Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 20 May 89 03:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 20 May 89 03:16:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #447 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 447 Today's Topics: News of the Week, May 18, 1989 re: Space Telescope E'Prime Contract Rumor? Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke Dep. Sec'y. Defense Addresses AIAA Re: Shuttle Orbiter Names NASA to feature Hubble Space Telescope at Paris Air Show (Forwarded) Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS Long Duration Exposure Facility ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 May 89 16:50:50 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: News of the Week, May 18, 1989 Jonathan's Space Report May 18, 1989 (no. 16) The second 'Foton' satellite, launched on Apr 26, landed on May 12 as predicted. Kosmos-2019 was launched on May 5; it is a GRU recon satellite. Otherwise, it's all quiet on the High Frontier..... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed 17 May 89 10:30:25-PDT From: Brian Keller Subject: re: Space Telescope sgi!bam%rudedog.SGI.COM@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Brian McClendon) writes: >This may be old news, but in a small article in Sunday's (5/14) SJ >MercNews, They mentioned that the Hubble Space Telescope was getting >bumped back 3-5 months to make room for two military launches. > >Excuse me for being impatient, but that _REALLY_ sucks. Keep in mind that the military missions have been bumped back to assure that Magellan and Galileo are launched within their critical launch windows. There was supposed to be one more flight before Magellan that was delayed. Two launches were supposed to occur before Galileo (both military), one of which has been postponed. So actually, space science has a priority when a time element is involved, but the military has been waiting their turn. At least give them that much. - bsk - ------- ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov Date: Wed, 17 May 89 08:28:24 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: E'Prime Contract Rumor? There are rumors to the effect that E'Prime Aerospace Corporation is on the verge of signing a launch service contract using one of their MX-based boosters. Can anyone substantiate or dismiss this rumor? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society! La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 89 18:36:19 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!hkhenson@uunet.uu.net (H Keith Henson) Subject: Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke One of the best references to this topic is from Science, I think about 1966. The title (if you do a search) had the word "skyhook" in it. If I really dug throgh my files, I might be able to find a copy. I do have a program (in basic of all things) which calculates the diameter ratio at the thickest point to the ground for geosync skyhooks. Keith Henson ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 89 18:43:57 GMT From: jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU!kstclair@cs.orst.edu (Kelly St.Clair) Subject: Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke While "skyhook" may have been used in a few places, I believe that the most commonly used term for the concept of an "elevator to orbit" is "beanstalk". The reference of course is to Jack and the Beanstalk, the latter of which reached up to the clouds. ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 89 23:03:40 GMT From: ccnysci!patth@nyu.edu (Patt Haring) Subject: Dep. Sec'y. Defense Addresses AIAA Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via The Rutgers FidoGATEway UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733 We want ** your ** news bulletins: (FAX: 212-787-1726 : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.) or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex or unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG REMARKS BY DEPSECDEF ATWOOD BEFORE AIAA REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY THE HONORABLE DONALD J. ATWOOD DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA) CRYSTAL CITY, VA WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1989 The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is an outstand1ng professional organ1zation uniting people from industry, 8overnment, and academia for the advancement of science and engineering. If we are to remain a competitive and innovative society, these three groups must work together. It is a privilege to oome before you as your keynote speaker. It is also a privilege to have this group be the first I address as Deputy Secretary of Defense. I will discuss the issues Secretary Cheney and I will be addressing over the next several months. I want to leave you feeling confident that our nation's defense is in sure and capable hands. Although I was only recently confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I have been working at the Pentagon for the last several months. In this time, I have been impressed with the commitment that exists within the Defense Department to making sure that our armed foroes have the training and equipment to meet any threat to our national security. This is a difficult task at anytime, but it is made more