Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 21 Nov 89 01:29:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 01:28:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #267 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 267 Today's Topics: Re: HST resolution U.S./USSR Solar System Joint Working Group met in Moscow (Forwarded) Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks? Re: Looking Down [was: Re: HST resolution] So how elastic is the market? Payload Status for 11/20/89 (Forwarded) Re: Some corrections on LV family trees ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 89 20:40:16 EST From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: HST resolution >From: John Roberts >Subject: HST resolution >>From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Greg S. Hennessy) >>The resolution of HST is [roughly] 20 milliarcseconds. Let us consider >>Alpha centuri. It is about 1.3 parsecs away, this 1 arcsecond will be >>1.3 AU or about 130 million miles. 20 mas will be about 26 million miles. >....................... >>>, allanb@ronin.us.cc.umich.edu (Allan M. Bjorklund) writes: >>> I redid the calculations, and came up with the HST being able >>> to resolve a 3000 mile wide object at 39 AU >There have been several calculations similar to this posted recently, and >most of them seem to be off (with respect to my calculations) by roughly >a factor of 1.5-2. My reasoning is as follows: >With 60 seconds of arc in an arcminute, 60 minutes in a degree, and 360 >degrees in a full circle, an angle of 20 milliarcseconds makes up >1/10800000 of a full circle. >...Thus, by both of these methods, >the width of the projection ~= d * 5.818E-7. As several people were kind enough to point out, I *said* there are 360 degrees in a circle, but (for some unknown reason :-) I *used* 60 degrees. Thus 20 milliarcseconds is 1/64800000 of a full circle, and the formula bacomes width = d * 9.696E-8. For 1.3 parsecs and 39 AU, this gives about 2.4 million miles and 350 miles. The original calculations by Hennessy and Bjorklund are therefore off by a factor of about 8-10. Does it look right now? (This shows why engineers like to have someone else check their work. It's very easy to carefully make the same mistake ten times in a row. :-) Old cartoon: Manager to a group of disheveled engineers, standing amid the ruins of an aircraft research installation: "This, gentlemen, is the decimal point. Used properly, it can be of great value." John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 89 22:10:54 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: U.S./USSR Solar System Joint Working Group met in Moscow (Forwarded) Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. November 20, 1989 RELEASE: 89-178 U.S./USSR SOLAR SYSTEM JOINT WORKING GROUP MET IN MOSCOW The third meeting of the U.S./USSR Joint Working Group (JWG) on Solar System Exploration was held Nov. 13-18, 1989, in Moscow. The Soviet delegation was headed by the Director of the Vernadsky Geochemical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician V.L. Barsukov. The U.S. delegation was headed by Samuel W. Keller, NASA Associate Deputy Administrator. During the meeting, specialists of both sides noted that at the present time the continued exploration of the planet Mars is of primary interest. To increase the scientific return of these and other planetary missions, they agreed to coordinate scientific programs and studies planned in the Soviet Union and the United States. They also agreed on the participation of Soviet and U.S. scientists as co-investigators in each other's projects and on the exchange of scientific data from these missions. The participants at the meeting held a preliminary discussion of studies required to establish scientific goals for lunar science. The next meeting of the JWG is scheduled for fall l990 in Washington, D.C. The JWG was established under the U.S./USSR Space Science Cooperation Agency signed in April l987. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 89 01:01:49 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!parsely!bucket!leonard@uunet.uu.net (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks? tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >It's a matter of degree, and of support. We flatter ourselves that we >are good at staying indoors, but gloss over how much care we take to >spend a certain hunk of every day OUT of doors, away from others. Hate to tell you this, but in the past 3 months, the only time I've gone outdoors has been when it was necessary to go to work or buy groceries. I agree that it is necessary to have some time alone. It is also necessary to spend time *with* people. But it is *not* necessary to spend any time outdoors. So any arguments saying that it is psychologically impossible to live in an enclosed environment for months on end can be proven false *by demonstration*. >We >point to isolated examples of people who look happy in semi permanent >basement residence, without noticing the extensive network of other >people whose *aboveground* daily lives and work are needed to make life >in the basement possible. Cost effectiveness is more to the