Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 27 Jun 91 05:59:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4cOPQIi00WBwM5GE4c@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 05:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #728 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 728 Today's Topics: satellites over toron Escape systems from shuttle Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA. Re: HST vs Ground based telescopes Re: Pet Projects POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING A Space Science letter Re: What's HUD? Re: Fermi Paradox 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: 10 Jun 91 11:23:52 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lsuc!canrem![tom.neumann%canrem.uucp]@uunet.uu.net (tom neumann) Subject: satellites over toron Hi Henry! On Friday, June 7th, at around 10:30 PM I was (with a friend) eagferly awaiting the return of the Northern lights (got a very good viewing of them Tuesday night after 11:30 pm). I know what satelites look like when they go over and saw one in an apparently polar orbit (or at least, with a very high inclination), heading from south to north. A minute or less later, I saw a SECOND satelite in what seemd to be the same orbit. A couple of minutes after that, I saw another satelite in a similar orbit but heading from north to south. Within five minutes or so, I spotted another satellite heading in a west to east orbit. I know tat there is nothing weird in seeing the odd satelite, but this seemed like quite a few in a very short period of time. My first thoughts at seeing the two were that they might be MIR and a supply ship, but the orbits might have been to high for MIR. Do you have any ideas as to waht these satelites were? Tom Neumann --- ~ DeLuxe} 1.12 #350 ~ I'm SO confused... -- Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 07:48:48 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com!tarl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Tarl Neustaedter) Subject: Escape systems from shuttle In reply to Allan's comment about a properly equipped shuttle escape system making shuttles safe; There is an article in this week's aviation week about the russian escape system being installed in the second buran shuttle. It's a modification of the one we saw so spectacularly deployed in the Mig-29 crash at an airshow a few months ago. In any case, the escape system is limited to mach 4.1; Even at those speeds they had to do some significant work to reduce wear and tear on the ejected dummys, including worrying about burns when multi-mach air hits the dummy. It will probably allow the astronauts to escape from a challenger-type accident, but not much beyond it; In other words, you can solve the problem for the very beginning and very end of the flight, for non-catastrophic failures, but you still have a large amount of powered flight where you can't escape. The basic danger of solids, that you can't turn them off, can't be solved short of using something else. -- Tarl Neustaedter tarl@vos.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 22:22:21 GMT From: att!cbfsb!cbnewsf.cb.att.com!rizzo@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (anthony.r.rizzo) Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA. In article sehari@iastate.edu (Sehari Babak) writes: > [ Article about mining gobs of gold in space deleted.] > >This might be one of the first real applications of Space technology. I say >NASA should issue stocks to built a space craft to go and bring that thing >down. This could open up another very lucrative investment, a side from >satellites. The technology we gain could help us mine other things in the >space too. Then, boldly going were no man has gone before makes business >sense to. > >I assume this could be possible if the price of gold goes much higher. Let us >forget about mars and concentrate on this, for now. After all, who needs cheap >marsian dart. > What a great idea. Then, were we to succeed, the price of gold would be so low that we might actually be able to replace aluminum siding with it. Imagine how long gold siding would last. And we wouldn't have to worry about anyone stealing it, since no one would want it. Tony ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 02:34:26 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: HST vs Ground based telescopes In <1991Jun9.152756.638@vax.oxford.ac.uk> clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk: > In , tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd L. Masco): > > The "Hubble fiasco," as you call it, was not as bad a situation as the > > muck-raking US press made it out to be. > While it is true that HST does make *some* improvements on the resolution > achievable by normal ground based telescopes, I would expect that we could do > a *lot* better by putting the 1.5 billion dollars HST cost into adaptive and > active optics. But keep in mind the original projected HST flight date, the orginal cost, and the cost-to-orbit originally promised by the Shuttle. > As for NASA not doing good enough PR, this is probably the case, but that may > be because the space scientist lobby there is in disfavour as they won't toe > the line on the Space Station. NASA is very PR driven, but I find most of the PR is very close to being BS. At the last two NASA sites I visited, the tour guides and receptionists talked mostly about space ice cream and 0g bathrooms. I was looking at the stains in the concrete made by Apollo 2nd stage engine firings at the remains of the test stand, and the NASA tour guide was explaining that the shuttle crew uses a vacume cleaner in the shuttle shower. Now if they would have explained how the astronauts showered in the 14 day Gemanii flight, I would have been interested. 