Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 05:05:51 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #244 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 24 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 244 Today's Topics: 21 cm rights ? about SETI Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs) Ion for Pluto Direct Mars Observer Update - 09/23/92 (2 days to launch) PBS offers Space Compendium Population Robot Rovers: Big or Small? Szabo's Comet Rendezvous Mission Titan IV? what use is Freedom? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Sep 92 23:07:14 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: 21 cm rights Newsgroups: sci.space jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >>Also, with strict property rights, you own whatever is over your >>land. So, radio emmissions are, technically, pollution. Anyone >>could sue for quiet in the 21cm band...in their neighborhood. >So let me get this straight. Libertarians believe that I should be able to >sue the local TV station for broadcasting radio waves in the air over my land? >Can I also refuse to let airline pilots talk to ground control if they're over >my house? If I lived nearer the equator, would NASA have to refrain from >talking to astronauts? Would the Moon undergo a radio blackout once a day? Something wierder occured to me after I posted this. Do Libertarians restrict this right to radio waves or does it apply to other frequencies as well? For example, can I sue my neighbor for having his outdoor lights on if I want to sleep? Or more interestingly, could major obervatories sue the inhabitants of nearby cities because of light pollution? >-- >Josh Hopkins Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody? >jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu -- Josh Hopkins Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody? jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 20:31:35 GMT From: Richard Treitel Subject: ? about SETI Newsgroups: sci.space In article , v112j497@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (James Brognano) writes: |> |> A friend and I were discussing SETI the other day and we both were |> wondering if there has ever been any non random radio signals from space |> that could not be attributed to the background radio static of space. Sure. Go check out the story of how pulsars were discovered (should be in any modern popular astronomy book). - Richard ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 20:56:10 GMT From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space In article bowen@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Devon E Bowen) writes: > > In article <1992Sep13.230730.18484@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > > Sure he will tell you he supports space but his record indicates > > that he simply doesn't care. for myself, I didn't vote for bush > > in 88 but I will in 92. > > Now I'm no Henry Spencer but I'm a pretty big space nut. However, if > your vote for Bush/Quayle over Clinton/Gore is because of the way they > will treat the space program, I'd say you've got your priorities a wee > bit out of whack. I, personally, vote for what I think is best for the > society in general and not just my individual interests. > Yes, but a candidate's views on space often reflect his/her broader thinking regarding science and technology. As much as I disagree with some of Bush's policies he has consistently proposed very generous R&D budgets, not only for space, but for most other scientific fields. If you look at this year's budget proposal, an entire chapter is devoted to the merits of civilian R&D. That is just an example, not an endorsement, but the point is that candidates who support space in particular and R&D in general, will have a much better idea of what investing in the future is. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | It is difficult to say what | | Princeton Planetary Society | is impossible; for the dream of | | | yesterday, is the hope of today | | | and the reality of tomorrow | | carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------| | space@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra | --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | It is difficult to say what | | Princeton Planetary Society | is impossible; for the dream of | | | yesterday, is the hope of today | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 21:42:54 GMT From: Rob Healey Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article , komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes: |> [Benefits of military spending, etc...] |> |> >Military R&D provides jobs (Damn good paying jobs) not only for |> >those who do the work, but also for a great deal more who make |> >the supplies for the work. |> |> So what about the benefits from just plain space exploration? Imagine the |> spinoffs once we get a space platform working, or get a colony on the moon? |> Or for that matter, make it to the moon again. The benfits of this |> could be huge. At the same time, people are getting employed and