Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 05:00:08 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #235 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 23 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 235 Today's Topics: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review) ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission Atlas E and F questions Nova Cygni overpopulation PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO Pluto Direct Propulsion Options QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) TOPEX Update - 09/21/92 Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct) (4 msgs) 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: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 16:56 CST From: "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\"" Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review) (Book Review): "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed, hardcover. "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical mysteries. This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959. Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988). Most books and journal articles on the subject of astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS. In this book, by contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text. Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual validity. Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State University. He developed the Theory described in his books while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements they contain. "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE, GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for. It is built on two postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of space and time: (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME. (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN. From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational- vibrational motions. At each step in the development, he was able to match parts of his theoretical universe with corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED. For example, in his 1959 book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them. They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory. And when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation ready for those also. As a result of his theory, which he called "THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the sacred doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists, including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter, quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure), "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES. He was very critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles, solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc., used to maintain them. "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters. It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe. (Galaxy formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to orthodox astronomers.) He then goes on to describe life cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of SINGLE stars. Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME). Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against observations that contradict their theories would find Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an OPEN MIND. For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the plane or central bulge of our galaxy. But the new gamma ray telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional coincidence). Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic sector". Because the anti-matter universe exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly at random. Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from books, journal articles, and leading physicists and astronomers. In this book, 351 of them are superscripted with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the end of the book. For example, a quote from the book "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann, says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars form.... Unfortunately we cannot." Larson's book contains LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists. UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 92 10:45:51 GMT From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission Newsgroups: sci.space ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission The two proposed NASA comet rendezvous and sample return missions are expected to cost BILLIONS of dollars, take nearly 20 years from now to complete, and could FAIL in DOZENS of ways! Therefore, I believe that NASA, the United States, and the project scientists and engineers, should all SWALLOW THEIR PRIDE and ask the Russians for help. The Russians have some equipment that could complete a MANNED comet rendezvous and sample return mission, ROUND TRIP, in a matter of only a couple of MONTHS! In spite of their economic and political problems, they are FAR AHEAD in space, militarily and scientifically. Most of the following information came from the late Dr. Peter David Beter, a well respected Washington, DC attorney, Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in international law, finance, and intelligence, who received most of his information from many associates in the CIA and other intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of many of the things happening or being planned behind the scenes. [See especially the 2-7-80, 5-14-81, 5-21-81, 5-27- 82, and 10-14-82 back-issues of WISCONSIN REPORT newspaper, P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, WI 53005.] The Russians have spacecraft called "COSMOSPHERES", which were originally built and used for "Star Wars" defense. They are spherical in shape, INvisible to radar beyond about 50 miles away, atomic-powered [possibly Migma fUsion], electro-gravitic (can hover against gravity), and equipped with "Psycho-energetic Range Finding" (PRF) which tunes-in to the actual atomic signature of an object or target. The 3rd-generation JUMBO Cosmospheres occupy more volume than the Hindenburg blimp, and are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY PROPELLED (can accelerate continuously and rapidly, and make it to Saturn in three WEEKS!). [Many of them are armed