Date: Sat, 10 Apr 93 05:08:18 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #446 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 10 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 446 Today's Topics: Clementine Science Team Selected (2 msgs) Magellan to Start Aerobraking in May Magellan Update - 04/09/93 Mars Observer Update - 04/09/93 NASA "Wraps" nuclear waste Plans, absence therof (2 msgs) Portable Small Ground Station?dir Protectionism Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list 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: 9 Apr 1993 19:52 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Clementine Science Team Selected Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Paula Cleggett-Haleim Headquarters, Washington, D.C. April 9, 1993 (Phone: 202/358-0883) Major Mike Doble Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. (Phone: 703/693-1778) RELEASE: 93-66 CLEMENTINE MISSION SCIENCE TEAM SELECTED NASA today announced the selection of the science team for the Clementine mission to orbit the moon and to visit an asteroid. The team will be headed by Dr. Eugene Shoemaker of the U.S. Geologic Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., who has been very active for many years in both lunar and asteroid research. Clementine, sponsored by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO), will launch a small spacecraft in January 1994 to orbit the moon for several months, then de-orbit the moon in early May 1994. The spacecraft would then fly by the near-Earth asteroid 1620 Geographos on Aug. 31, 1994, when the asteroid is several million miles away, its closest distance to the Earth. The goals of the mission are to test new, lightweight sensors in a space radiation environment and to demonstrate autonomous navigation and spacecraft operation. Lightweight and innovative spacecraft components also will be tested, including a lightweight star tracker, an inertial measurement unit, lightweight reaction wheels for attitude control, as well as a lightweight nickel hydrogen battery and a lightweight solar panel. The science team will plan for the acquisition of the scientific measurements, the archiving of all science data in a form easily accessible to the planetary science community and initial analyses of the data. Geographos is one of the earliest discovered Earth-crossing asteroids. It was discovered in September 1951, in a sky survey sponsored by the National Geographic Society. Most Earth-crossing asteroids are thought to be fragments produced by collisions between asteroids in the main belt between Mars and Jupiter, which are later perturbed into Earth-crossing orbits. Radar images recently obtained of the asteroid 4179 Toutatis suggest that the shape of Geographos and other Earth crossers might be much more complex than previously suspected. The sensors will be trained on the moon and on the asteroid. Also, mutispectral science measurements at ultraviolet, visible and infrared wavelengths will be made and played back to Earth. The specific filter wavelengths were selected in consultation with NASA scientists, to both meet SDIO objectives and maximize the scientific data return. The science team members selected and their affiliations are: Charles Acton, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Daniel Baker, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Jacques Blamont, CNES (France) Bonnie Buratti, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Merton Davies, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. Thomas Duxbury, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Eric Eliason, U.S. Geologic Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz. Paul Lucey, University of Hawaii, Honolulu Alfred McEwen, U.S. Geologic Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz. Carle Pieters, Brown University, Providence, R.I. David Smith, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Paul Spudis, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston The Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., is responsible for mission design, providing the spacecraft and for mission operations. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory will be responsible for tracking the spacecraft radio signal using NASA's Deep Space Network and will be responsible for accurately locating Geographos using its Near Earth Object Center in preparation for the flyby. - end - ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 1993 16:20:15 -0400 From: Matthew DeLuca Subject: Clementine Science Team Selected Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <9APR199319520705@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > Clementine, sponsored by the Strategic Defense Initiative Office >(SDIO), will launch a small spacecraft in January 1994 to orbit the moon for >several months, then de-orbit the moon in early May 1994. Um, where do they plan to land the moon? :-) -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 1993 20:17 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Magellan to Start Aerobraking in May Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary From the "JPL Universe" April 9, 1993 Magellan will change orbit, attempt aerobraking in May The Magellan spacecraft, which has mapped the surface of Venus with imaging radar, will be put into a near-circular orbit in a process called "aerobraking" beginning in late May, said Magellan Project Manager Doug Griffith. Griffith explained the process in a noontime lecture in von Karman Auditorium March 26. The essence of the aerobraking process requires the spacecraft"s lowest orbital point, periapsis, to be placed in the upper Venus atmosphere. That allows atmosphere-induced "aerodynamic drag" to reduce the spacecraft velocity and circularize the orbit. It will be the first time a NASA spacecraft has been aerobraked at a distant planet, and the experiment is expected to provide valuable information for future missions. Magellan, which completed mapping the planet last September, is making gravity observations in its fourth 243-day cycle around Venus. At the end of the cycle, on May 25, spacecraft controllers will perform an orbit trim maneuver to lower Magellan's periapsis altitude. Aerobraking operations will then start, and the process is expected to take about 70 days. The near-circular orbit would be from 200 kilometers to 300 kilometers (124 to 186 miles). After circularization has been accomplished, Griffith said, the project will perform high-resolution gravity studies, pending NASA approval, through October 1994. Funding has been requested to extend the mission for that period, he said. ### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 1993 19:53 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Magellan Update - 04/09/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT April 9, 1993 1. The Magellan mission at Venus continues normally, gathering gravity data which will be correlated to surface topography. Spacecraft performance is nominal. 2. Magellan has completed 7173 orbits of Venus and is now 46 days from the end of Cycle 4 and the start of the Transition Experiment. 3. The Project has completed the current phase of office consolidation to assist in the collocation of the MESUR Project on the 230-2nd floor. 4. Preparations for aerobraking continue to go well. As presently planned, the Transition Experiment will begin with a 785-second Orbit Trim Maneuver (OTM) on May 26, 1993 during orbit #7626 at about 10:40 AM PDT. This will lower the periapsis from 170 km to 147 km above the surface of Venus. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 1993 19:55 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 04/09/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT April 9, 1993 11:20 AM PDT The spacecraft was commanded to the 4 kbs Science and Engineering downlink data rate this morning. This was the first step in a series of activities affecting Gamma Ray Spectrometer, Electron Reflectometer, and Pressure Modulator Infrared Radiometer instruments planned for today. While at the 4k downlink rate, the GRS team will be examining the GRS Ram load to verify content, the MAG/ER team is performing instrument calibration activities, and the PMIRR team is using the opportunity to update an auxiliary heater state indicator time tag. Upon completion of these activities, the spacecraft will be commanded back to the 2k downlink Engineering data rate. MO participation in the Gravity Wave Experiment ends at 1:20 AM Monday, April 12. The active Flight Sequence, C8, will then execute steps to begin further Magnetometer instrument calibrations to allow the instrument team to better characterize the spacecraft-generated magnetic field and its effect on their instrument. This information is critical to Martian magnetic field measurements which occur during approach and mapping phases. Magnetometer calibrations performed Monday through Wednesday (April 12 through 14) will require the sequence to command the spacecraft out of Array Normal Spin state and perform slew and roll maneuvers to provide the MAG team data points in varying spacecraft attitudes and orientations. The sequence will perform the transition back to Sun Star Init at 7:21 on Tuesday, April 13. With Inertial Reference reestablished, the spacecraft will be commanded to slew to Array Normal Spin at 10:31 AM. Concurrent with MAG Calibration activities, the Mars Observer Camera team will power on their instrument and take Wide Angle and Narrow Angle images. Wide Angle imaging will be performed while the spacecraft is in the Inertial Slew Hold mode. Narrow Angle imaging will be performed after the Spacecraft has been returned to ANS, and the planet Jupiter is in the Narrow Angle field of view. These activities are executed by non- stored sequence commands and will be closely coordinated between Instrument, Spacecraft, and Ground Operations Teams. Verification Test Laboratory testing of Flight Software Build 8.0 began on Tuesday, March 23 and is scheduled to be completed May 5. An earlier report erroneously stated the completion date to be April 5. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 93 12:20:51 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: NASA "Wraps" Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr9.154502.26258@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: In article <1q3qa3INNigh@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes: >>I believe that at all the National Labs, there is a Director's Fund,... >It is also good for faster, cheaper, better projects. Agreed. I don't mean to say that wraps are always bad. Just here they are costing too much money. What I think is hapenning is that people For comparison the JPL Director's disgressionary fund is 0.3% of the JPL budget - and apparently Goldin feels this is much too little. (Ref: E&S Winter 1993). | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 93 16:55:17 GMT From: Kenneth Ng Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr2.181001.2821@mksol.dseg.ti.com: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: :I was under the impression that the Japanese plutonium was more :'enriched' than this; however, that was from press coverage of the :transshipment, and we know what the gentlemen of the Press can be like :when it comes to strict factuality on issues like this. I can understand this impression. One of the advertisements I've read has so many mistakes, misleads, and downright lies that it was laughable. Constantly they were infering that 'plutonium' means 'nuclear bomb'. But I must say that to this day, I have yet to read the isotope concentration of the plutonium shipment. Since the target is a nuclear reactor, I would imagine that it would not have a high amount of pu239. -- Kenneth Ng Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now. "All this might be an elaborate simulation running in a little device sitting on someone's table" -- J.L. Picard: ST:TNG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 17:22:28 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Plans, absence therof Newsgroups: sci.space On Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:38:07 GMT, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) said: Allen> In article Allen> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >[Descussing the Hatch Act] >This is both for our protection and for the protection of the parties; we >can't be pressured to make "voluntary" donations of time and money and >incumbents can't have an army of ready-made campaign workers. Allen> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Allen> That only applies to the executive branch. Congress, in its Allen> wisdom, has seen fit to exempt itself from this law. This gives Allen> every Represntative and Senator his or her own personal crew of Allen> campaign workers paid for by you and I. You're quite right about Congress. They've also exempted themselves from the various equal opportunity, nepotism, handicapped hiring, workplace safety, whistleblowing, et cetera laws, regulations, and orders. They're not Civil Service and I should have made that clear. -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 93 12:27:57 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Plans, absence therof Newsgroups: sci.space In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: On Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:38:07 GMT, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) said: Allen> In article Allen> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >[Descussing the Hatch Act] >This is both for our protection and for the protection of the parties; we Allen> That only applies to the executive branch. Congress, in its Allen> wisdom, has seen fit to exempt itself from this law. This gives You're quite right about Congress. They've also exempted themselves from the various equal opportunity, nepotism, handicapped hiring, workplace safety, whistleblowing, et cetera laws, regulations, and orders. Just remember there's a real reason why they do that - it can be quite important for the legislature to be immune from executive interference and a "by the book" enforcement of a lot of the et cetera laws and regulations could cripple a select sub-group of legislators if a determined executive wanted to go after them. | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 15:45:58 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Portable Small Ground Station?dir Newsgroups: sci.space In article <16BA911E75.M22079@mwvm.mitre.org> M22079@mwvm.mitre.org writes: >In article <1993Apr7.150058.16014@ke4zv.uucp> >gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >>The DSN stations are different, and aren't used to monitor Shuttle. >>These stations use huge antennas to gather in the very faint signals >>from distant probes. They use advanced LNAs, low noise amplifiers, >>and computer enhancement to pick up signals that are so faint that >>a flea scratching himself at 2000 km would have more power. You have >>no hope of duplicating them on an amateur budget. >> >I would not be quite so extreme in my statements about DSN. The Low >Noise Amps (LNAs) are quite expensive but you can do some significant >enhancement on any PC if you know the encoding schemes and are willing >to run significantly less than real time. Actually, nitrogen cooled HEMT preamps might do all right. They're getting very close to MASER performance and you can put one together for a couple hundred dollars. But to do non-realtime processing you have to have recorders that will capture the signals in real time. That's not simple when you have to preserve the phase coherence of the signal in order to postprocess it out of the incoherent noise. You almost need atomic references for your LO and tape recorder. You might trick that out of a GPS receiver if you're clever. >You can also create an antenna field (small cheap antennas) and rebuild >the signal using amplitude and phase combining. The theory actually >allows an awful lot from spacial diversity and block coding. Your targets will >be significantly limited by your system