Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 05:10:54 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #486 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 26 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 486 Today's Topics: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93) DC-X/Y/1 question DC-Y trajectory simulation Dreams and Degrees (was Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?) Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining. Jemison on Star Trek PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST RIMSAT, US/Russian joint venture Space Design Movies? Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4 (2 msgs) Stephen Hawking Tours JPL Vandalizing the sky. (2 msgs) Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo 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: 24 Apr 1993 07:33:01 GMT From: "Mark D. Looper" Subject: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >Galileo's HGA is stuck. >The HGA was left closed, because galileo had a venus flyby. >If the HGA were pointed att he sun, near venus, it would >cook the foci elements. >question: WHy couldn't Galileo's course manuevers have been >designed such that the HGA did not ever do a sun point.? The HGA isn't all that reflective in the wavelengths that might "cook the focal elements", nor is its figure good on those scales--the problem is that the antenna _itself_ could not be exposed to Venus-level sunlight, lest like Icarus' wings it melt. (I think it was glues and such, as well as electronics, that they were worried about.) Thus it had to remain furled and the axis _always_ pointed near the sun, so that the small sunshade at the tip of the antenna mast would shadow the folded HGA. (A larger sunshade beneath the antenna shielded the spacecraft bus.) --Mark Looper "Hot Rodders--America's first recyclers!" ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 93 00:57:31 GMT From: Ken Kobayashi Subject: DC-X/Y/1 question Newsgroups: sci.space I've been following discussions about the Delta Clipper program, and I have one small question. As I understand it, the DC-X derived orbital vehicle (DC-Y & 1) is to reenter the atmosphere sort of sideways, not completely nose-first. So why is the DC-Y look symmetric in every drawing I've seen? I would think that an asymmetric design, sort of like wingless Orbiter, may work better, since less shielding is required on the top side. Can anybody explain? - Ken Kobayashi kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Kobayashi | kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu | "There is no final frontier." - IBM ad ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 06:08:22 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: DC-Y trajectory simulation Newsgroups: sci.space I've been to three talks in the last month which might be of interest. I've transcribed some of my notes below. Since my note taking ability is by no means infallible, please assume that all factual errors are mine. Permission is granted to copy this without restriction. Note for newbies: The Delta Clipper project is geared towards producing a single staget to orbit, reusable launch vehicle. The DC-X vehicle is a 1/3 scale vehicle designed to test some of the concepts invovled in SSTO. It is currently undergoing tests. The DC-Y vehicle would be a full scale experimental vehicle capable of reaching orbit. It has not yet been funded. On April 6th, Rocky Nelson of MacDonnell Douglas gave a talk entitled "Optimizing Techniques for Advanced Space Missions" here at the University of Illinois. Mr Nelson's job involves using software to simulate trajectories and determine the optimal trajectory within given requirements. Although he is not directly involved with the Delta Clipper project, he has spent time with them recently, using his software for their applications. He thus used the DC-Y project for most of his examples. While I don't think the details of implicit trajectory simulation are of much interest to the readers (I hope they aren't - I fell asleep during that part), I think that many of you will be interested in some of the details gleaned from the examples. The first example given was the maximization of payload for a polar orbit. The main restriction is that acceleration must remain below 3 Gs. I assume that this is driven by passenger constraints rather than hardware constraints, but I did not verify that. The Delta Clipper Y version has 8 engines - 4 boosters and 4 sustainers. The boosters, which have a lower isp, are shut down in mid-flight. Thus, one critical question is when to shut them down. Mr Nelson showed the following plot of acceleration vs time: ______ 3 G /| / | / | / | As ASCII graphs go, this is actually fairly / | / | good. The big difference is that the lines 2 G / |/ | made by the / should be curves which are / | concave up. The data is only approximate, as / | the graph wasn't up for very long. 1 G / | | | 0 G | ^ ^ ~100 sec ~400 sec As mentioned before, a critical constraint is that G levels must be kept below 3. Initially, all eight engines are started. As the vehicle burns fuel the accelleration increases. As it gets close to 3G, the booster engines are throtled back. However, they quickly become inefficient at low power, so it soon makes more sense to cut them off altogether. This causes the dip in accelleration at about 100 seconds. Eventually the remaining sustainer engines bring the G level back up to about 3 and then hold it there until they cut out entirely. The engine cutoff does not acutally occur in orbit. The trajectory is aimed for an altitude slightly higher than the 100nm desired and the last vestiges of air drag slow the vehicle slightly, thus lowering the final altitude to that desired. Questions from the audience: (paraphrased) Q: Would it make sense to shut down the booster engines in pairs, rather than all at once? A: Very perceptive. Worth considering. They have not yet done the simulation. Shutting down all four was part of the problem as given. Q: So what was the final payload for this trajectory? A: Can't tell us. "Read Aviation Leak." He also apparently had a good propulsion example, but was told not to use it. My question: Does anyone know if this security is due to SDIO protecting national security or MD protecting their own interests? The second example was reentry simulation, from orbit to just before the pitch up maneuver. The biggest constraint in this one is aerodynamic heating, and the parameter they were trying to maximize was crossrange. He showed graphs of heating using two different models, to show that both were very similar, and I think we were supposed to assume that this meant they were very accurate. The end result was that for a polar orbit landing at KSC, the DC-Y would have about 30 degrees of crossrange and would start it's reentry profile about 60 degrees south latitude. I would have asked about the landing maneuvers, but he didn't know about that aspect of the flight profile. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu "Find a way or make one." -attributed to Hannibal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 23:11:28 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Dreams and Degrees (was Re: Crazy? or just Imaginitive?) Newsgroups: sci.space higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: ... >Like others involved in sci.space, Mr. Adams shows symptoms of being a >fledgling member of the technoculture, and I think he's soaking it up >fast. I was a young guy with dreams once, and they led me to get a >technical education to follow them up. Too bad I wound up in an >assembly-line job stamping out identical neutrinos day after day... >(-: How can you tell they're identical? You got one of them "Star Drek: The Next Syndication" neutrino scanners? -- Phil Fraering |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff. pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 93 20:34:33 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1r96hb$kbi@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > In article <1993Apr23.001718.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>In article <1r6b7v$ec5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >>> Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed >>> when they were told to pay for restoring land after strip mining. >>=== >>I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small >>miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The >>people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do >>mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point). > > > Lot's of these small miners are no longer miners. THey are people living > rent free on Federal land, under the claim of being a miner. The facts are > many of these people do not sustaint heir income from mining, do not > often even live their full time, and do fotentimes do a fair bit > of environmental damage. > > These minign statutes were created inthe 1830's-1870's when the west was > uninhabited and were designed to bring people into the frontier. Times change > people change. DEAL. you don't have a constitutional right to live off > the same industry forever. Anyone who claims the have a right to their > job in particular, is spouting nonsense. THis has been a long term > federal welfare program, that has outlived it's usefulness. > > pat > Hum, do you enjoy putting words in my mouth? Come to Nome and meet some of these miners.. I am not sure how things go down south in the lower 48 (I used to visit, but), of course to believe the media/news its going to heck (or just plain crazy). Well it seems that alot of Unionist types seem to think that having a job is a right, and not a priviledge. Right to the same job as your forbearers, SEE: Kennedy's and tel me what you see (and the families they have married into). There is a reason why many historians and poli-sci types use unionist and socialist in the same breath. The miners that I know, are just your average hardworking people who pay there taxes and earn a living.. But taxes are not the answer. But maybe we could move this discussion to some more appropriate newsgroup.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 21:47:35 GMT From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" Subject: Jemison on Star Trek Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr20.142747.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > In article , loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes: > > I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first > > black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew > > on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the > > "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31. > > It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting. > > > > Doug Loss > > > Interesting is rigth.. I wonder if they will make a mention of her being an > astronaut in the credits.. I think it might help people connect the future of > space with the present.. And give them an idea that we must go into space.. > A transporter operator!?!? That better be one important transport. Usually it is a nameless ensign who does the job. For such a guest appearance I would have expected a more visible/meaningful role. --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | Only two things are infinite, | | Princeton Planetary Society | the universe and human | | | stupidity, and I'm not sure | | | about the former. - Einstein | | carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------| | space@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 93 22:28:18 GMT From: Dennis Chamberlin Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro ----- News saved at 23 Apr 93 22:22:40 GMT In article <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes: > > ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!! > > This paper BOTH describes how heavenly bodys can be stationary, >ether sucking structures, AND why we observe "orbital" motion!! > "Light-Years" between galaxies is a misnomer. The distance is >closer to zero, as time and matter are characteristics of this phase >of reality, which dissipates outward with each layer of the onion. >(defining edge = 0 ether spin) > To find out about all of this, I recommend studying history. Well, I'm working on it, but getting a little impatient. So far, I've made it through Egyptian, Chinese, and Greek cultures, and up through the Rennaisance. But so far, these insights just don't seem to be gelling. Perhaps it's in an appendix somewhere. In its own right, though, the history is kind of fun. Lots of good yarns in there, with varied and interesting characters. And, more to come. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 06:09:19 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: RIMSAT, US/Russian joint venture Newsgroups: sci.space I've been to three talks in the last month which might be of interest. I've transcribed some of my notes below. Since my note taking ability is by no means infallible, please assume that all factual errors are mine. Permission is granted to copy this without restriction. Michael Sternberg, Cheif of Operations of RIMSAT, was invited to speak at an informal lunch held by ACDIS here on the campus of the University of Illinois. ACDIS is an organization on campus that deals with Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security. RIMSAT was considered an appropriate topic because the company is using Russian launchers and satellites. I think it also helped that his daughter is a grad student in the International Relations program. The concept behind RIMSAT apparently began when Matt Neilson (?) went to Tonga to visit a friend. While he was there, he somehow ended up visiting the king, who happened to be a big TV fan. Matt bought the King a satellite dish, which the king thought was really nifty. Since Tonga has a GNP of about $70 million, His Majesty asked if there was any way to make money off this. Matt thought there probably was, so at his suggestion, Tonga applied for 31 geosynchronous satellite slots. While this isn't entirely off the wall, it was very unusual, seeing as Tonga was a tiny kingdom with no space program, and 31 is a lot of slots. The whole thing was debated in the appropriate regulatory agency and Carl Hilliard (who is apparently a respected space lawyer) wrote several opinions supporting Tonga's case. Eventually Tonga ended up with 7 slots, ranging from 70 E to 170 E (slots are designated by the longitude over which they reside). According to Sternberg, four of these, from 130 E to 142 E are the best in the world because they are excellently placed for communications between Hawaii and the Pacific Rim. RIMSAT was formed to use these slots. It was officially formed in Nevis as a tax haven. They tried for a few years to raise funds in the west, however, to fill 7 slots with western satellites launched on western launchers would have cost approximately $2 billion. It's not easy to raise that kind of money. Eventually, they hit upon the idea of using Russian hardware. They began negotiating with Glavkosmos for hardware. Mr Sternberg describes operating in Moscow in such harsh terms that I don't think I'll visit there for a long time. Besides a significant lack of creature comforts, he was not happy with the way that people operate. For example "everybody can sell you everything." Everyone can show the proper documents and licenses that indicate they are the only ones who have the authority to sell what ever you want to by. Eventually, RIMSAT arranged a deal with Glavkosmos for 6 satellites at a cost of $150 million. However, Glavkosmos lost favor after the coup. Sternberg says that this is because they were basically a bunch of KGB operatives who went to trade shows and picked up lots of brochures. Since Glavkosmos was out of power, he had to renegotiate the deal with the new authorities. He again described life in a Moscow hotel in rather unfavorable terms. Eventually, he worked out a deal and on Dec 4, 1992 he met with Koptev, who heads the Russian space program, to sign the deal. Koptev insisted on a few concessions before signing and according to Sternberg he arranged these new rules to allow himself to form another company to do the exact same thing as RIMSAT. The next step was to meet with the builders of the hardware, NPO Applied Mechanics -- NPO PM to use their acronym. This organization is located in Siberia (can't figure out how to spell the town, I need an atlas) and has built about 1500 vehicles since the dawn of the space age. Sternberg commented that siberians are very different from Musovites. They are hard workers, honest people who team up to get things done, very much like midwesterners. At this point there were some comments from the audience that agreed with his opinion on both siberians and midwesterners :-) Sternberg had lots of good things to say about NPO PM. His company is apparently lookng for $100 million to invest in the firm to become 50% partners.It apparently costs the Russians about $4 million to build a satellite that would sell for $50 million in the west. If you want to give them specifications, they'll build you a satellite. For the particular satellites that RIMSAT will be using, costs run about $378,000 per transponder year. This compares to $810,000 t/y in the U.S. They can sell their time for about $1.1 million compared to $2.6 million in the U.S. RIMSAT will launch their satellites on Protons. To get the best prices, they bought in bulk. They have the rights to twelve launches, so if any of you need a lift I can give you their address. The first launch is scheduled for October and they are getting one used satellite from the Russians, which is being moved into place now. Tidbits: * Sternberg says this kind of thing has to be done by entrepreneurs, not big business because big business is just like what they have over there, except that "we have better paper, both in the bathroom and in the copier." * Russian launches are self insured. The promise to replace a failed launch within 9 months. * Major investors in RIMSAT include Russell 20/20, which is a huge retirement fund organization, Cellsat, which is a big telecom business in southeast Asia, and a fund operated by some of the big names in U.S aerospace which he says is sort of an insurance policy for them if this really takes off. * He downplayed the instabilites in the ex-USSR saying that we are worried partly because we aren't used to seeing Russia as anything but an unvarying monolith. Italy gets a new government "every two weeks" but we don't worry because we're used to it. He predicted that once we get used to seeing what really goes on in Russia we won't worry about their stability as much. * Part of the problem with cooperative ventures is the problem of transfering money. The central bank has a policy of taking hard currency payments, putting 25% in their coffers and replacing the