with charged-particle beam weapons, neutron beam weapons, and/or microwave brain-scrambling equipment!] I would not be surprised if the Russians have already COMPLETED a comet rendezvous and sample return mission and have data and samples to share. AIR BOOMS, 1977-78 I wish to add that the 1st-generation COSMOSPHERES were deployed beginning in the Fall of 1977. In late 1977 and early 1978, there was a strange rash of giant AIR BOOMS along the East Coast of the U.S and elsewhere. The AIR BOOMS were never satifactorily explained, by either the government or news media. They could NOT be positively identified with any particular SST or other aircraft, and indeed were much louder than aircraft sonic booms. The giant AIR BOOMS were actually caused by Russia COSMOSPHERES firing CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAMS down into the atmosphere in a DE-focused mode (spread out) for the purpose of announcing their presence to the WAR-MONGERS in the U.S. Pentagon. The 3rd-generation JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space Shuttle Mission. They significantly INTERFERED with that mission, in ways which were successfully COVERED-UP by NASA using techniques similar to those shown in the movie "Capricorn I". CREDIBILITY of Dr. Beter I wish to give some additional information supporting Dr. Beter's credibility, and that of his informers. Dr. Beter predicted the bombing of the Marines in Beirut A FULL YEAR BEFORE IT HAPPENED. He warned that the U.S. Pentagon and the Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING to DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT in order to try to get Americans angry at the Arabs. (It was NO SURPRISE to me when it happened!) Dr. Beter predicted the assassination of Anwar Saddat SIX DAYS BEFORE IT HAPPENED. Dr. Beter predicted what he called the "RETIREMENT" of Leonid Brezhnev ONE WEEK BEFORE Brezhnev "died". [Note that the word "retirement" was used for the TERMINATION OF REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie "Blade Runner".] He also predicted that Brezhnev would be quickly replaced with Andropov, which occurred ONLY THREE DAYS after the "death" of Brezhnev, to the SURPRISE of all government and media analysts. [I KNOW that we are all supposed to LAUGH at the word "conspiracy". That is what the various government, military, political, media, banking, and corporate CONSPIRATORS have successfully PROGRAMMED most of us to do. ] ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION I indicated that the Russian 3rd-generation "JUMBO COSMOSPHERES" are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY PROPELLED. I heard of that concept long before 1981, in connection with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed. I found a possible clue about why they might work on pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe. I quote one paragraph: "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally different concept of the nature of electrical resistance. The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment. It was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that, although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are limited. It follows that there is always a large excess of free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the universe, most of which are uncharged. In this uncharged state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, and the relation of space to space is not motion. In open space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently in the same location with respect to the natural reference system, in the manner of a photon. In the context of the stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by the progression of the natural reference system. All material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation. Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later, whereby electrons are returned to the environment. The electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level." Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate). ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light, according to Larson's Theory.) [I might have the "above" and "below" labels mixed up.] Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass- LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of light! If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION fields of the Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES might be interacting with these electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge is a rotational vibration of a particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the rotation of the particle.) The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to confused meteorologists about how lightning is generated in clouds. UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 02:55:15 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Atlas E and F questions Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep22.010146.23397@odin.corp.sgi.com> cwr@sgi.com writes: >Some references like Isakowitz, identify both Atlas E and F as >typical 1.5 stage Atlas configurations, that may be coupled with >a variety of second stages... This is correct. Atlas C through F were *ICBMs*, not space launchers, with the standard Atlas 1.5-stage configuration and no upper stages of any kind. When retired from strategic-missile duty, a lot of them were used as space launchers, with a wide variety of upper stages. Quick rundown on the Atlas versions (stopping at F because my reference is kinda old): A test version, no sustainer engine B test version, all three engines C initial operational ICBM, heat-sink RV, mostly expended in training D first widespread deployment, ablative RV E better engines, longer range F extensive redesign for silo launch My sources say the Mercury launcher was an Atlas D, but most of the ones made available as satellite launchers after the ICBM phaseout were E and F. As of mid-1978 the E/F stock had almost been used up; presumably that was when GD produced the G. I have dim memories that there was also an H before they revised their designations. I think the major differences in the G and H were longer tanks and updated engines and electronics. >If Atlas E or F launches implied upper stages can anybody identify >which launches used which? They would almost all have used upper stages, I think. I don't believe there has been any major use of the plain 1.5-stage configuration since Mercury. Bear in mind that identifying which launches used which will be a large job, since something like 200 E/Fs were used as launchers. Almost *any* Atlas upper stage will have flown mostly on Es and Fs. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 02:38:31 GMT From: Earl W Phillips Subject: Nova Cygni Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro I had the chance to photogr{aph the nova in C{ygnus Saturday nite (9/19); I estimate it{'s mag @ 9.5 (+-.3){. Anyone else made any recent es{timates? ***************************************************************** * | ====@==== ///////// * * ephillip@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu| ``________// * * | `------' * * -JR- | Space;........the final * * | frontier............... * ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 04:37:19 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: overpopulation Newsgroups: sci.space Those interested in this topic should check out the nonsense in sci.environment. The most recent was this gem: "it would be plain silly to argue that population is not growing something like exponentially, at least in the short term." It would be "plain silly" to tell the truth? Wow. Population growth is not a simple function; it is rather unpredictable in the short term and is following an S-curve over the long term as birth control and economic disincentives to childbirth diffuse around the globe. The world population growth rate has _fallen_ from over 2.0%/year to less than 1.7%/year, so let's cut the simplistic nonsense about "exponential". Those who jaw about the "exponential" population growth rate don't know what they are talking about, and it makes them lose credibility on anything else they want to say. In the developed countries, the sphere where most readers of this forum operate politically, the birth rate is _below replacement_ and the biggest problem is long-term population _decline_ and the problems it brings, like labor shortages and loss of cultural and genetic diversity. For those of us interested in the prospect of civilization's expansion into space, this is an especially serious problem. The concept of expanding space colonies, or a growing population on a terraformed Mars, is in jeopardy if, as demographics indicate, a technologically sophisticated population with perfect birth control would have birth rate of less than 1.0 per couple per lifetime, or a population decline of 50%/generation. To those who argue "but they will have new resources we don't", I ask why does not this apply to developed countries, where couples have less than 2.0 children per lifetime, and the resources are much greater than in Africa, with 7 children per lifetime? More resources are more likely to cause further fertility decline than increase. Fertility, not physical resources, is the main barrier to human expansion through the cosmos. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 02:47:22 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <148@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >We need a new "Grand Tour" flight. The Pluto direct flights should be directed >to fly past Chiron (I think thats the name of the thing discovered in the >neighborhood or Saturn), then Pluto, then past this new planet. Perhaps a >few new objects will be sighted beyond Pluto in the mean time that can be >added to the mission. > >Since you cannot get much of a direction change when flying past small >objects, would a flight like this be possible? No > Do these objects line >up or are they even in the same plane? I'm not sure if they are even in the same plane, but their orbital periods are hundreds of years long. Waiting for a good alignment for a mission isn't practicle. >Could one get gravity assists >from some of the larger planets in order to fly by these smaller objects? A Chiron-Neptune-Pluto trajectory _might_ be possible, but _everything_ in the outer solar system moves slowly (including spacecraft). At a guess, such a mission would require decades in transit. A Chiron/TAU or Ort Cloud/TAU mission might be possible: I don't think the TAU mission specifies a direction, just a distance... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 02:41:39 GMT From: Dave Tholen Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary David Knapp writes: >> The criterion was given right in the earlier message: "...which could be the >> case if methane frost is everywhere." > This does not preclude temperature gradients. No, but methane apparently reduces the temperature gradients substantially. >> It all depends on the material. For >> example, consider a swimming pool, half of which is in sunlight, and half of >> which is in the shade of a house or tree. Walking around the concrete deck, >> you may notice that the temperature of the concrete is different whether it >> is in the sunlight or in the shade, but the temperature of the water will be >> much more isothermal. It's all a question of energy transport, the thermal >> inertias of the materials involved, and so on. > In that pool, if you add a dye, you will notice convection currents driven > by the temperature gradient induced by the sunlight. The point was that the water has less of a temperature gradient than the concrete. I did not intend to imply that there would be NO temperature gradient. By "much more isothermal" I meant "smaller temperature gradient". Poor choice of words, because once isothermal, it's not possible to become more isothermal. I should have said "much closer to being isothermal". How close to isothermal I cannot say. I'm not that familiar with the thermal properties of rock and methane frost. > I still do not understand why a person would posit that the surface or > atmosphere of Pluto would be isothermal. Should have asked Alan Stern while he was there. We talked about this very subject last week while he was in Boulder. He posits an isothermal surface, but admittedly, neither of us has committed to any particular upper limit on delta-T. > Isothermal to within, perhaps > .5 K, but even a differential of .5 K is enough to drive some convective > processes. Theoretically, 0.000000001 K is enough to drive some convective processes, and I'm in no position to say just how much methane might reduce the temperature gradient. This all came about because somebody asked about the possibility of a snow "storm" on Pluto, as opposed to frost forming like dew. The main difference here is the strength of the convection, and in relative terms, a methane covered Pluto will have less stormy conditions than a blotchy part-methane, part-rock surface. And because of the very low surface pressure, Pluto will have less stormy conditions than Earth. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 02:30:20 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep21.203104.15092@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes: >I think the Apollo CSM News Reference and LM News Reference are pretty close. >The folks who publish 'World Spaceflight News' used to sell copies for >a reasonable price... I believe they still do. It's the best reference on the subject I know of, substantially more detailed than the SSOM. The quality of reproduction isn't always outstanding, and in their zeal to minimize page count by eliminating white space they've occasionally eliminated bits of text too, but on the whole it's pretty decent. I wish they'd do a similar job on the corresponding Saturn V document. I would love to see a proper technical history of Project Apollo. Even the NASA History books tend to talk more about events and people than about technical problems and how they were solved. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 00:30:16 EST From: jason Think! steiner Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou hanging over my desk i've got a sign that reads simply: greed & fear which are, of course, the 2 prime human motivators. i wouldn't have thought you could apply them to scientific development. shows the limits of my imagination. bravo. jason -- `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` `,` Democrat: Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,` `,` Republican: Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems. `,` `,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems. `,` `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 11:27:57 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: TOPEX Update - 09/21/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology Forwarded from: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. (818) 354-5011 TOPEX/POSEIDON STATUS REPORT September 21, 1992 The TOPEX/Poseidon satellite successfully completed the last of six maneuvers today that places the satellite in the required orbit and ground track to begin the operational orbit phase of its mission. The TRIM maneuver was performed at 12:43 p.m. PDT. The Global Positioning System Demostration Receiver (GPSDR) Almanac was loaded and placed in track mode at 7:30 this morning PDT. The GPSDR appears to be working nominally. The NASA Altimeter automatically reset itself Friday after it experienced a single event upset. The instrument fully recovered within a few minutes of the event and was tracking nominally until the CNES SSALT Altimeter was turned on this morning. The SSALt will operate for four days while the NASA Altimeter is in the idle mode. The navigation team reports that data received over the weekend showed the satellite's orbit has leveled off with no unexpected decay. ###### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| 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 02:38:23 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep21.022709.1@fnalc.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >Maybe we >need a new NASA flight program where technology development is first >priority, with science along for the ride? This seems to be what >SDIO is doing with Clementine. This is a very good idea, and I'd like to second it. NASA does $billions of tech development every year, but practically none of it directed at supporting NASA's own space science or planetary exploration programs beyond the next mission, and these missions are given no incentive to develop new technology. The viability of such projects is predicated on restoring the historical level of planetary exploration funding at NASA, though. If NASA is really planning to make planetary exploration a tiny little sideshow for most of the next century, as it (and Congress and NSS) has made it now, we don't need to spend any money on new technology for it. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 03:40:26 GMT From: "robert.f.casey" Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct) Newsgroups: sci.space Possible test mission for ion engines: Launch it to an Earth orbit high enough to be out of the atmosphere to work (LEO?). Then fly it around (maybe spiral out to the Moon's orbit) the Earth for a while. Then fly it back down to LEO, and have a shuttle pick it up and bring it back to your lab for a complete examination. Spend a few years cruseing the space near the Earth (changing orbital plains, etc). Put a few ion engines on your test craft, so you can do statistal studies when you get it back. Can we afford this sort of test? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 03:26:01 GMT From: "robert.f.casey" Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct) Newsgroups: sci.space Is there a chance that the ion drive might pollute the environment that some scientific instrument on the probe is trying to measure? Like an instrument measuring concentrations of natural ions in the area around some planet's magnetic field? Sure, turn it off before you measure, but how long does it take for the pollution to clear? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 04:44:21 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep22.034026.13669@cbfsb.cb.att.com> wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes: >Possible test mission for ion engines: Launch it to an Earth orbit high >enough to be out of the atmosphere to work (LEO?). Then fly it around >(maybe spiral out to the Moon's orbit) the Earth for a while... It's not hard to find a test mission for ion engines. Look at the Lunar GetAway Special proposal a while ago: a little spacecraft, small enough to fit in a GAS can, deployable on any shuttle mission. Mission is to carry one instrument -- a gamma-ray spectrometer -- to lunar polar orbit. Kills two birds with one stone: a lunar geochemical map (including resolution of the all-important question of whether there are buried volatiles at the poles) and space-qualifying ion propulsion. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 235 ------------------------------