Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_267.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for [e-mail]
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/andrew.cmu.edu.2677.1.0>;
          Sun, 10 Jul 88 23:23:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA02660> for ota+space.digests; Sun, 10 Jul 88 23:22:00 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09530; Sun, 10 Jul 88 20:22:30 PDT
    id AA09530; Sun, 10 Jul 88 20:22:30 PDT
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 88 20:22:30 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #267

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 267

Today's Topics:
            space news from April 11 AW&ST
            Crisis in NASA funding
          Crew problems on Bulgarian/Soviet mission?
             Re: Nuclear Fantasma
             Re: Nuclear Fantasma
            Re: Book Review wanted
               Re: SPACE Digest V8 #244
            Re: Book Review wanted
             Re: Recycling Pershing-II's
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 11:43:04 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: space news from April 11 AW&ST

Because explosive-powered ejection seats of pretty dangerous
in the event of NO emergency. They can cause their own
emergancy.

For the first few flight of the shuttle, they included such
seats for the 2 pilots (the only passengers). They were
removed when the shuttle was deemed a little safer, and when
they started having more than just the 2 pilots. Not much
fun if the pilots eject and leave the passengers to enjoy
the remainder of the flight.

    danny

------------------------------

Reply-To: pnet01![e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 10:15:02 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Crisis in NASA funding

I just want to thank Don Doughty for posting the names and addresses
of key congressional leaders to contact about NASA funding in this
time of funding crisis.  They have my advice to squeeze NASA as hard
as they can as long as NASA remains intransigent toward its proper role
in American society.  I encourage others on the network to contact their
congressmen and let them know of this rare opportunity to give NASA some
incentive to reform.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 18:01:11 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Crew problems on Bulgarian/Soviet mission?

     An interesting development has occurred in the Soviet/Bulgarian space
mission planed for tomorrow (June 7th).  The Russians have stated that the
final crew choice would occur tonight (June 6th)!  Previously they had
stated that the prime crew would consists of Victor Savinyhk (commander with
75 days on Soyuz T4/Salyut 6 and 168 days on Soyuz T13/Salyut 7 in June '85
- the Salyut rescue mission),  Anatoly Stoyanov (rookie cosmonaut: Flight
engineer) and Alexander Alexandrov (Bulgarian - backup on Soyuz 33 - Apr. '79).
The backup crew was stated as Vladimir Lyakhov, Anatoloy Solovyev (rookie)
and Krasimir Stoyanov (Bulgarian rookie).  Now it looks like there may be
problems with the prime crew and they will decide who will fly the night before
the mission.  They have not stated the crew name during the past month, while
the actual primary and backup teams were presented to the press back in
December.  Another interesting point here, it has been stated that the Bulgarian
will probably do a space walk, the first by a non USA/USSR space traveler.
Finally it turns out that the Austrian mission for 1992 is not a guest
cosmonaut, but rather the first paying passenger for the Soviets.  The bill is
for $13 million, rather cheap by western standards since it includes the
training as well as the flight.
     Mean while the House and Senate committees are meeting this week to cut
about $500 million out of the space station budget.  At this rate Russian
space liners will be taking passengers to Soviet hotels in orbit before the
NASA station is built.  Does not any one in Congress listen?

                                                    Glenn Chapman
                                                    MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 88 19:46:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Paul A. Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Fantasma

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>    Consider this.  Using a bomb (of any type) to clear a landing site
>    might create a landing site, but destroys a large amount of scientific
>    data in the process.  (Every feature and rock on the surface of
>    Mars can be considered scientific data).  It is difficult to think
>    of any useful experiments that can be done in such an artifically
>    manipulated environment.

Enter the rovers.  Since by definition, nice flat areas are uninteresting,
we want to get away from the landing site anyway. The real question that
the sci folks had to answer was "can we get far enough away to do real
science", and the answer for the blast size was "yes".  The real problem
(arrghhh, n+1 times I've had to post this) is that a small blast really won't
pulverize the boulders that we'd have problems with.

>    On the other hand finding a way to avoid obstacles seems feasible
>    and would be itself a technological contribution.  Finding a way
>    to generate 1m resolution images of Mars (and doing so) would actually
>    be a valuable scientific investigation, in addition to supporting
>    a landing.

Um, we already have 1m resolution in three colors, and with some perspective
info.  Problem is, 1m is still a pretty big boulder; if you want to make
you lander survive 1m boulders, you can, but the weight penalty is hideous.
We've currently settled on a multipad doppler radar system.

>    In summary, a brute force approach might land a space craft.  A
>    more elegant approach could both land it, and generate considerable
>    side benefits, without destroying anything.

Turns out that the blast would provide us with tons of info on atmospherics
and seismics, especially after the penetrators land.

Like I said before, at this point, it's doubtful that we can get a blast that
will eliminate large boulders.  As long as that's the case, the political
realities of the situation doom the proposal.


As an aside, I note that one of the Summit items was "the peaceful use of
nuclear explosions in space".


--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX         | One Internet to rule them all,    -- Tome
Computer Systems Laboratory  | One Internet to find them;            of
Stanford University          | One Internet to bring them all,    Internet
->[e-mail]  | And in the Ether bind them.         Hacking

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 88 20:24:28 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Joe Beckenbach)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Fantasma

Hello folks!