less |> money is going to trying to kill someone else. |> What I want to know is why everybody WANTS government involved with ANY of the space exploration? Government is what generally messes up perfectly good ideas. Doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat in office, space utilization suffers because its at the spending whim of a government. B^(. Government is OK at doing initial exploration, i.e. Christipher Columbus, but things don't get rolling till private enterprise get's involved, i.e. the colonies were usually paid for by investors who expected the colonies to pay for themselves. What we REALLY need to do is convince investors that starting a colony on the moon in our time is as good of an idea as starting a colony in the new world was back in the 17th century. I think we'll be FAR better off if government gets out of the space business and private/commercial interests take over. To this end maybe it would be a good thing for Clinton/Gore to get elected because then we'd have to de-tox from government control and funding of space related projects. This is assuming they won't fund space activitys. There is ALOT of pork involved with dropping space funding so I have my doubts if Clinton/Gore could really make good on the "promise" of cutting funding. Their high tech re-investment positions would force them to admit space funding is a good way to "reinvest" the "peace dividend" money. Even "slick Willy" would have a tough time dodging this unless he borrowed some of Ronny's Teflon... In my opinion we'd be alot better off getting away from government funding and toward private/commercial funding of space exploration, exploitation and colonization. -Rob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 04:50:07 GMT From: Dave Tholen Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct Newsgroups: sci.space Greg Macrae writes: >> Lots of interesting information, but one very important, extremely crucial >> item was missing: cost, including launch. From the content of your > Balderdash! The information I posted was for comparison of trip times and > payload fraction purposes. There have been innumerable claims that ion > propulsion is slow. Beyond the Mars orbit, that is incorrect; the numbers > prove it. (a) You're evading the issue. (b) You're putting words into my mouth. (a) The issue is cost. Please tell me how much it would cost to develop and flight-qualify an ion propulsion system appropriate for putting, for example, 100 kg on a 7 year trajectory to Pluto. Remember, these costs are going to be included in the mission cost. Yes, we can argue that they shouldn't be, but that's life. I wholeheartedly agree with the proposition that technology development be decoupled from any one specific mission, but unfortunately you and I don't make these decisions. For costing purposes, assume a new start in 1995. Remember that designs must be frozen well in advance of launch, so we would need to have a fully qualified and reliable propulsion system within a very short time. (b) I never said ion propulsion was slow. Chemical features higher acceleration, shorter duration propulsion; ion features lower acceleration, longer duration propulsion. If the duration is sufficiently long, low acceleration can still achieve quite high velocities. That's basic physics. > The system described and analyzed is not similar in scale to > the chemical missions now under consideration. Most, if not all, of the > components for the propulsion mission described are scalable. This means > that it is available in pint sized containers too. The claim was made > that ion was not appropriate for fast Pluto missions. I claim that that > has not been substanitated. Theoretically, ion is great for fast Pluto missions. I don't recall anybody claiming that it was not appropriate. Practically speaking, however, the technology demonstration has yet to be done, and that is a very valid objection. > There are valid objections to ion propulsion. > I like to think that I am aware of most if not all of them. I have seen > none posted here so far. So why don't you, if you know what they are? Let the reader determine if any of the objections are applicable to a fast Pluto mission. > If you have some that I am unaware of, let's hear > them... But we don't know what you are aware of yet. I'm not in the mood to play 50 questions. When the Outer Planets Science Working Group had its presentation from the ion drive folks, the cards were laid out on the table and the group collectively assessed the situation and felt that the time was not yet right, while at the same time thinking highly of the prospects. But there's only so much risk a group is willing to take. If we had to base a decision on your presentation so far, I am quite certain it would be rejected simply because you're listing all of the great things ion should be able to do while concealing the "valid objections" that may or may not be applicable to a fast Pluto mission. OPSWG isn't going to play that kind of poker. