connecting a hose.

Hmm, I thought connecting a hose in zero-g and a vacuum might be a bit tricky.
It would involve several moving parts (which may jam, break or otherwise fail)
and very tight tolerances (or you get leaks).  It's certainly possible, but if
you look at the problem from a broader perspective, you may see other
possibilities.

Stationkeepers themselves might be quite easy to replace.  The main force on
them is directed inwards, with some side and outward forces (when other jets
firing).  You could probably stick them in a holder using magnets, tension
springs, velcro, etc.  Removing them would simply require an outwards force
greater than normally encountered by the particular engine.  Control signals
could be send via direct or indirect coupling (electrical, optical, microwave).

Satellites designed for robotic servicing could (should?) be quite different
from the present no-maintenance designs.

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

Date: 27 May 91 15:46:51 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... You would, of
>course, have to have a mass closer to the sun tethered to the sunshield to
>offset the pressure...

No, that's not necessary.  You put the whole sunshield slightly closer to
the Sun than L1, and no separate mass is needed.  You do need active control
of some kind for attitude and stationkeeping.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 27 May 91 13:30:33 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!IRO.UMontreal.CA!matrox!altitude!elevia![e-mail]  (W.A.Simon)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (M.G. Stinnett) writes:
>>Jerry Pournelle says his group could put 40 people on the moon for one
>>year for $2 billion. He said he had shown the figures to quite a few
>>qualified people and no one had been able to shoot them down.
>>He also figured a major aerospace contractor could do the job for about
>>$10 billion, but it would take the government $1 trillion to do it.
>If it were that cheap, and that worthwhile, the Japanese or the Europeans would
>have already done it. Just to thumb their collective noses at us. Even the
>Japanese might have bitten on a $10 billion cost figure.

    The Europeans and the Japanese have the same problem as we do:
    it is big G. that keeps getting in the way...


--
William "Alain" Simon
                                                   UUCP: [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 May 91 16:28:35 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!freedom!xanth![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, May 22


Jonathan's Space Report

May 22 1991 (no.74)
----------------------------------------------------

Discovery landed on runway 15 at Kennedy Space Center
at 1855 UT on May 6. It is not clear whether or not the MPEC
classified subsatellite was deployed. Launch of STS-40/Columbia
is scheduled for early June.

Soyuz TM-12 was launched on May 18 and docked with Mir on May 20.
The crew are Anatoliy Pavlovich Artsebarskiy (Komandir),
Sergey Konstantinovich Krikalyov (Bortinzhener) and Helen Patricia
Sharman (Kosmonavt-issledovatel'). Artsebarskiy and Krikalyov
are the new Mir main crew, replacing Afanas'ev and Manarov who
will return to Earth with Sharman in Soyuz TM-11 on around May 26.
Sharman is the first British space traveller and her participation
in the mission is part of Project Juno, which is financed by the
Moskva Narodniy Bank and has no connection with the British government.
The Progress M-7 cargo craft undocked and reentered on May 7.

The NOAA 12 weather satellite was launched into polar orbit from
Vandenberg by an Atlas E launch vehicle with a Star 37S upper stage on
May 14. The NOAA satellites are operated by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, which also operates the network
of GOES satellites in geostationary orbit.

Six Soviet spacecraft, Kosmos-2143 to Kosmos-2148, were launched on May
16 into a 1400 km orbit by a three stage Tsiklon rocket. They are small
store-dump communications satellites, the military version of the Gonets
satellites recently offered for commercial use by the NPO-PM company.

___________________________________
|Current STS status:              |
|Orbiters                         |
|                                 |
|OV-102 Columbia         LC39B    |
|OV-103 Discovery       OPF Bay 1 |
|OV-104 Atlantis        OPF Bay 2 |
|OV-105 Endeavour       VAB Bay 2 |
|                                 |
|ML/ET/SRB stacks                 |
|                                 |
|ML1/STS-43             VAB Bay 1 |
|ML2                              |
|ML3/STS-40/ET/OV-102   LC39B     |
-----------------------------------


10 years ago: 14-22 May 1981.  The Soyuz-40 mission carried Soviet
cosmonaut Yuriy Romanenko and Rumanian cosmonaut Dumitru Prunariu on a
visit to the Salyut-6 space station.

