Message-ID: <oc0e9Ra00WBwI5gE44@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 01:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #383

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 383

Today's Topics:
			    Astronomy Day
	     Re: Dan Quayle on Mars (was: "Face" on Mars)
		Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
		     Re: I want to go to orbit...
			 Re: Space technology
		Re: Underground Nuclear Test in Nevada
		Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
		Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
		     Soviet manned lunar program
		Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 03:21:41 GMT
From: mips!spool.mu.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!draco!swrdpnt!ford@apple.com  (Ford Prefect)
Subject: Astronomy Day


  International Astronomy Day this year is Saturday, April 20th, 1991. In
Winnipeg, the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (Winnipeg Centre) will
host a Public Information and Solar Observing Session at the Forks open
market from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.  Safely filtered telescopes will be 
available to view the sun (weather permitting), and displays on various
astronomical topics will be available free of charge to the public.
   That evening, a public Star Night will be held by the RASC on the 
soccer field of Assinaboine Park beginning at dusk (weather permitting).
Members of the RASC will be there will their telescopes, ready to show
people the wonders of the Universe: the Moon, the planets, and the so-
called "deep sky" objects: star clusters, nebulae and galaxies.  The
event is also free of charge.
   For further information, contact Scott Young (Centre secretary) at
(204) 254-4422 or post a request to this newsgroup.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to: ford%swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca@niven.ccu.umanitoba.ca

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 08:50:50 -0400
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on Mars (was: "Face" on Mars)
Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.culture.japan
Cc: 

  Mars is essentially in the same orbit... somewhat the same distance from the
  Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals,
  we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If
  oxygen, that means we can breathe.
          -- Vice President Dan Quayle


I know I'm going to regret this but...

Like many other people, I thought Quale was pretty much a cement head when
he took office. However, I must admit he has done a pretty good job running
the Space Council. For the first time in 20 years we are are seeing goals
for the space program and effective policy to back them up.

Yes he did make the above quote but I think that has more to do with the
poor state of science education than Quale's ability. The last time I was
in DC I spoke with people who work with him. They say that he is a quick
learner and is a good administrator.

  Allen

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   aws@iti.org   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 21:47:30 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <1991Apr9.113437.12291@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes:

>In article <1991Apr9.092224.12289@pbs.org>, pstinson@pbs.org writes:
>What you think about the Hughes lawsuit, may well depend upon were you first
>learned about it.  In my case it was an article in a satellite communications
>journal delivered to the Satellite Replacement Office at PBS.  It was implied
>in that article that the industry in general had not reached a consensus on
>whether Hughes really had a case.  In fact, a Hughes V.P. quoted in the article 
>said the action was prompted partly because of "cut-throat competition" [from
>other aerospace firms].  If other firms have better costumer relations
>departments than Hughes, that isn't NASA's fault.

>It should also be remembered the White House Commission set up to study the
>CHALLENGER disaster and suggest remedial action, included representatives from
>the aerospace industry.  It was the Commission's suggestion that comsat
>launches, among other activities, be taken away from the space shuttle.  NASA
>had little choice in the matter. 

>The fact that this action, which the industry had a hand in bringing about, was
>implimented does not sound like a clear cut "raw deal" perpetrated by NASA
>against Hughes in particular.  This is NOT the black and white case that Henry
>made it appear to be in his posting.

You've made a much better case here than in the previous posting of (I
think) Thursday or Friday of last week. Basicall what I would like to 
see, however, is for the _case_ to be deceided by itself; after all,
if we all deceide before the case that 'what the hell, he's guilty anyway,'
then we're ignoring the fact that eventually, *everyone's* 'guilty.'

Trying to hold a fair and impartial trial, in which Hughes' suit may
turn out to be frivolous (which I strongly suspect), seems to be the
best way to go. Cynical realpolitic does seem fashionable sometimes, but
the answer is probrably just to try to get back to an honest, impartial
system. If nothing else, the "bad guys" know more about subterfuge and
dirty tricks than the good guys, and are likely to "win" the case if a
subjective interpretation of events instead of an objective trial is
done anyway. This may sound strange, but maybe the answer to all of
this corruption that is alleged to be going on in both government agencies
and the corporations who seem to do most of their business with those 
agencies is less cynicism and more honesty.

A cynic like myself, of course, would probrably say that cynicism is
always true and accurate.....

Phil F.
dlbres10@pc.usl.edu

--
Phil Fraering
dlbres10@pc.usl.edu
"The geomagnetic storm has ended. Activity has returned to generally
unsettled conditions." - Cary Oler in a Geomagnetic Storm Update.