point, but don't forget that energy availability and technological advances change this drastically. LA is uninhabitable without cheap energy. Bootstrapping a colony on the moon will be difficult. but that dosn't mean the colony is impossible. Someone earlier commented on industry's use of water. Given current and *near* future pollution laws the only "open loop" use of water will be for cooling. Check the requirements placed on discharges. It wouldn't be that much harder to recycle much of the "waste water". It isn't done because it would cost more. Not necessarily a lot more, just more. Remember, the *minimum* that will suffice is what is done. (actually, you also have a safety margin "just in case") So saying that "it must be too expensive because it isn't done on earth" isn't a valid argument. Here, as on the moon, the cheapest course will be taken. It may be more expensive on luna. But on the other hand, some things will be cheaper. Some pollution regulations would be utterly ridiculous on the moon. (You don't have to worry about contaminating the water table). Others would be more stringent. People keep talking about the high cost of oxygen, the high cost of water, the high cost of food, and the high cost of recycling as if they were indendent. Take a good look at the Biosphere people. They aren't using complex equipment. They're using plants and animals. Try thinking of it from an ecological point of view. By the time we can afford to build a colony, we should know enough to handle the life-support in an economical manner. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 89 15:48:13 GMT From: crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen@uunet.uu.net (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Subject: Re: Looking Down [was: Re: HST resolution] In article <48441@bbn.COM> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes: | So, if we put the HST into low earth orbit [say, for round figures, | 1000 miles = (* 1000.0 5280.0 12.0) = 6.336e7 Inches] and we | pointed the satellite *down* at the earth, we would get a resolution | of: [ six inches ] Ignoring atmospheric distortion. Of course that's why we want to put it up there in the first place ;-) -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 89 19:40:00 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!shadooby!sharkey!itivax!vax3!aws@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: So how elastic is the market? We are preparing something on HR2674 to show our congresstype later this year. One piece of information we need to know is some estimate of how elastic the market is. In other words, if the cost to launch a pound were cut in half, how much bigger would the market get in terms of pounds to orbit? Anybody have access to any graphs on this or can point me to a source? Many thanks Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Is the local cluster the result | | aws@iti.org | of gerrymandering? | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 89 22:13:20 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 11/20/89 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 11-20-89 - STS-31R HST (at VPF) - Funtional testing discontinued early Saturday morning. Personnel supported the continuous VPF environmental monitoring over the weekend. ECS support and functional testing is due to pick up again this morning. - STS-32R SYNCOM (at VPF) - All constraints were cleared and SYNCOM was successfully transferred to canister #1 on Saturday. The SYNCOM and canister are presently located in the VPF airlock. This morning there will be a media event. A decision is to be made this morning on SYNCOM transfer to pad a. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) - Power up took place Friday. IPS resolver looked good. An IPR was taken on gyro spin current. During troubleshooting on Saturday the gyro current problem could not be recreated. An IPR was taken against the jettison checkout. The problem was later discovered to be within the GSE. IPR troubleshooting will continue this morning and a power up decision will be made later in the day. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - Rack 4 was rotated and moved to the rack room. Pyrell foam replacement is in work. Water servicing GSE samples were bad on O2 content and are under engineering evaluation. - STS-42 IML (at O&C) - Bio rack rotation was completed Friday. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 89 20:52:55 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Some corrections on LV family trees In article <6204@shlump.nac.dec.com> hughes@star.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) writes: >The Titan II used for Gemini was unmodified. In fact GT-2 was a production >model ICBM rather than one built specifically for NASA... And a correction to the corrections... :-) The rocketry hardware in the Gemini Titans was not modified, but the electronics very definitely were. There was a long list of small changes made to improve redundancy and generally give greater confidence in the hardware for a man-rated booster. GT-2 was an unmanned test. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #267 *******************