and receiver noise, but above a >certain threshold I think you could scrape up the energy and recover bits. You can do a lot of beam convergence with a field of antennas, but unless you have a way of shielding each antenna's individual pattern from the Earth, they'll have a noise temperature of 290 K, and that sets a mean floor on receiver noise figure that your very quiet preamp can't repair. Dipoles would be out, but a whole bunch of home satellite dishes might work. Getting them to all track would be fun. We talked about a continental network of amateur radio astronomy stations here a few months ago. Each would have it's own home satellite dish and share a common reference via a GPS satellite. The received data would be concentrated via the network and post processed. I suspicion it just might work if the scanned bandwidths were kept limited enough. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 16:47:19 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Protectionism Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.econ In article szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>there's a 15% tax break to companies exporting raw logs from the >> Pacific Northwest to Japanese furniture factories. > >Wrong. Another popular myth making the rounds. There's a >15% tax break on any export, including high-value-add wood >products like furniture, because we want to cut the trade deficit. What I said was not wrong. There is a 15% tax break on raw log export. The tax break applies to other things as well, but doesn't negate my statement. >The reason Japanese buy raw logs is straightforward: they have >important, exacting standards unique to their culture which U.S. >mills have been unable or unwilling to meet. These standards range >from the simple (cutting in metric dimensions) to the complex >(Japanese archictectural traditions & standards, including unique >designs for earthquake protection). Add in the factor of predatory home market protectionism. I can buy metric 3.8cmX8.57cm milled lumber from Georgia Pacific, so can the Japanese. GP'll even sell you 4cmX9cm stock if you request. A 2X4 by any other name is just a tweak of the plane away. >BTW, there is now a strong statist incentive _against_ raw log exports: >such exports of logs from state & federal lands are now illegal, >another stupid measure that protects low-skill, low-wage jobs (eg >raw log lumbering) and discourages high-skill, high-wage jobs (eg >building finished wood products for the Japanese market). What kind of contradiction is this? The Greenpeacers, and other tree huggers, have stopped much of the logging on Federal lands. That's true. But it hurts logging jobs, not millworking jobs, to restrict raw log exports. Such exports are more profitable than selling to domestic mills who find little export market for their products. So the exports benefit loggers, not millworkers. >Of course, it's much easier to claim to be patriotic and Japan-bash >than to try to learn something about another culture so that one >can do business with them. It's much easier to make up and propagate >myths about "subsidizing raw log export" than to admit and correct >our own shortcomings that have caused the problem. We *do* subsidize raw log export. That's a fact. Most of those exports *do* go to Japan. That's a fact. The Japanese *do* practice predatory home market protectionism. That's a fact. Try selling beef, citrus, or rice in the Japanese market. It won't matter that your quality is higher and your prices lower, they won't buy. They have their reasons, we have ours. That's a fact. It's not Japan bashing. It's a statement of how Pacific Rim trade works. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 15:09:45 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >People built two-stage airliners once. Nobody bothers any more. It's >just not worth the extra performance. I must have missed this, tell us about two stage airliners. In article <1993Apr7.224308.4675@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes: >>... However, we pay a very high penalty on >>payload capability. > >*SO* *WHAT*??? > >This is the big mistake that almost every launch system currently in >existence has made: shooting for maximum performance instead of minimum >operational cost. Shooting for minimum operational cost doesn't necessarily mean throwing away all hint of performance, otherwise we'd still be using sticks and wire to support the wings of our biplanes. A craft that must burn 800 klb of cryogenic fuel to deliver 10 klb of payload to orbit isn't necessarily of lesser cost than one that needs 400 klb of fuel to deliver 40 klb of payload to orbit. You can do that without overstressed engines and complex and tedious assembly stacking. You just have to design your system with adequate margins and easy assembly from the start. The advantages of staged vehicles are too great to throw away just because we haven't designed one to be easy to maintain and use *yet*. That's never been the primary design goal before. >If you don't like the size of the payload, either scale up the vehicle >(this is not a military missile that has to fit in a predefined silo) >or fly it more often and assemble in orbit (the largest payload that >absolutely must go up in one piece is a human with life support). But you have to look at cost of assembly in orbit versus cost of launching