8-) > [...] then its time to do something *serious* to NASA management. Like > breaking up the organisation and starting from scratch again. I have given this some thought. I don't think that it will accomplish. The risk is in creating a number of smaller NASAites that act much the same way. An additional risk is that congress might be tempted to kill some of them wholesale. And each smaller NASA might duplicate the required organizational bearucrats. Like the Bell System breakup, we might have fixed a few problems, but in the process, we created problems that we didn't even know we had. Is there really anything wrong with NASA that isn't wrong with almost every other US government agency? -john- -- ============================================================================= John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 17:47:15 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!kcarroll@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: Pet Projects In article <1991Jun9.181034.9195@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <1991Jun9.133306.10440@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >>...your pet projects are toast anyway. > >Amazing that after hundreds of postings from dozens of people in >support of advanced launch technology, earth-crossing materials exploration, >etc. etc. Allen can reduce them all to an easily expendable set >called "Nick's pet projects." Of course he doesn't call his >regurgitated Gemini "my pet project". :-) :-) > If all else fails, try a non sequitur, right? -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 12:20:26 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING UPDATED: 17:30 - 11 JUNE, 1991 VALID: 12 - 13 JUNE /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ATTENTION: A major interplanetary shockwave is in transit at the present time and should arrive here at the Earth anytime near or after 06:00 UT on 12 June. The major class X12+/3B flare which produced this shock was in a very sensitive and well-placed position for producing high to very high terrestrial impacts. The energy released from the flare was also easily sufficient to produce very high terrestrial impacts. A major to severe geomagnetic storm is expected to begin with the arrival of this shockwave. The accompanying auroral storm is also expected to be rated as major to severe. Widespread and very active low latitude auroral activity is expected to occur with this event. There is a chance that auroral activity could become visible as far (or further) south as Florida, central Texas, New Mexico and California. Australia and New Zealand are also expected to be treated to an impressive "light show." This event could become the largest event since 1989 and may actually be observed as the largest terrestrial disturbance so far this solar cycle. The most active day of this period should be 13 June. At that time, geomagnetic and auroral storming should be in the main phase. Some residual activity may be observed on 14 June, although the probability for observing low-latitude auroral activity on 14 June is not particularly high. By that time, conditions should be decaying back toward more quiet levels. It would be appreciated if observations of auroral activity could be sent to: oler@hg.uleth.ca (particularly the lower latitudes). If any of you have access to the weather reports with AURBO, it would be very much appreciated if the AURBO reports could be extracted (as-is, verbatim) and sent to either oler@hg.uleth.ca or preferably to oler@alpha.uleth.ca. Thanks to all those who take the time to send in reports. This is a significant auroral storm warning. Serious observers should take the time to plan a trip to a dark-sky location for this event. ** End of Watch ** ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 20:07:42 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic.csu.net!csun.edu!corona!swalton@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Stephen Walton) Subject: A Space Science letter [A Dear Colleague: letter I recently got, posted without comment.] Dear Colleague: On June 6th, the U.S. House of Representatives took a step that could be disastrous for planetary science, and for space science in general. As you may know, the House appropriations subcommittee for Veterans, HUD, and independent agencies voted several weeks ago to cancel funding for the Space Station. In response to this action, an amendment was offered on the House floor that would restore the Station by freezing FY 1992 funding for all of NASA's programs at FY 1991 levels. After a debate of more than eight hours, this amendment passed by a margin of about three to two. For several key NASA space science programs, the effects of such a freeze would be devastating. The amendment passed by the House would provide only 44 percent of the funding needed for in FY '92 by CRAF/Cassini (a $183 million reduction), effectively cancelling at least one and perhaps both of these missions. Other projects cut severely include the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) (a cut of $110 million, or 48 percent), and the Earth Observing System (EOS) (a cut of $145 million, or 57 percent). In such an environment, it is clear that other flight projects like Mars Observer, Galileo, and Magellan are in jeopardy as well, and that any growth in R&A funding is probably out of the question. The next step in the budget process will be the markup by the Senate appropriations subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Mikulski. This committee's total funding allocation is essentially the same as that for the House, so no easy solution can be expected. If the Senate markup is similar to the budget that was passed by the House, then there is no hope that funding for these programs will be reinstated. Our only chance is for the Senate markup to restore substantial space science funding, and then for the Senate to prevail in the House/Senate conference that will follow. It is therefore IMPERATIVE that the members of this subcommittee hear from you. Two key points need to be made: 1) It is incorrect to conclude that funding frozen at last year's levels would not severely hurt these programs. The funding profile of any space flight project is not flat -- instead it grows sharply in the early years, and then decreases as hardware problems have been solved and the project moves toward launch and mission operations. CRAF/Cassini, AXAF, and EOS all required large increases in FY '92, and the House action would deny these increases. The situation is particularly severe for CRAF and Cassini, both of which have perishable launch windows. 