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 12:33:55 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!titan!heskett@apple.com  (Donald Heskett)
Subject: Re: I want to go to orbit...

>[stuff deleted]... may I ask if anyone has seen of or heard from
>Robert Truax lately. He is the ex-NASA rocket scientist who was
>building his own 1 man orbital rocket a few years back. Last I heard,
>he had the booster completed, and was trying to fund the actual
>vehicle.

If I remember correctly, Truax had built a vehicle, based on surplus
Atlas vernier engines, to loft a person to 100km (about 62-miles), the
IAF's definition for the threshold of space, thus qualifying that
person as an astronaut. Recovery was to be via parachute. Last I
heard, the vehicle was complete, ready to carry the first person with
the $1,000,000 ticket price. Truax claimed, at one time, that he would
put an American woman into space before NASA could.

Truax had earlier built a steam powered rocket that Eveil Kneivel
(spelling?) used for a widely publicized, partially successful
(premature parachute opening), crossing of the Snake river canyon.

I haven't read anything about Truax in perhaps five years and am also
curious about what he is up to these days, if anything.

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 14:23:49 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@apple.com  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Space technology

In article <5612@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>
>I take it from this that Maynard is hinting that microcomputers are a
>NASA spin-off.  What is the history of this often-repeated claim?  
>
>Why am I skeptical?  Because (1) I recall the push toward
>microcomputers being a very broad goal of many companies, large and
>small and (2) the sense that NASA was never directly concerned with
>the latest forms of the technology, for valid reliability reasons.  So
>it is true that the space program provided an incentive for integrated
>computers -- or could it have even diverted energy away from that goal
>by emphasizing the inproved reliability of earlier discretely
>assembled systems?

It's true that the microprocessor was first developed to run a cash
register not a spacecraft. But the basic work by TI to develop the
integrated circuit that is the basis of all modern computers was
driven by the need to minaturize spacecraft electronics. We didn't
*have* large boosters so the payloads *had* to be small and light.
The Soviets had big boosters so they stuck with vacuum tubes. The
West's lead in micro electronics is a direct result of the *need*
for such electronics in spacecraft. Micro electronics made the
desktop computer possible, even if the space program didn't directly
demand that it be developed.

Gary

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 12:52:00 GMT
From: usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@apple.com  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Underground Nuclear Test in Nevada

In article <1991Apr5.143519.25044@ecf.utoronto.ca> murty@ecf.toronto.edu (MURTY  Hema Sandhyarani) writes:
>
>	Yesterday there was another underground nuclear test in
>	Nevada.  Why are we allowing this to continue?
>
>	I am sure that if all the readers of sci.space got 
>	together and denounces such tests by countries of
>	the world, they would have to stop.
>
>	And, yes, I would like to hear arguments that any
>	might have in favor of these tests.  What do they
>	accomplish in terms of science?  They seem more
>	like muscle-flexing to me.

There are two primary reasons for the continued tests. First and most
important are the QA tests. The military pulls operational weapons off
the line on a scheduled basis and test fires them to assure that they
are still operational. This is routine with all military ordinance.
These tests are essential to US deterence policy. They develop confidence
in our nuclear deterent's effectiveness, both among our military planners
and among those of our potential adversaries.

Second, there are engineering concept tests. These tests, which are relatively
rare, are necessary to develop the follow on generations of weapons needed
to replace our ageing arsenal. Some of the weapons still in operational
use are over thirty years old and the platforms designed to carry them
are themselves obsolete. Speaking of platforms, the Air Force also randomly
pulls an occasional operational ICBM out of it's silo and carts it to 
Vandenburg and fires it down the Pacific test range. Unlike aircraft that
are routinely operated in training exercises, ICBMs and their warheads
must be tested on a statistical sample basis.

In both QA and engineering concept testing, some scientific experiments
are carried out as secondary missions. It is rare to find the physics
conditions of a nuclear explosion here on Earth so these tests are
eagerly awaited by high energy physicists. Two recent tests have explored
materials for possible use in nuclear fusion reactor designs and have 
explored some of the subtle field effects of EMP.

Gary

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 19:38:21 GMT
From: usc!rpi!uupsi!pbs.org!pstinson@ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <1991Apr9.162115.11094@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
>>By the way, the suit is against NASA
>>and not the government...
> 
> A curious assertion.  NASA *is* the government, being a government agency.
NASA, like the Smithsonian Institution are in a murky gray area.  They are sort
of connected with the government, but neither are of cabinet level.  Have you
ever heard of the Secretary of NASA?  DoD ranks much higher in the government
hierarchy and actually has a Secretary of Defense that meets regularly with the 
President.  Admiral Truly as NASA Administrator is not a member of this inner
circle known as the President's Cabinet.  NASA isn't really the government,
certainly not to the extent that The Department of the Interior, the Department
of Defense, Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce are. 
NASA is not in the same league with these departments and that is part of the
problem.  They all meddle in NASA's affairs to some extent. 
> I'd be very surprised if you can sue NASA as a separate entity; 
 That IS what Hughes is trying to do.