difficult by today's rapid pace of global economic and political change. This morning I'd like to look at three issues that have our immediate attention as we take the helm at the Pentagon -- the Fiscal Year 1990 defense budget, improving the efficienoy of the Department, and encouraging greater efficiency in the defense industry. Fiscal Year 1990 Defense Budget: The most pressing issue, as you might expect, is next year's defense budget. Last week Secretary Cheney unveiled the revised Fiscal Year 1990 budget which calls for a $10 billion reduction in defense spending from the levels in the budget submitted by former President Reagan in January. This budget represents the fifth year in a row that defense spending will have fallen in real terms. The cuts that we have been forced to make are significant and will test our ingenuity as we strive to maintain our global commitments. To meet this challenge, we will be compelled to become more innovative in the acquisition and deployment of our forces so that we can slmultaneously maintain a high state of readiness and still meet our budget goals. As we sought ways to reduce defense spending, we were careful as to how we make those reductions. Although there are signs that important political and military changes are occurring in the Soviet Union, any changes in Soviet military doctrine have yet to go much beyond simple rhetoric. The Soviets under Mr. Gorbachev continue to modernize their military forces. Soviet military spending remains at 15 to 17 percent of their Gross National Product while our spending is approximately five percent of our GNP. The Soviet Union is still producing 3500 tanks each year, while we produce only 800. We, therefore, cannot afford to be premature in our actions. We must wait for substantive measures on their part before we readjust our military posture. In formulating the 1990 budget, our highest priority was to protect the quality and readiness of American military forces. Operation of our sophisticated weapons systems requires highly skilled and motivated personnel. With our population of young men and women declining, it is go1ng to get harder and harder to fill our ranks. If we want to hire and retain qualified people, we must pay them what they are worth. But pay is only part of the answer to a first-class work force. Being able to provide them with the training they need and desire is equally important. We won't keep many pilots if we don't have the funds for the fuel to let them fly. Tank commanders will seek employment elsewhere if their equipment is unnecessarily idled due to a lack of spare parts. Our budget provides for the fuel, munitions, and spares we need to keep our force of military professionals trained and ready. When cutting defense spending, there is no simple way to avoid affecting new weapons systems. We tried to keep from stretching out programs to the maximum extent possible because that creates enormous inefficiencies. Programs with proven technology were maintained at economic produotion rates. Programs with unproven technology or programs whose benefits did not justify their costs became the best candidates for elimination or, in some instances, continuation at substantially reduced funding levels. In the current fiscal environment, there is no way to fund every weapon system and still have enough money available for personnel and readlness needs. Defense has historically been subject to wide fluctuations in spending levels. In the 1970s defense spending dropped by 25 percent after taking inflation into account. During the first half of the 1980s defense spending increased on average by nine percent each year, only to be followed by five consecutive years of real reductions totaling twelve percent. Since 1970 this cyclical pattern of spending averages out to below zero percent real growth. In other words, if defense spending had followed a path of zero real growth over the last two decades, the U.S. probably could have obtained more defense for its money. This roller-coaster pattern of defense spending points out that what we need more than anything else is a longer-term approach to the budget prooess. One giant step forward would be for Congress to approve a biennial defense budget. This was one of the recommendations of the Packard Commission. The Department has just submitted its second biennial budget for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991. Although there are many supporters for such a budget 1n Congress, we have not convinced a majority of the value in this approach. If we want greater efficiency in the defense budget, we must have greater stability in our funding levels. Another solution that has already demonstrated significant long-term savings is multi-year procurement. From Fiscal Year 1982 through Fiscal Year 1989 we will save 9 billion dollars using this method of procurement. For Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 we have proposed 27 programs for multi-year procurement. Greater stability in the budget process would give us more military capability for the money we spend. * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501) -- unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520 UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG -- Patt Haring | My other site is a Public Access UN*X rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth | system: The Big Electric Cat patth@ccnysci.BITNET | 1-212-879-9031 patth@dasys1.