Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 05:00:02 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #172 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 6 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 172 Today's Topics: Laser distance record? New lunar spacecraft (WAS: With telepresence, who needs people Notes from Rover Expo Space markets Technology development What's on display in the National Air & Space Museum With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? 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: 5 Sep 92 08:10:50 GMT From: Daniel Briggs Subject: Laser distance record? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26059@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes: >If you allow masers, then the answer is best measured in parsecs. Oh... you >want man-made lasers. Never mind. Actually, Megaparsecs. Megamasers have been seen in other galaxies, though I don't happen to know what the distance record is. -- | Daniel Briggs (dbriggs@nrao.edu) | USPA B-14993 | New Mexico Tech / National Radio Astronomy Observatory | DoD #387 | P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM 87801 (505) 835-7391 | Support the League for Programming Freedom (info from league@prep.ai.mit.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 92 01:36:07 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: New lunar spacecraft (WAS: With telepresence, who needs people Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep5.132410.17048@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > As a side note, most of the data from lunar probes, and some probes of > other bodies, lies rusting away on reels of magnetic tape that no current > machine can read in some musty warehouse. How well is this documented? Where are the tapes, exactly, and what data formats are involved? I don't know about planetary science, but a great deal of excellent work is being done from defunct astrophysics satellites under the NASA Astrophysics Data Program (ADP). This is an inexpensive and highly cost-effective program, mainly to do science, although much of it is specifically for archiving in modern formats (e.g., the entire Einstein satellite data set, all the original 5000+ tapes of it, is now available on several CD-ROMs). Nearly ten years after the IRAS mission, the IPAC at Caltech is still cranking out results unabated. I've used the International Ultraviolet Explorer archive at NASA Goddard, myself, although I never left my office, preferring to work via e-mail, telnet, and ftp; I hasten to add also that IUE is still operating! Vela results are still being published, and a data set to watch in the next few years is from Solar Max, as it's relevant to the NIXT rockets and Yokoh satellite. Surely there must be some similar program for planetary science? > The most cost effective way to > do lunar scientific research would be to mine that warehouse first before > launching more probes. While old data sets often contain overlooked gems, for some questions, they will not help at all. The Lunar Orbiters did optical imaging from roughly equatorial orbits about the Moon; if you wanted to look for lunar water, you'd need a polar-orbiting spacecraft with infrared imaging and better, also spectroscopic instrumentation - not unlike what's going on the Mars Observer. While we're on this subject, would someone please post or e-mail me a description of the various plans for new lunar spacecraft, of any nationality? Fred Ringwald Department of Physics & Astronomy Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 03755-3528 U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 92 02:00:39 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Notes from Rover Expo Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.robotics In article <9209050426.AA26888@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes... > - Rocky IV (not present at show) > size: 60 cm long by 45 cm wide > mass: 7.2 kg > speed: ? > comments: Interest in use as Mars Environmental Survey Pathfinder. > Same basic design as Rocky III. Deploys microseismometers, scoops > soil samples, and chips rock surfaces. This is the model that uses > stereo cameras with alternate-field liquid crystal shutter goggles > for the operators. I spoke with the JPL people, and they said they're > using standard NTSC format, 30 frames per second. Onboard spectrometer. Rocky IV was shown in a demo to the media on June 26 at JPL. I've appended some information taken from the associated press release. Most of the instruments carried by the Rover were developed by the Micro Electronics lab at JPL. During the demo, Rocky IV carried a seisometer and placed it some distance from the spacecraft. The seisometer is only 1.5 inches long, weighs 160 grams and has a sensitivity of 1 nanoG. The color camera on the rover weighs only 97g and can withstand a 50G landing. The spectrometer is about 4 inches and weighs 350 grams. The chipper is about 8 inches long looks like a long narrow spear. The chipper is aimed at a rock and when turned on, it acts like a miniature jackhammer to chip away the rock's surface. The spectrometer can then be used to analyze the rock's interior composition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rocky IV is slightly smaller in size than its predecessor, Rocky III. Rocky IV is 24 inces (61 centimeters) long, 15 inches (38 cm) wide and 14 inches (36 cm) high. The rover has six 5-inch-diameter (13 cm diameter) wheels made of strips of steel foil and cleats to provide traction. It weighs about 16 pounds (7 kilograms), but eventually will have to be scaled down to about 8 pounds (4 kg) for inclusion in the final MESUR Network mission set. Sensor along the frame of the rover will help Rocky navigate. If the front set of wheels encounters a cliff or a steep drop-off, the rover can brake in time to prevent a tumble. Excessive tilt is also sensed and the rover can stop to prevent a rollover. Rocky IV carries two "real" science instruments: a visible-light spectrometer, with a range of 0.5 micron to 1.0 micron, and a color camera. The spectrometer and camera will be boresighted (or "nested" within each other) to view the same target. They are enclosed by a lightweight box in the center of the rover. Other "instruments" include a chipper that will be able to chip away the thin coverings of material on rocks; a soft-sand scoop to take soil samples; and a seismometer on board the lander that Rock IV will be instructed to move to some designated place on the martian surface. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 16:54:53 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Space markets Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug26.175857.5940@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: > >Fine. Come up with PRIVATE money, not public funds to build and launch the >station. According to you and Mr. Szabo, it's a goldmine of opportunites out >there. There is a goldmine of opportunity up there, but it's not coming from space stations. It's coming from commercial satellites, primarily in the communications business. The U.S. commercial space sector is growing at the phenomenal rate of 20%/year during a recession, according to U.S. Dept. of Commerce figures. The market for mobile communications, including establishment of good telephone service in the 4/5 of the world that doesn't now have it, and direct broadcast is potentially in the high $10's of billions per year. This is much higher than NASA's budget, and in the private sector. The main drivers in this biz are launch cost and reliability -- a factor of two improvement in each could make a tremendous difference -- and communications tech like compression and circuit design. There might be a small market for automated space manufacturing platforms, a la COMET and Fairchild Leasecraft, but NASA and SSF have distorted that market beyond recognition. In the next century, there is vast potential for manufacturing from materials native to space, but again NASA is ignoring that potential in favor of the obsolete vision of astronaut-driven space development. There is no need for tiny-market HLVs; commerce can share launchers with the military and civilian space agencies. The civilian agencies should be following the lead of military and commerce, instead of living in their own world building space stations, then building HLVs to support them, none of it relevent to the commercial market. -- szabo@techbook.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 21:59:29 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Technology development [Telepresence and robotics may be the fastest way to make affordable space technology...but may require a totally new technology...] >An example of how hard it is to replace existing technologies is current >household refridgeration. These are largely based on CFCs and will have >to be replaced due to ozone depletion. The current CFC replacements are >also not safe, and it may take a total rethink of the technology to get >something that works properly. An example of the best way to develop this new technology can also be seen in the fridge example. Currently, GE is offering a huge cash prize for refridgeration technology based on something other than CFCs, with comparable or better efficiency. I think the prize is $3 million, with a bonus for improved efficiency, but is was a while since I heard about it, so I may have the exact figure wrong. If the goals in space were as easily defined, this would probably be a cheaper way for NASA to develop launchers, etc., than the current system. -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 18:51:08 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: What's on display in the National Air & Space Museum Newsgroups: sci.space After leaving the Rover Expo, I went to the National Air & Space Museum, and attempted to carry out a long-planned project - going through the museum, and trying to catalog all the spacecraft, rockets, and well-known airplanes there. This is more difficult than one would think, because many of the displays are in out-of-the-way places. Most of the displays are aircraft, so I got only slight coverage of them. I might as well post what I got, then later on I will try to go back with a printout, so I can add things I missed, and correct any errors. I'd like to add some more of the advanced aircraft, and some of the important spacecraft parts such as guidance computers and rocket engines. Among the spacecraft and rockets, many are working models that were never used, others were built for ground tests (presumably mostly or entirely functional), and others are reconstructed from parts of test vehicles or flown vehicles. There are also many models (full-scale or