20 years ago: 12-28 May 1971.  Three Soviet Mars probes were launched.
The first, Kosmos-419, was stranded in low earth orbit by an upper stage
failure.  Mars-2 and Mars-3 entered Mars orbit in Nov-Dec 1971 and
impacted probes on the surface.  The surface probes failed to return
useful data.

30 years ago: 24 May 1961.  The S-45A ionospheric satellite failed to
reach orbit when its Juno II booster malfunctioned.

(c) 1991 Jonathan McDowell. Information in this report is obtained
from public sources and does not reflect the official views of NASA.

 .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell                 |  phone : [phone]                 |
 |  Space Science Lab ES65            | uucp:                                  |
 |  NASA Marshall Space Flight Center | bitnet :                               |
 |  Huntsville AL 35812               |  inter : [e-mail]  |
 |  USA                               |   span : ssl::mcdowell                 |
 '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date:         Tue, 28 May 91 13:04:00 EDT
From: "Charles J. Divine" <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re:  SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

Just a few comments on the cancellation of Fred.

First, it was not a victory for space science or economy in government.  In
fact, it was probably a defeat for both.

Space scientists have decried, with some justification, megaprojects that
squeeze out funding for small, relatively quick projects.

Small government enthusiasts (e.g., libertarians) like to denounce large
government projects that do not deliver their promised benefits.

Let's actually consider what happenned when the Appropriations subcommittee
zeroed out space station.

They did not simply cut the Federal budget.  No, they transferred the money to
other programs.

One clear winner was the EOS project.  EOS is clearly big science.  It's a
multibillion dollar project intended to gather data on the behavior of the
earth's environment.  Large (but unmanned) satellites will orbitted to study
the earth.  We are talking very big science here.

While we are considering EOS, let's look at a suspicious aspect of this deal.
One major firm bidding on EOS is Hughes Electronics.  Hughes is wholly owned by
General Motors.  GM is losing money in a big time way right now.  Bob Traxler,
the chair of the committee that voted to cancel Fred, is from Michigan.

Finally, a future caveat.  I can hear the howls from some environmentalists
already.  "You want to STUDY the environment?  We don't need more STUDIES.  WE
NEED ACTION!"  This argument will probably see growing popularity when Congress
looks to cut some more money out of science and technology.

Another area where money is being transferred to is HUD projects in NYC.  The
ranking Republican on the subcommittee is Bill Green from NYC.  And, for those
of you fortunate to have never seen the inside of many New York City welfare
programs (I did as an observer when I was studying social psychology at
Columbia University), prepare yourselves for a shock:  the money transferred
will do the poor of New York little or no good.  Between NYC bureaucracies
(which seemingly have no natural upper limit on size) that waste money and
resources without even thinking about what they are doing and out and out
graft involving poverty contractors (you didn't think the government built
welfare housing projects, did you?) neither the poor nor the taxpayer will
benefit from this action.

I will complete this little essay with a comment to those who say "wasting
billions on (fill in the blank) does not justify wasting billions on badly
run space projects."  Unfortunately you are neglecting an important
consideration -- the extent to which politics dominates life in late 20th
America.  The incredible growth of the "service" sector can be laid in part
to political activity.  Internal political activities play a major part in
shaping the activities of large corporations.  A very considerable part of
the cost in developing and building Fred lies in the current need to play
some very nasty political games (e.g., NASA has learned DOD's trick of
putting a subcontractor in every Congressional district).  To eliminate the
very considerable waste one sees in political managed activities, I recommend
finding ways of changing the fundamental situation, not wasting time going
after a fairly minor player (NASA) in a very nasty game.

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

Date: 28 May 91 17:45:04 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy in space (was Re: Rational next station design process)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S. J. Okay) writes:
>... I would think that given the the fetus is already
>floating weightless inthe amniotic sac during its development, the absence of
>gravity wouldn't be that much of a problem (but then, I'm no MD either).

Floating in fluid produces only approximate weightlessness.  For example,
bones are still heavier than soft tissues, and have some small tendency
to try to sink.  For that matter, the whole fetus probably doesn't exactly
match the average density of the amniotic fluid, and consequently will
feel some gravity.  Whether any of this matters to development, nobody knows.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 May 91 18:52:34 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Ed Otto)
Subject: Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?