preassembled from the ground. The latter looks cheaper due to the high labor cost of on orbit work, and that high cost isn't all transport cost either. >> I would think that by applying all the concepts of SSTO to a double >>stager we would get nearly the same price and time performance, but with >>higher payload capabilities. > >Developing two different vehicles is going to be nearly as cheap as one? >I have my doubts. It's one vehicle, it's just that not all it's pieces are permanently attached. It would seem that a first stage built like an airplane, and operated like an airplane, that carried an orbital stage, built like an airplane and operated like an airplane, with an easy mate design would make orbital flight cheaper and more effective than a SSTO requiring ultralight structures and finicky maneovers just to get to orbit and back. MX has been launched from a C5, and neither system was designed for that. A F16 has carried an orbital ASAT rocket. And of course there's Pegasus. Systems designed from the ground up to be used together routinely and cheaply would seem to be even easier to do than systems thrown together to take advantage of existing hardware. I'm not saying either has to have wings, only that the systems have to be easily mated and easily recovered and reused without major rebuilds. We've never done that either, but we likely could with little more effort than required for SSTO, and with a much larger payoff in terms of payload to orbit. As a hypothetical, suppose we build a new first stage using F1 engines modified to be throttlable and designed to softland under radio control after separation. The top stage could be DC-1/2, a system similar to the proposed DC-1, but with it's launch cradle replaced by a docking adapter fitted to the nose of the F1 stage, and a four times larger payload bay. When it re-enters and lands all you need to do is set it on top of the F1 instead of it's launch cradle, fasten some explosive bolts, fuel, and launch again. It constrains takeoffs and landings to the same field until you start operating a fleet, but once you do, every field will have F1 stages sitting around waiting for an incoming DC-1/2 to relaunch. Note that the combined F1-DC-1/2 could do a landing abort if there were a problem during boost. And if you were clever with some heat shielding, the DC-1/2 stage could bring all it's engines up to idle before separation, so engine out failures at separation would become a viable abort situation. Of course Von Braun thought of all of this long ago, but it's still a great idea. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 1993 14:09:08 -0400 From: Jon Leech Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and sci.space.shuttle. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below). The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting: (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory pub/SPACE/FAQ. (2) Otherwise, send email to 'archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov' containing the single line: help The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines: send space FAQ/Index send space FAQ/faq1 Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer your questions. Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings. Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author. ------------------------------ Received: from leibniz.CS.Arizona.EDU by optima.cs.arizona.edu (5.65c/15) via SMTP id AA03811; Fri, 9 Apr 1993 13:26:08 MST Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 13:26:07 MST From: "Richard Schroeppel" Message-Id: <199304092026.AA18783@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> Received: by leibniz.cs.arizona.edu; Fri, 9 Apr 1993 13:26:07 MST To: space@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Biosphere 2, In Praise of I think public opinion is much too harsh on Biosphere 2. They are being criticized as "not doing real science". This is silly: they are gathering information about how to live in a mostly self-contained ecology. Naturally, this involves a lot of tinkering. So does any laboratory. Most tinkering is unpublishable. B2 are being jumped on for not being open. BFD- Kodak & IBM certainly don't tell all, but are nevertheless considered serious science. Instead of bitching about what real science is or isn't, we should credit B2 with bringing up some inconvenient problems that space colonists will have to deal with: (1) You must have bigger reserves of food & O2 than you would expect. You must provide for too much CO2, and disappearing O2. You must stabilize pO2, and total pressure. (2) Food variety is virtually mandatory. People will subsist on junk without going crazy only in wartime. (3) Pests are REAL trouble. California can't even keep out medflies, and we weren't planning to keep visitors out of our colony. At the minimum, they will bring the latest flu, dust mites, tiny insects, mold, and fungi in their clothing & luggage. (4) Crop failures happen. I'm no treehugger, but the decision to use DDT etc. in a closed colony is not going to be taken lightly. You must keep a lot of different plants growing; & maybe a seed bank. (5) Provide extra crew time for maintenance of things that aren't supposed to break. Murphy lives in space. Rich Schroeppel rcs@cs.arizona.edu ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 446 ------------------------------