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 ; Sat, 23 Jun 1990 02:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 23 Jun 1990 02:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #558 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 558 Today's Topics: Re: Public Perception Of Space Galileo Update - 06/21/90 Re: Model rocket contest Aim for the Moon - Model Rocket contest NASA want's YOUR Ideas! High School Debate Topic Orbital Mech Tutoring (was Re: HST crazy idea) Re: NASA Headline News for 06/21/90 (Forwarded) Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jun 90 22:18:23 GMT From: uc!shamash!timbuk!lfa@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lou Adornato) Subject: Re: Public Perception Of Space The idea that the gov't shouldn't spend tax money except to protect individual freedoms is simplistic. There's ample precident of the gov't spending for "frills" that have benefitted all of us. Take, for example, roads. A road protects freedom only in the most abstract sense, but it encourages trade and therefore is in the public interest. The alternative is a system of toll roads that would enrich a few individuals at the cost of the entire economy (remember what happened to prices when OPEC effectively made every road in the world a toll road?). Public education (theoretically) produces a more capable work force and a more intelligent electorate. The purpose of taxation in a democracy is to underwrite activities felt by the majority of the public to be necessary but either unprofitable or too valuable to be placed in the control of an advantaged minority. Note that the founding fathers did _not_ object to taxation, but rather to taxation without representation. The funding of scientific and technical research easily meets these criteria; In one sense, research is just another road between our manufacturers and thier markets, albiet a road that traverses time instead of space. The basic research into unducted fanjet engines (mentioned previously) which has been picked up by the aeorspace firms will mean jobs and overseas sales, which means more tax money. Although I have no figures, I would be willing to bet that this research will end up paying for itself in a few years. Considering that aerospace is one of the few areas where America maintains a trade surplus, the system seems to be working. It's been standard practice for several generations (and will continue to be acceptable under the GANTT accords) for any country to protect it's immature industries by levying import tarifs on competing foreign goods. These tarifs create an artificial floor price for these goods, and provide an advantage to the domestic manufacturers. These tarifs, although charged against the importer, are obviously passed on to the consumer, even the consumer of untaxed domestic products, since the price has been artificially inflated (and helps to cover the cost of entry into the indusrty). It's not that big a logical jump from an import tarif to protect an immature industry to subsidized research to protect embryonic industries. So much for the propriety of gov't funding for research. A completely separate issue is whether gov't funding for research, especically NASA, prevents the emergence of a private sector industry. Another completely separate issue is the effectiveness of gov't funding for basic research, and that I'm not going to get into. Maybe someone who has gone through the grant application process can enlighten us. While it can't be argued that there are large aerospace contractors making a lot of money off of a federally funded space program, it might also be argued that the ease (!) with which these contractors can profit from the federal program makes private investment seem too risky in comparison. Again, I feel that this is simplistic. The heart of the matter is that the technology and the markets are not yet mature enough to provide a return on investments. This is due to problems at both ends; the technology is still too expensive (due to lack of maturity), and the markets are not yet big or diverse enough (let's face it, it's not that hard to saturate the market for perfectly round ball bearings). At this point, the cost of entry into the market is simply too high for individual concerns. As proof of this I submit the fact that no one has done it yet. While I normally find that kind of logic deplorable, I find it hard to beleive that if the Donald Trumps of the world saw a profit in private space exploration, they wouldn't have been gone out and made it. And they're a _lot_ more capable of sniffing out a potential profit than I am. (For example, I thought that Savings and Loans where for putting money _into_. It would never have ocurred to me to just go in and ask for a free sample.) In order for space technology to emerge as an industry, products or processes will have to be found that a) produce a saleable product, b) are profitable and c) can't be done cheaper on Earth. The second of these criteria could either be be met through a huge per-unit price tag (unlikely) at current payload costs, or be the result of a more moderate price and greatly reduced