smaller), and some engineering test devices which illustrate the size and configuration of the real devices. I'll try to include all the documentation I wrote. I'm also including some other displays of general interest. The identification of each display by type should be useful in resolving future questions on the subject. Perhaps someone could cross-correlate this list with the previously-posted list on where space hardware is displayed. ....................... Aerobee sounding rocket - original Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia - original Apollo Lunar Module LM-2 - original, intended for an unmanned test flight, but not used because the first lunar module unmanned test flight was a success - retired for use in ground tests Apollo command module used in the Skylab 4 mission - original Apollo-Soyuz test project - used to test docking adapter - full-scale units Ariane 44LP rocket - 1/15 scale model Atlas Centaur rocket - 1/15 scale model Bell X-1 - first airplane to break the sound barrier - original Delta 3914 rocket - 1/15 scale model Explorer I satellite - first US satellite - replica GOES satellite - full scale model Gemini 4 capsule - original Gemini 7 capsule - original Goddard liquid-fueled rockets - models of two, including the first flown (one of the two weighed more fully fueled than the thrust of the rocket - it sat on the launch pad until part of the fuel had been burned) Gossamer Condor - human-powered aircraft - original Hubble Space Telescope structural dynamic test vehicle - full size ITOS weather satellite - ground engineering test satellite Intelsat VI communications satellite - 1/12 scale model Japanese H-II rocket - 1/15 scale model Jupiter C rocket - original Lunar Orbiter spacecraft - used for ground tests Lunar Rover - qualification test vehicle (1 of 8, built by Boeing before building the three flight vehicles - I think another one is at KSC) Mariner 10 spacecraft - flight-qualified original Mariner 2 spacecraft - replica Mercury Freedom 7 capsule - original Mercury capsule Friendship 7 - original Minuteman III rocket - original Northrop M2-F3 lifting body - original Pershing II missile - US - training version Pioneer 10 spacecraft - prototype Ranger spacecraft - replica of Rangers 7,8,9, made of parts of Ranger test vehicles SS-20 missile - Soviet - training version Saturn V aft end - (1/4 with two mirrors at right angles to make it look full size, with an F-1 engine - body of rocket is a model) Saturn V rocket model - small Scout D rocket - original Skylab (Orbital Workshop, solar array, and Multiple Docking Adapter) - the second Skylab, built as a backup, but never launched because the first Skylab accomplished the mission goals Space Shuttle Columbia - 1/15 scale model Space Station Freedom model - small Spacelab - 1/15 scale model Spirit of St. Louis - first nonstop transatlantic flight - original Sputnik I - USSR - first satellite - replica Surveyor spacecraft - used for ground tests TDRS geosynchronous data relay satellite - full-size model TIROS weather satellite - ground engineering test satellite Titan Centaur rocket - 1/15 scale model Tsiolkovsky - Russian space pioneer - big display V-1 German WWII "buzz bomb" - original V-2 German WWII missile - original Vanguard I satellite - original backup Vanguard launch vehicle - original Viking Mars lander - 3rd working vehicle, used for simulations on Earth to support the two landers that landed on Mars Viking rocket - partial replica, made with parts of flown vehicles Voyager aircraft (flew around the world nonstop without refueling) - original Voyager interplanetary space probe - full-scale replica, parts of which were used for pre-launch engineering tests [so let's hear no more about "the third Voyager hanging in the Air & Space museum" :-) ] WAC-Corporal rocket - original Wright Brothers' Flyer - first powered airplane - original X-15 rocket plane - original (didn't say which one) X-29 forward-swept wing aircraft - full-scale fiberglas mockup John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 13:24:10 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep3.142820.19532@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: > >The lean/mean planetary projects, like NEAR, MESUR, lunar orbiter, and >Artemis lander _still_ have difficulty getting funded, because they don't >use Shuttle or SSF, even after all of the realization of the cost-effectiveness >of small, quick exploration. Planetary science has plucked out the mite in its own eye, but it is still being destroyed by the mote in the astronaut-world's >eye. We need the strategy of frequency and simplicity in all of NASA if >we are to have effective NASA programs. Well, the lunar orbiters were funded because of the inability of more complex unmanned systems to deliver the data needed for Apollo, six failed Rangers in a row and Centaur booster failures left and right. So you could say that that program got funding solely because of the needs of manned space. As a side note, most of the data from lunar probes, and some probes of other bodies, lies rusting away on reels of magnetic tape that no current machine can read in some musty warehouse. The most cost effective way to do lunar scientific research would be to mine that warehouse first before launching more probes. Gary ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 172 ------------------------------