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 92 06:54:41 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 09/23/92 (2 days to launch) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Glenn Cunningham, Mars Observer Project Manager MARS OBSERVER DAILY ACTIVITIES STATUS REPORT FROM THE KENNEDY SPACE CENTER/CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION Launch Minus 2 Days Date of report: 9-23-92 Time of report: 6:00 PM EDT Titan's fueling of their main tanks, which started on Tuesday, continued into this morning. Ordinance installation for both Titan and TOS (Transfer Orbit Stage) followed the fueling operations. A good Operational Readiness Test (ORT) for transfer of the vehicle state vector was conducted today. Data flow for backup spacecraft telemetry from Canberra to Building AO was demonstrated. [The Mars Observer MRT (Mission Readiness Test) held yesterday at SPC 40 (Signal Processing Center 40 in Canberra, Australia) was successful. TOS and the Mars Observer telemetry processing was validated by the project. Back feed of both TOS and 16 Kbits/sec MO spacecraft data was also very successful. Canberra will be the first Deep Space Network antenna that will acquire MO's X-band signal after launch. Ron Baalke ] The Launch - 2 Day Readiness Review was held this morning. There were only three open issues which will be worked off by tomorrow morning. The only spacecraft issue involves working the details of the revised battery charging/temperature management strategy with the Titan countdown conductor which has been done at this writing. The spacecraft, which is ready for launch, has been powered off since early Tuesday morning. Titan has a couple of problems which are launch constraints until they are solved. First, the battery for the Wideband Instrumentation System failed a leakage (voltage to case) measurement. The spare battery was installed, but the failure must be explained. Second, two initiators for the destruct system failed bridgewire resistance test, and new ones are being obtained. Again, the failure needs explanation. Lastly, the material in the oxidizer vent ducts was found to be incompatible with the oxidizer, and the ducts must be replaced tonight. Titan is now behind schedule, and are hoping to catch up by tomorrow morning. The NASA Administrator, Mr. Dan Goldin, spoke to a group of the Mars Observer launch team personnel representing all the centers and major contractors this afternoon. He was very enthusiastic about the upcoming events. Our prime concern at this time is the weather. We are constrained by the approach of rain and lightning, and the wind direction is a constraint relative to the spread of a toxic cloud should there be a near-pad destruct. Weather, which would allow a launch, has been marginal for the past day relative to these constraints. Tomorrow, the MOC (Mars Observer Camera) cover, and the MOLA (Mars Observer Laser Altimeter) cover and eye safe filter will be removed. AT L-24 hours, the spacecraft will be powered on for final time for launch preparations. This is launch minus 42 hours and 27 minutes and counting...... ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | much. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 18:29:49 GMT From: tflavell@pbs.org Subject: PBS offers Space Compendium Newsgroups: sci.space X-Date: 17 Sep 92 18:58:21 EDT X-Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA Lines: 26 TO: Education Liasons, School Librarians, ITV Coordinators FR: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service RE: 1992 International Space Year Compendium DT: September 17, 1992 INVESTIGATE AND CELEBRATE SPACE EXPLORATION! The "1992 International Space Year" Compendium has been jointly produced by PBS E/SS and the Student Space Foundation with support from the National Science Teachers Association's Space, Science & Technology Division to assist educators in grades K-12 in their planning and celebration for the 1992 International Year of Space. It is also designed to help educators and students investigate and celebrate space exploration for many years to come. This comprehensive compendium lists hundreds of classroom resources, including videos, books, research reports, posters, computer software, space societies, teacher training workshops, music, and more! Parents may also find this useful in supporting budding scientists/astronomers. 135 pgs. To order copies of the compendium, send a $10.00 check to: 1992 IYS; PBS E/SS, Attn: Tom; 1320 Braddock Place; Alexandria, VA 22314-1698. SORRY, NO PURCHASE ORDERS ACCEPTED. END ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 22:26:13 GMT From: me Subject: Population Newsgroups: sci.space Edward V. Wright (ewright@convex.com) wrote: : : Oh? You haven't even read about the spotted owl? The environmentalist : position there is that the species must be saved regardless of how many : jobs are lost. Now, there are certainly cases where a specific type of : environmental protection may be worth some job loss, and this may be one : of them, but that is not the environmentalist position. Whenever : someone starts talking about cost/benefit analyses, the environmentalists : do not contest the