rest with the "equivalent" value in rubles. To get around this, RIMSAT pays their hard currency into an Austrian bank account. NPO PM then pays their contractors with foreign currency so that the only the contractors get swindled by the government. * One of the big problems RIMSAT has had is stonewalling by the western satellite industry. However, Intelsat recently bought three of the same type of satellites, which was rather reassuring. * The biggest worry most people have about russian satellites is the primitive technology and shorter lifetime. The older Gorizont (Horizon) satellites have a lifetime of about 5 years, while the more modern Express satellites compare well with western technology and last about 8 years. While this is much shorter than 15 years for western satellites, Sternberg downplayed the difference. At these prices they can afford to launch new ones. In addition, shorter lifetimes mean that they can replace their equipment with newer technology so they will be able to compete better than older, out of date hardware. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu "Find a way or make one." -attributed to Hannibal ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 93 20:47:22 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: Space Design Movies? Newsgroups: sci.space Is there a few Grasp pictures of space related items, namely Space Station Designs, so you can see the "finished" revolt around.. If you don't know what a grasp prograsm is.. Check out some adult entertainment files and see what I mean.. Or maybe geta few GIF files and create a "slide shows" (I think Cshow can do this).. I liek to be able to see a space shuttle design in a AutoCAD program or to see it revolt around and look at it. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 1993 17:45 EST From: "David B. Mckissock" Subject: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr23.184732.1105@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes... {Description of "External Tank" option for SSF redesign deleted} >Mark proposed this design at Joe Shea's committee in Crystal City, >and he reports that he was warmly received. However, the rumors >I hear say that a design based on a wingless Space Shuttle Orbiter >seems more likely. Yo Ken, let's keep on-top of things! Both the "External Tank" and "Wingless Orbiter" options have been deleted from the SSF redesign options list. Today's (4/23) edition of the New York Times reports that O'Connor told the panel that some redesign proposals have been dropped, such as using the "giant external fuel tanks used in launching space shuttles," and building a "station around an existing space shuttle with its wings and tail removed." Currently, there are three options being considered, as presented to the advisory panel meeting yesterday (and as reported in today's Times). Option "A" - Low Cost Modular Approach This option is being studied by a team from MSFC. {As an aside, there are SSF redesign teams at MSFC, JSC, and LaRC supporting the SRT (Station Redesign Team) in Crystal City. Both LeRC and Reston folks are also on-site at these locations, helping the respective teams with their redesign activities.} Key features of this option are: - Uses "Bus-1", a modular bus developed by Lockheed that's qualified for STS and ELV's. The bus provides propulsion, GN&C Communications, & Data Management. Lockheed developed this for the Air Force. - A "Power Station Capability" is obtained in 3 Shuttle Flights. SSF Solar arrays are used to provide 20 kW of power. The vehicle flies in an "arrow mode" to optimize the microgravity environment. Shuttle/Spacelab missions would utilize the vehilce as a power source for 30 day missions. - Human tended capability (as opposed to the old SSF sexist term of man-tended capability) is achieved by the addition of the US Common module. This is a modified version of the existing SSF Lab module (docking ports are added for the International Partners' labs, taking the place of the nodes on SSF). The Shuttle can be docked to the station for 60 day missions. The Orbiter would provide crew habitability & EVA capability. - International Human Tended. Add the NASDA & ESA modules, and add another 20 kW of power - Permanent Human Presence Capability. Add a 3rd power module, the U.S. habitation module, and an ACRV (Assured Crew Return Vehicle). Option "B" - Space Station Freedom Derived The Option "B" team is based at LaRC, and is lead by Mike Griffin. This option looks alot like the existing SSF design, which we have all come to know and love :) This option assumes a lightweight external tank is available for use on all SSF assembly flights (so does option "A"). Also, the number of flights is computed for a 51.6 inclination orbit, for both options "A" and "B". The build-up occurs in six phases: - Initial Research Capability reached after 3 flights. Power is transferred from the vehicle to the Orbiter/Spacelab, when it visits. - Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist language) is achieved after 8 flights. The U.S. Lab is deployed, and 1 solar power module provides 20 kW of power. - Permanent Human Presence Capability occurs after 10 flights, by keeping one Orbiter on-orbit to use as an ACRV (so sometimes there would be two Orbiters on-orbit - the ACRV, and the second one that comes up for Logistics & Re-supply). - A "Two Fault Tolerance Capability" is achieved after 14 flights, with the addition of a 2nd power module, another thermal control system radiator, and more propulsion modules. - After 20 flights, the Internationals are on-board. More power, the Habitation module, and an ACRV are added to finish the assembly in 24 flights. Most of the systems currently on SSF are used as-is in this option, with the exception of the data management system, which has major changes. Option C - Single Core Launch Station. This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket motors, and launch the can. Some key features are: - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against micrometeroid & orbital debris) - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end) - 7 berthing ports - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet (twice the volume of skylab). - 7 floors, center passageway between floors - 10 kW of housekeeping power - graceful degradation