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 89 09:25:28 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Shuttle Orbiter Names David Michelson writes: > > Wasn't the "ship" in Jules Verne's novel called "Columbia"? As others pointed out, "Columbiad" was the name of the cannon, not of the projectile: Of course it was something just to contemplate this immense Columbiad, but to descend into its depths, that seemed to Americans the _ne plus ultra_ of happiness on Earth. There was not one curiosity-seeker who did not want to give himself the pleasure of visiting the interior of that iron abyss. A small carriage, let down by a steam-winch, made it easy for them to satisfy their curiosity. They went wild. Women, children, elderly people, everybody assumed the duty of penetrating the mysteries of the colossal cannon. The fare for the descent was five dollars per person, and despite of this high price, during the two months preceding the launching, the influx of visitors enabled the Gun Club to pocket nearly five hundred thousand dollars. --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865) Actually, neither the cannon nor the projectile had proper names. "Columbiad" was the generic name of a type of large cast-iron cannon used in the US Civil War; Verne just used that name synecdochically (ahem!) to refer to the Gun Club's Privately Financed Fully Reusable Man-Rated Solid-Fueled Single-Stage-To-Orbit Big Dumb Blaster. Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 89 19:20:09 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA to feature Hubble Space Telescope at Paris Air Show (Forwarded) David W. Garrett Headquarters, Washington, D.C. May 17, 1989 RELEASE: 89-76 NASA TO FEATURE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE AT PARIS AIR SHOW The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) will highlight the NASA exhibit at the 38th Paris Air Show, June 9-18. The NASA exhibit, housed in the United States National Pavilion, will focus on astronomy in general and the HST in particular. The HST, a cooperative project with the European Space Agency and scheduled for launch by the Space Shuttle in early 1990, will allow astronomers to observe stars, planets and other objects 10 times more clearly than Earth-bound observatories. The centerpiece of the 7,000-sq.-ft. exhibit is a full-scale model of the HST with one side cutaway to show, through pulsed lighting, the interior components of the spacecraft. Other NASA programs featured in the exhibit are Space Shuttle, Space Station Freedom, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, new space suit designs, the National Aero-Space Plane and other aeronautical subjects. Also, to commemorate the 20th anniversay of the first moon landing, artifacts from the Apollo 11 lunar mission will be displayed. Prominently displayed outdoors near the entrance to the pavilion will be a 75-foot model of the National Aero-Space Plane. Several press events related to the exhibit are scheduled during the show. June 9 has been designated Apollo 11 day when the first lunar landing astronauts - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins - will participate in an afternoon press conference. On June 12, astronauts Loren Shriver and Steve Hawley, members of the Space Shuttle/HST deployment crew, will meet the press. NASA has been a major participant at the Paris Air Show, Le Bourget, since the mid-1960s. ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 89 19:44:00 GMT From: apollo!ulowell!hawk!devans@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Daniel Evans) Subject: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS My wife recently asked me about the Sun's partner, and I realized I had forgotten almost everything I had read about it. A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non- identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so. Someone referred to it as "Nemesis". How much evidence is there supporting this theory? What are the de- tails? What kind of star is it? How did they decide what its path is? Is it visible through a telescope? Was this just a trendy theory that got tossed out after a while? My wife's sixth-grade students want to know... Thanks in advance, Dan devans@hawk.ulowell.edu ------------------------------ X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: WED 17 MAY 1989 07:49:00 CDT From: Andy Edeburn To: Subject: Long Duration Exposure Facility CDAF@IUVAX.CS.INDIANA.EDU writes: >>Yes. NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab, >>and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter. >Just a silly question.. How much different is the orbit of LDEF to thatt >which the shuttle took to launch Magellan? Would it have been possible >to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan? Orbital differences are not the problem. The problem is whether or not the shuttle has the proper transport carriage to place the LDEF into for a re-entry and landing. I don't think that the shuttle would have had the cargo space or the weight space to allow for an LDEF carriage because of Magellan. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #447 *******************