payload costs. Until (or unless) someone can demonstrate a product or process that meets these three criteria, then space must be considered an immature industry, and therefore eligable for subsidy of one sort or another. And until someone can _prove_ that direct subsidy is counter productive, then logic dictates that we continue with the methods that have been used (and seem to have worked) in the past. One last point. Most of us are pretty familiar with the rate of change in the computer industry, and tend to, at least subconciously, guage all technological progress by that standard. We should try to put this into perspective. Space technology is about 30 years old right now. Compare how far we've gone in 30 years not to how far the computer indusrty has come, but rather how far the automobile and the airplane went in similar periods. I just recently had a chance to see, on the same day, a full size orbiter mock up and a mercury capsule. Until you've done this, you don't really get a feel for how far things have come. True, it's not on the same scale as the Eniac to Apple price ratio, or Eniac to Cray performance ratio, but it's pretty close to the difference between the Wright Flyer (1907) and the Junkers dive bomber (1937). I hate to say this ('cuz we're none of us getting any younger), but these things take time. Lou Adornato | Statements herein do not represent the opinions or Cray Research | attitudes of Cray Research, Inc. or its subsidiaries. lfa@cray.com | (...yet) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 90 01:21:19 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 06/21/90 GALILEO MISSION STATUS REPORT June 21, 1990 As of noon Thursday (PDT) , June 21, 1990, the Galileo spacecraft is 94,751,810 miles from the Earth, 71,573,100 miles from Venus and traveling at a heliocentric velocity of 55,374 miles per hour. The spacecraft spin rotation is at 3.15 rpm in a dual spin configuration. The spacecraft attitude sun point angle is at 4.5 degrees. Round trip light time is 16 minutes, 58 seconds. Cruise Science Memory Readouts (MROs) were successfully performed for the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV), Magnetometer (MAG) and Dust Detector (DDS) instruments on June 18 and 21. Commands were sent on June 18 to power on the Energetic Particles Detector (EPD) replacement heater to maintain instrument temperatures within acceptable limits. Flight data indicated that portions of the EPD could drop below the flight allowable lower temperature limit of -25 degree C without additional heater power. Subsequent to the heater turn-on, temperatures increased to near predicted levels and are well within acceptable temperature ranges. Also on June 18, four EPD-related Delay Action Commands (DACs) were transmitted. These commands will be executed by the spacecraft on June 21 and cycle the EPD replacement heater off and then on again after the planned EPD motor stepping activity. The EPD motor was successfully stepped on June 21 as part of its motor maintenance activity. The EPD was moved to Sector O and then back to Sector 4. EPD performance was as expected and without incident. Commands were sent on June 18 updating the DDS memory with a new program. This program allows DDS increased memory storage which will be used to capture low signal amplitude dust events. The program is scheduled to begin executing next week. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have remained very stable. The AC measurement continues to indicate a near short circuit to chassis. The DC measurement continues to indicate a reading near 20.4 volts. The first series of "scrubs" to the Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem (AACS) flight software memory was approved. These scrubs are required to provide adequate space for the pulse mode high rate spin up that will be used during Probe release and all 400 Newton engine burns. _ _____ _ | | | __ \ | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | |__) | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | ___/ | |___ M/S 301-355 | |_____/ |_| |_____| Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 90 15:55:46 GMT From: dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Alexander Davis) Subject: Re: Model rocket contest even if such a rocket achieved escape velocity it would still have to push through the stmosphere, and this could prove deadly for a plastic and cardboard rocket. Dan Davis (is), the Repunzel of the Mathematics Department. Carnegie Mellon student Disclaimer - don't look at me, I'm also a music major, I don't have to know what I'm doing. dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu(arpanet). ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 23:12:39 GMT From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a420@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Glenn Read) Subject: Aim for the Moon - Model Rocket contest In Msg #696624 Edward V. Wright States:- >The FAA is not in charge of this. You need a license from the >Dept. of Transporation's Office of Commercial Space Transporation. >The regulations are very complex, you will need a lawyer, and the >cost of the license will almost certainly exceed the $5000 budget >for this project. Would this apply if you were to launch offshore - I remember something about a group using a barge type platform towed offshore to launch a quite large vehicle. They had some big bucks backing them and the senior technical people were ex NASA. Sorry this is all a bit vague but it was some time ago - - details anyone.. ``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.'' - Stephen Hawking --------------------------------------------------------------------- uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Glenn_Read Tel: 604 898 4756 Glenn_Read@mindlink.UUCP BOMARC DYNAMICS --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 90 01:00:26 GMT From: pyrdc!netxcom!netxdev.iad-nxe.global-mis.dhl.com@uunet.uu.net (Edwin Wiles) Subject: NASA want's YOUR Ideas! This may or may not be old news, but it was new to me! NASA Wants YOUR Ideas! According to a radio report from National Public Radio, NASA has an 800 number that they want you to call on if you think you've got a good idea for them to use in space. This is not intended for "Industrial Giants Only", it is intended for anyone who believes they've got a good idea. To give the example that appeared in the story, one grade school child suggested that NASA build spacestations between here and Mars, and then build bridges between them so that astronauts could walk to Mars. No. I'm not joking. I've just now called the number, and it does indeed lead to NASA. Here it is: 1-800-677-7796 The person who answers (and you'd better be prepared to be on hold for a while) will ask whether you've called to receive a packet on how to submit a suggestion to NASA. It's known as the "NASA Outreach Project". Enjoy! -- "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare. | NetExpress, Inc. ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM | Vienna, VA 22182 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 90 15:58:07 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: High School Debate Topic A while back somebody posted requesting sources for this years high school debate topic on space. I received a copy of a document Congress put out on this exact subject. It is good source material and is available for free. To get a copy, write or call your representative and ask for: Document No. 101-24 OUTER SPACE: What Should be the United States Government Policy Toward the Region Beyond Earth's Atmosphere? Nationsl Debate Topic for High Schools 1990-1991 Each member of Congress got 40 copies. As the title implies, it is for the high schools, but if you wrote and asked I suspect you could get one. Allen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Death to all extremists! | | aws@iti.org | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 90 12:11:41 GMT From: usc!samsung!xylogics!merk!alliant!linus!helios!cookson@ucsd.edu (Cookson) Subject: Orbital Mech Tutoring (was Re: HST crazy idea) In article <1990Jun22.033848.1243@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <111384@linus.mitre.org> cookson@helios.mitre.org (I) wrote: >>... How about >>putting Hubble in a porlar orbit that follows the terminator, that way it >>would always be in sunlight. > >Nope, sorry, won't work -- the Earth-Sun axis rotates once a year, and you >can't make the orbit go with it. You can come close with a sun-synchronous >orbit, which gets short eclipses about two months of the year. That's a >popular orbit for sky-survey missions like IRAS and COBE. Unfortunately >it cannot be reached by the shuttle from KSC, which is a problem with a >satellite like HST, which has specific plans for in-orbit servicing and >new instruments already in the works. Ok, I understand the problem with getting the shuttle to it, but why can't the orbit be given an apporpriate precession (sp?) rate to follow the terminator as the earth revolves around the sun?? Dean % Dean Cookson $ Anyone can be taught to sculpt % % dcookson@mitre.org $ Michaelangleo would have had to % % {devax,et al..}!linus!mbunix!helios!cookson $ have been taught how not to. % % Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and $ The same is true of great % % are of questionable sanity $ programmers % ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 90 20:19:21 GMT From: uupsi!pbs!pstinson@rice.edu Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 06/21/90 (Forwarded) In article <1990Jun22.160648.12358@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pcp2g@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Philip C. Plait) writes: > In article <52222@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > >>President Bush visited Marshall Space Flight Center yesterday. > .... >(deleted) >>that an American flag should be planted on Mars in 30 years. > > I guess this means we'll never go to Mercury. > > The flag might catch on fire. Not if it is planted in a landing zone where high temperatures are not a problem. Believe it or not, there are such places on Mercury. In fact, there are places where extreme COLD would be a problem. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #558 *******************