with failures (8 power channels, 4 thermal loops, dual environmental control & life support system) - increased crew time for utilization - 1 micro-g thru out the core module ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 1993 06:09:15 GMT From: "Michael F. Santangelo" Subject: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4 Newsgroups: sci.space dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes: ...text of options "A" and "B" deleted... >Option C - Single Core Launch Station. >This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter >cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on >the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a >regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket >motors, and launch the can. Some key features are: > - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout > - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels > - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against > micrometeroid & orbital debris) > - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end) > - 7 berthing ports > - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet > (twice the volume of skylab). > - 7 floors, center passageway between floors > - 10 kW of housekeeping power Only 10KW? > - graceful degradation with failures (8 power channels, 4 thermal > loops, dual environmental control & life support system) > - increased crew time for utilization > - 1 micro-g thru out the core module Ha! "North America Modular SPACE STATION construction" :-) Same apprach, same reasoning: "construction occurs under assembly line conditions, no random weather problems interupting site-work on your home - better quality control" -- sounds like first "-" point above :-) Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in a modular home maybe has altered my mind). The only thing that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and a nosecone on it and "just launching it." I have this vision of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction). -- -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Michael F. Santangelo + Internet: mike@cbl.umd.edu [work] Dept. Head-Computer & Network Systems + mike@kavishar.umd.edu [home] UMCEES / CBL (Solomons Island) + BITNET: MIKE@UMUC [fwd to mike@cbl] ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 1993 00:07:35 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > Using a model of Mars Observer, Albee spent several minutes >describing the project and the spacecraft's features. In answer >to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed >drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only >a concept." Chahine, who had met Hawking at Caltech about five Too bad they didn't give him a tour of the CGRO data? I think he'd be fascinated by the Gamma ray bursters. The mind of hawking might even propose a mechanism. SO what's a drag free satellite? coated with WD-40? carries an aluminum-gold set of grateful dead albums? inquiring minds want to know? And why would MO carry any features for being drag free? I thought aero-braking was a possible MO experimental activity? pat ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 93 14:06:49 MDT From: thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca Subject: Vandalizing the sky. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article , enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes: <<>> > What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that > it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night). > Really, really depressed. > > Enzo No need to be depressed about this one. Lights aren't on during the day so there shouldn't be any daytime light pollution. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 23:00:45 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Vandalizing the sky. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes: ... >people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up >and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D Seen that movie already. Or one just like it. Come to think of it, they might send someone on a quest to get rid of the dang thing... >Jeff Cook Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.com -- Phil Fraering |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff. pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 13:59:52 GMT From: John Grasham Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo Newsgroups: sci.space keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes: > > All in all, I'm not certain that the single goal/prize of staying on the > moon for a year is wise and/or useful. How about: A prize for the > first > non-government sponsered unmanned moon landing, then another for a > manned > moon landing, then yet another for a system to extract consumables from > lunar soil, another for a reusable earth/moon shuttle, and so forth. > Find > some way to build civilian moonbase infrastructure... Having a single > goal > might result in a bunch of contestents giving up after one person > appeared > to win. And for those that didn't give up, I find something a little > scary > about a half dozen people huddling in rickety little moon shelters. I'd > like to see as much a reward for co-operation as for competition. > > Lastly, about ten or fifteen years back I seem to recall that there was > an > English space magazine that had an on-going discussion about moonbases > on > the cheap. I recalled it discussed things like how much heat the human > body produced, how much lunar material it'd need for protection from > solar > flares, etc. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of this magazine. > Does this ring a bell to anyone? > > Craig Keithley |"I don't remember, I don't recall, > Apple Computer, Inc. |I got no memory of anything at all" > keithley@apple.com |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980) > I love the idea of progressive developmental prizes, but the assumption has been all along that only the U.S. Gummint could fund the prizes. It wouldn't and couldn't do such a thing ... BUT ... An eccentric billionaire COULD offer such a prize or series of prizes. Anyone know H. Ross Perot or Bill Gates personally? John G. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 486 ------------------------------