costs and benefits involved -- they just yell bloody : murder. : : : Um, I notice you didn't answer his question. Why don't you volunteer : to sacrifice *your* job, or give up part of *your* income, to avoid : "inconveniencing other species." : mr. wright, i think you picked a poor example. "jobs" are not a finite resource. Humans can create more jobs at will; workers can be retrained and/or relocated. However, all that nasty training and moving is pretty inconvient for the humans involved, no doubt about that. So if i'm grokking your point correctly, here is how i interpret your view of the cost/benefit tradeoff: COST: a few dead birds. BENEFIT: Noone loses their cherished job, (one extinct species) has to learn a new trade or move. In other words, no humans are inconvenienced. however, someone with a bit less of a (hmm, twisted isnt quite the right word) homocentric perspective might see it like this: COST: a few inconvienced humans. BENEFIT: one more species saved to enhance the biodiversity of the ecosphere. Dosent significantly alter the balance of the environment, the consequences of which humans know very little. as for THE QUESTION (tm), i do give up part of my income to avoid inconveniencing other species. not huge but still significant portions of it goes toward supporting groups that i feel contribute positively in this way. some of my favorites include: cousteau society, california league of conservation voters, sierra club and yes, even that old left wing favorite, GreenPeace! I also AVOID donating any of to groups that i feel contribute negatively in this manner: most notably the Republican presidential reelection campaign. so i would like to rephrase THE QUESTION (tm) in a slightly less homocentric manner: How many species are you willing to sacrifice to save some humans from a little inconvience? anxiously awaiting your reply, tim "extiction isnt just inconvient, it's forever" edwards ----------------------------------- tim edwards tedwards@autodesk.com cyber dude autodesk, inc. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 92 07:22:12 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Robot Rovers: Big or Small? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep24.033613.23154@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > In article <20670@plains.NoDak.edu>, altenbur@plains.NoDak.edu (Karl Altenburg) writes... >>Some support the traditional large rover. [...] >>Others support the non-traditional, small (insect-like), multiple, >>cooperative rovers. Phrased the way Karl did, this is a fake issue, like "unmanned vs. manned." What we are really talking about are design tradeoffs. It's easy to make small rovers that have a short range, modest power requirements, and lots of computing power. They're great if you just want to explore the neighborhood of the landing site. For range measured in tens of meters, you can even use tethers! And they can be carried on small landers, or in large numbers on big landers, so they fit flexibly into mission designs for missions of all sizes. Such instruments as cameras, X-ray fluorescence spectrometers, and alpha-scattering spectrometers can be made pretty small and are suitable for small rovers. I don't know much about seismographs or aeronomy instruments. It's rather harder to build a small rover with tens or hundreds of kilometers of range. (The small-rover people are working on it, though!) Some equipment-- for instance, a drill to take cores from soil or rocks-- doesn't scale down to small sizes very well, and is suitable only for large rovers. And the thermal problems of enduring a lunar night, which Lunokhod had to solve (radioisotope heat sources and an insulating lid that closed), are probably easier for a more massive lander. Some redundant systems might be incorporated into a big rover without a large fractional mass penalty (imagine two shovels instead of one). For something like the Mars Rover Sample Return, where a rover and return rocket are landed and the rover collects samples from a wide area and stuffs them into the rocket, a big rover is the right answer. It can carry lots of samples and a hefty RTG power supply. This is admittedly a "Cadillac mission" with pricetag about ten gigabucks, and out of favor in the new FCB (fastercheaperbetter) NASA. There are compromises, too, like using a big rover as a bus to carry shorter-range rovers. The Erebus experiment will do this, as well as using the bus as a camera platform to show what the little rover is doing from the outside. A bit like the camera ship that always accompanies the *Enterprise* on *Star Trek*... I would recommend looking at the *Case For Mars* series of conference proceedings, published by Univelt, to see how people were treating these design issues in the Eighties. > It would be > interesting to see who would get the first rover to Mars. Maybe we can > get another little space race going :-). I think there is *already* a space race going: I believe that ISAS, the Japanese space agency for science, and NASDA, the Japanese space agency for engineering, are competing to land on the