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 23:48:22 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <1991Apr9.154154.12301@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes:
>> As I said in my original posting:  there was ample cause to *renegotiate*
>> the shuttle launch contracts, perhaps shifting them to expendables...
>
>How can you *renegotiate* a shuttle launch contract to launch something the
>shuttle is now *prohibited* from launching?

Please read what I wrote.  You renegotiate a *launch* contract to go up
on something else, of course, like the expendables that NASA still had
in (admittedly limited) inventory at the time and could have bought more
of.  The birds that got bumped were precisely the ones that *could* fly
on other launchers.

It's called "keeping your promises".
-- 
"The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 are all true."  -D. Harrison|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 15:50:46 GMT
From: ksr!clj%ksr.com@uunet.uu.net  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Soviet manned lunar program

I've been thinking about the Soviet manned lunar program after seeing the PBS
show, reading a two-part series in Space Flight News, and studying the article
in the 18 February AW&ST.  The last is very interesting, as they have a good
line drawing of the N-1 "super-booster" along with figures for thrust and
weights.  As I've said here before, it seems awfully unlikely that the Soviets
could have made the US-imposed deadline to land on the moon -- their program
just wasn't that far along.  The N-1, which had four unsuccessful flights, the
last in 1972, was to be their answer to the Saturn V.  In its lunar landing
configuration, it was a five stage rocket, with the first three stages placing
a payload into earth orbit, the fourth sending the payload to the moon, and the
fifth both placing the payload into lunar orbit and placing the Soviet lunar
module on its course toward the surface.  Though it's long been thought that
the second and third stages of the Proton booster were developed for the N-1,
it doesn't look like this is the case, judging from the announced thrusts and
fuels.  Interestingly, the Proton fourth stage, which has been revealed to have
a restart capability, matches the characteristics of the N-1 fifth stage.
Given the truly atrocious record of this stage in lunar and interplanetary
exploration during the late 60s and early 70s, the chances for a successful
Soviet lunar landing seem even more remote.

The AW&ST article says that the lunar landing would have involved a two man
crew, with one remaining in lunar orbit and one landing on the moon.  If you
saw the PBS show ("The Dark Side of the Moon"), you probably were struck by how
primitive the Soviet lunar module appeared.  Apparently the weight constraints
were so tight that they couldn't afford a third crewmember, or even an internal
transfer system between the lunar module and the "command module" (the latter
would have been basically a Soyuz) -- EVAs would have been required to move
between the two.

The Soviets never undertook a lunar mapping program to find suitable landing
sites.  It wasn't until Luna 16 in 1970 that they had a survivable soft landing
on the moon (Lunas 9 and 13 were "rough" landings, somewhere in between "soft"
and "hard").  The N-1 first stage failed on all four flights (twice very early,
once pretty quickly, and once nearly at burnout), so its upper stages appear to
have been untested.  The Soviet hope to beat the US appears to have depended on
everything working the first time it was tried.  It simply didn't happen.  They
did come close to sending a man around the moon, but the aggressiveness of NASA
in moving the first manned lunar orbital mission up to December 1968, coupled
with an unspecified Proton booster failure which made them leery of duplicating
the Zond 6 circumlunar flight with a manned cargo prevented them from achieving
this first.  Even if they had, it would have been a dead-end project, simply
looping around the moon and not demonstrating any lunar orbit insertion or
lunar orbit extraction techniques which would have been required for manned
lunar landings.

The 30-day stay missions described in "The Dark Side of the Moon" seem even
more fantastic, and were probably never more than dreams.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com    {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj

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

Date: 9 Apr 91 16:21:15 GMT
From: usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <1991Apr9.091742.12288@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes:
>Before this gets too far away from the original post, it is only Hughes and
>Henry who made the statement a contract was abbrogated.  NASA and the
>government believe the CHALLENGER situation so changed the circumstances that
>various escape clauses came into play. 

I'd be curious to know what those "escape clauses" are.

>By the way, the suit is against NASA
>and not the government...

A curious assertion.  NASA *is* the government, being a government agency.
I'd be very surprised if you can sue NASA as a separate entity; I know
you can't give them money separately.
-- 
"The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 are all true."  -D. Harrison|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #383
*******************