[e-mail] (S. J. Okay) writes:

>I'd also be interested in hearing of any general appraisals of the movie for
>scientific acuracy, since this one one point of merit that was stressed about
>this movie on here.

The one glaring item that I noticed was the lack of frost forming on the
spacesuits or the airlock during the explosive compression sequence about
twenty minutes before the end.

Other than that item, I LOVED the show...


*******************************************************************************
*                             *  Netmail addresses:                           *
*  Edward C. Otto III         *    [e-mail]                 *
*  University of Illinois     *    [e-mail]                *
*  Printing Services Office   *    UIPSA::OTTO (Decnet node 46.99)            *
*  54A E. Gregory Dr.         *    [e-mail]                   *
*  Champaign, IL  61820       *  Office phone: [phone]                   *
*                             *                                               *
*******************************************************************************

    "As knowledge is to ignorance, so is light unto the darkness."

               ---     GO 'PODS!     ---
--
*******************************************************************************
*                             *  Netmail addresses:                           *
*  Edward C. Otto III         *    [e-mail]                 *
*  University of Illinois     *    [e-mail]                *

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

Date: 29 May 91 06:40:59 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>The study of comets, their fragments, and earth-crossing meteoroids
>can be justified in the interest of national security, at the very
>least. I don't see any private groups, for-profit or not, rushing
>out to do this.
>
>How much makeup will Mr. Crary's wife be buying if the next
>Tunguska event occurs over their house?

A few things to clear up:

1: Mr. Crary does not have a wife.
2: Mr. Crary and most of his friends do not worry overly about that sort of
   very low probability event.
3: I do not recall having objected to the study of comets, cometary fragments,
   or Earth-crossing meteoroids.

                           Frank Crary

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 29 May 91 17:52:02 EDT
Resent-From: tom <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Sat, 25 May 91 02:45:17 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #580
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re: Unrestricted Launches;

>>>What we need is for the government to allow those who want to do it to
>>>do so without restriction from government restrictions.

>>Sounds good to me -- what *specific* restrictions are currently
>>preventing private and non-profit organizations from pursuing space
>>exploration and development?

>Essentially any launch must be approved, no matter where it occurs.

Speaking of getting beyond this type of restriction, I learned a while back
that there were a few proposals that involved creating a space-port somewhere
on/near the equator.  Not only for the orbital energy advantage, but also as
a base to improve international space relations, or even a home for an inter-
national space admin.

I guess India was quite vocal about their wish to be the place for such a
facility (though most equatorial nations recognized the benefit of a space-
port for their economies and expressed interest)

Who knows more details?  Still going?  Dead?

Tommy Mac
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 29 May 91 21:30:30 GMT
From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu![e-mail]
Subject: RE:RE:USF, Inc. : Brought to you by the


 It sounds like to me Mr. Fraering Philip is either a Dictator type
a Communist, or a Nazi.  He takes pride in the fact that the effort
to make the Moon and Mars the domain of all mankind (All the peoples
of the world) which no single nation could hold claim too was
undermined by this L-5 group. If this is what L-5 represents I take
back any thing good I ever said about it.  Further more Mr. Philip
says the NSS should continue these same activities, If I were NSS
I wouldn't get near Mr. Philip with a ten foot pole.  Real space
buffs who want to see real progress in the advancement of space
exploratory and developement should stear clear of negitive and
destructive people like Mr. Fraering Philip.  If people like Mr.
Philip have their way only one race and class of people will ever
have the opportunity to be part of a space faring civilization.
  On the other hand an organized international civil space agency
would insure that all the peoples and nations of the world community
would have a chance and opprotunity to participate in a future
space faring civilization.  If you want to know the truth about the
USFs present activities, write to us and we will send you the facts
about the USF in stead of the one side comments by people like Mr.
Fraering Philip.  I wounder how much Mr. Philip was paid by Planetary
Society to promote them as a prospect for an international space
organization??!

                        United Space Federation, Inc.
                         International Headquarters
                             P.O. Box 4722
                        Ithaca, New York  14852-4722
                       In the United States of America


                   Thank you for your time and support, Godspeed!

                                      Sincerely,
                                      Rick R. Dobson
                                      Executive Director
                                      United Space Federation, Inc.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #654
*******************