Moon. Remember, you heard it here first. O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 22:36:26 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: Szabo's Comet Rendezvous Mission Newsgroups: sci.space szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >Here is hopefully a more practical alternative -- how about substituting >the Artemis lunar lander from SEI for the Mariner Mk. II derivative, >and a plasma thruster for the chemical upper stage? Here is a comparative >breakdown: Well, I think we can safely say that this _would_ be more practical than the previous suggestion. :-) >Rosetta/Artemis Rosetta/Mariner Mk. II >--------------- ---------------------- >Ariane 4 $120m Titan 4 $270m >electric stage $100m Centaur $30m >Artemis $150m Mariner Mk. II $1,000m >misc./ops $200m $200m >TOTAL COST $570m $1,500m >time til return 6 yrs 8 yrs Couple questions for you: (I'm not flaming - just asking) The data I have puts Titan IV _with_ Centaur at $230 million. Granting inflation/price changes and all, I'm still skeptical about the $300m figure - where does it come from? Where are the prices for the Artemis and electric stage coming from? I always get skeptical about price tags on vaporware. It seems to me that Artemis may not be what you want for this. It's designed to land significant payloads on the Moon, which means it's got a big engine. Presuemably you would have the electric stage providing propulsion both to and from the comet, and would only need a small chemical rocket for the rendezvous It you can point me towards references on Artemis I'd apreciate it. I'm doing some graphics of it for someone who wants to put a one meter telescope on the Moon. -- Josh Hopkins Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody? jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 23:03:31 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: Titan IV? Newsgroups: sci.space jmcd@cea.berkeley.edu (John McDonald) writes: >Is the Mars Observer being launched on the new Titan IV, >or on the Titan III (similar to those that launched >Voyager and Viking) ? MO will be launched on a Commercial Titan, I believe the only one Martin Marietta has an order for. >If not, what is the planned first launch of a Titan IV? Titan IV made it's first launch on June 14 1989. You don't hear about it as much because it's mainly used for secret military stuff. -- Josh Hopkins Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody? jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 22:56:23 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: what use is Freedom? Newsgroups: sci.space szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article CANOUGH%BINGVAXA.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (USRNAME) writes: >>According to a reliable source, at a space station >>utilization meeting of 1500 people earlier in the year, only >>15 of the people in attendance considered >>themselves to be space station users, as opposed to >>contractors, NASA engineers, etc. The question comes to mind >>"What's wrong with this picture?" >_Now_ it's asked! The question that comes to my mind is, >why wasn't this asked in early 80's when NASA was first pushing >for it (and when people like me lobby for it, I take part of the >blame). Why do we pursue this technology as a religious sacrament >instead pursuing that which is useful to people? The human >race has launched over half a dozen space stations, and planned >many more, spending $10's of billions in the process. Surely if >there was a use for them, we would have found it by now! Oh sure. The Xsoviets have decided that stations are useless. This explains why they are so commited to theirs, and even plan to build another, despite their economic problems. >Yet there are only _fifteen_ users for this $120 billion >space station! Nick, this is a Twain Statistic if I ever saw one (as in "Lies, damn lies and..) You just took a fuzzy attendance figure thirdhand and decided that was the number of users Freedom was going to have. I'll ignore the price figure because anyone who claims to know exactly how much it's going to cost is trying to convince you of something. The figures I've seen suggest that there were several times more (though still not what I'd call "many"). But this still ignores the fact that just because someone happens to work for NASA doesn't make them irrelevant. It also ignores that fact that most people are waiting to see what happens before they commit themselves to an experiment. Dennis seems excited about SSF, a materials person I know is excited about SSF. Why do ignore the people who _are_ interested, just because SSF ignores your personal intrest in comets? I'd be the first one to agree that managment of SSF has been bad, that there are problems with it, but please get a second opinion before you decide nobody wants to do anything with it. Disclaimer: You won't get an impartial opinion out of me. I worked on the project. -- Josh Hopkins Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody? jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 244 ------------------------------