2) While the cancellation of the Space Station by the House appropriations subcommittee would certainly have resulted in an unbalanced space program, the amendment passed by the full House is at least as deficient in this regard. Funding must be restored to CRAF/Cassini and other key space science programs in order for a programmatic balance to be restored. In your communications with the Senate, keep in mind that the House vote probably means that any direct attack on the Space Station would be counter-productive at this point. Once again: if the Senate appropriations subcommittee does not reverse the House's action, planetary science in this country will be devastated for years to come. Their markup is expected in the next few weeks, so you must act NOW. A list of the addresses of the subcommittee members is given at the end of this letter. Please feel free to pass this message along to your colleagues, and thank you for your help. Sincerely, Jonathan I. Lunine Steven W. Squyres -- Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge "Lately it occurs to me/What a long, strange trip it's been" ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 91 23:04:35 GMT From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!harbor.ecn.purdue.edu!prm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Phil Moyer) Subject: Re: What's HUD? F026@CPC865.EAST-ANGLIA.AC.UK (F026) writes: >Not being a US citizen, I have no idea what HUD stands for. Could someone >please enlighten me? Heads Up Display. It's a mechanism by which a pilot (or bus driver, trash collector, motorist, train engineer, or other vehicle operator) can monitor vital information about her vehicle without looking inside. Information is usually displayed on a glass plate on the "dashboard", but it can also be displayed directly on the windscreen, or perhaps on the inside of a helmet visor or goggles. And yes, I'm just kidding. :-) Cheers, Phil ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 91 18:52:51 GMT From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox In article <1991Jun8.181615.18692@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > > While proposing what amounts to a Star Trek transporter may sound >great for solving the Fermi paradox, it's questionable if it's feasable to >manufacture such a device or if it's possible to make something like you >described work. This is essentially science fiction. First of all, what's wrong with science fiction? I make my living from it (if you think making plans for a Mars mission in the year 2020 is not science fiction, you are mistaken). Any concepts for any engineering project that is beyond the current state of the art requires making a projection of future technology progress. The only difference between making technology projections and writing science fiction of the type in the bookstores is the latter usually has a plot. Now, when projecting technology, you can do it in several ways: (1) There will be no breakthroughs and only minor technical improvements. This method is often used by NASA, for example in planning going to Mars using a conventional Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (chemical rockets), physical/chemical life support systems, no hibernation, no robot assistants, etc. (2) Technology will improve at a linear rate extrapolated from prior trends I.e. computers, structural materials, etc. will continue to improve over time. etc. The point is that when talking about any future project, you have to make SOME assumption about technology progress, whether you assume fast,slow, or none. Now, as for the feasibility of scanning a human being: Assume that a person has been frozen solid and is stored at near zero kelvin. Run over the surface of the body with a scanning tunneling microscope probe (use multiple needles to save time). Then direct an electron beam over the body to evaporate a fraction of an atomic layer (i.e. only a few percent of the atoms in the top-most layer). Re-scan. Repeat ad-nauseum. Each time you re-scan, you measure the depth of the holes left behind by the removal of atoms. The STM is capable of measuring depth to a small fraction of an angstrom, so you can determine the atom type by the atomic diameter. If you vary the beam energy, you can infer the bond strength between that atom and it's neighbors by how much energy it took to dislodge the atoms. If you direct the evaporated atoms to a mass spectrometer, you can determine the isotope. If the electron beam is confined to a small area at a time (think electron microscope), correlation with arrival time in the mass spectrometer provides data to confirm the identity of atoms removed from a particular spot. The above process is not simple or easy, but neither is building a starship. my point in the original posting, which may not have been clear enough, is that the factor of a million less energy to send the description of a person rather than that person bodily is a tremendous advantage, which will be exploited if at all possible. Dani Eder ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #728 *******************