Sorry to be late with this information:
    The latest numbers floating around at the Mars Observer Camera
project are 250 sq. meter minimum per pixel using the wide angle optics,
and 1.4 sq. meter per pixel using the narrow angle optics. Depending on
the number of observations of a possible landing site, and the response of
the optics to two features very close together, a site should be able to be
evaluated for rock greater than 4 meters across [3 raw pixels], and possibly
(through enhancement and multiple-view processing) down to 1.5m [one raw pixel].
I'm just barely starting on the MOC team, so please don't take this as
gospel truth. As soon as I learn more about the optics, especially the
resolution (from the test procedures to be designed and written), I'll try
to summarize.

    Now all we need is an orbit to draw the Observer closer.:-) I think that
these figures are for an orbit 450 km from the Martian surface-- I'll check
the whiteboard again in my (shared) office next week.

--

Joe Beckenbach    [e-mail]    Caltech 1-58, Pasadena CA 91125
Ground Support Environment, programmer        "This is space? Neat."
Mars Observer Camera Project        Caltech Planetary Sciences Division

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 88 21:45:58 GMT
From: grits![e-mail]  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: Book Review wanted

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (The Ag Major) writes:
> Has anyone read Stephen Hawking's new book?  I just saw it in our campus
> store (at a price a bit above my current available funds) and I am wondering
> about it's contents.  Specifically if it is written for the layman, the
> intelligent layman, or the intellectual.

I'm currently reading the book (i.e. Hawking's "A Brief History of Time").
It's quite readable by the intelligent layperson, but will not bore an
intellectual.  E=MC^2 is the only equation in the book.   I highly recommend
the book to anyone interested in Hawking or his work.

Doug Davey, Bellcore, bcr!ddavey
#include <stddisclaimer.h>

------------------------------

Sender: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com
Date: 6 Jun 88 05:44:51 PDT (Monday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #244
From: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com

In his 11 May 88 07:06:07 GMT Carl Paukstis writes:

>I believe that the "official" C-word is "Cocoa", although everybody I've
heard (US only) uses "Charlie".

You hear "Sugar" occasionally; "Foxtrot" is generally shortened to "Fox".<

The NATO phonetic alphabet, standardised both in the US and elsewhere, is:

Alfa
Bravo
Charlie
Delta
Echo
Foxtrot
Golf
Hotel
India
Juliet
Kilo
Lima
Mike
November
Oscar
Papa
Quebec
Romeo
Sierra
Tango
Uniform
Victor
Whiskey
X-ray
Yankee
Zulu

No modifications of these words are normally considered acceptable in
conventional radio practice (though this doesn't stop people from modifying
them). In UK licenced amateur practice any phonetics may be used provided that
they are not 'of a facetious or objectionable nature' - though the NATO set has
become standard among all but the 'Old Timers'.

Regards,

Chaz
G6UVO

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 88 00:52:28 GMT
From: pioneer![e-mail]  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Book Review wanted

Query: who read Hawking book?
Response 1: liked it

I've not read it, but it came up two weeks ago in a conversation with
a windsurfing partner (Bill Burke) who is writing the review for Physics
Today: he didn't like it, you can read his review shortly.  This means
I will have to pick it up.....  What's this doing in sci.space?
Needless to say Bill has his own cosmology book.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 88 15:41:16 GMT
From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Fred Baube):

> Another story, also by the same writer, describes the atmosphere
> at the Hercules, Inc. plant west of Salt Lake City, where Soviet
> inspectors will be stationed for the next 13 years.
>
> "'Russians are coming, Russians are coming' screamed a recent
> headline in the company magazine ..

I don't work for Herc, but my wife and a lot of friends of mine
work there. I saw the issue of the company magazine with this head
line and it describes the way the whole valley feels. Because of the
large number of defense contractors, military bases, and other high
tech and/or classified activities going on around here, SLC has been
an area that Soviet citizens have been barred from visiting.

Hercules is not the only company worried that the presence of the KGB
in SLC will have a chilling effect on their ability to get and keep
contracts. Hercules is just the only one that has to allow the KGB on
plant.

All Hercules employees are undergoing INF treaty training. Being
taught how to recognize an approach by a spy, where not to talk about
work while eating lunch, that sort of thing. One of the things they
mentioned was that one of the brain damaged Senators from the Pretty,
Great State of Utah, gave a list of all the companies doing classified
work in a thirthy mile radius of the Hercules inspection office to the
local papers, who published it. Thus saving the KGB 1 to 2 years of
effort. If he wasn't a Senator, he'd be doing time.

The combination of the KGB and the local zoining commision might be
enough to get Hercules to pack up and leave Utah, taking 4 thousand
jobs with them. The local zoining commision allowed people to build
houses across the street from a company that manufactures a few
million pounds of explosives a year, the county built a grade school
in the over pressure (read blast) zone of a large nitroglycerin plant.
All in viloation of a sixty year old agreement between Hercules and
the county. Now the county has refused permission to build the plant
needed by Hercules to fullfil its Delta 2 and Titan 4 solid motor
contracts. The zoning commission says the new facilies are not needed.
These aren't government cost+ contracts. Hercules has no reason to
build facilities it doesn't need for the contracts.

Would you buy a house across the street from a 10 foot barbed wire
fence  with "Danger Explosives" signs ever 30 feet or so posted on it?
Having done so would you feel you had the right to force that company
out of business because it might be a danger to you?

So what part of Texas is McGregor in anyway?

> Company officials are concerned that the Soviets .. will purloin
> company secrets .. and that the Pentagon will think twice about
> placing new orders at a plant where the Soviets can inspect much
> of what comes and goes thru the main gate.

They are going to have to build special roads on the Hercules plant to
allow Soviet inspectors to drive around and visually inspect all parts
of the plant that were used to build PII. That is an awful lot of road
and most of the plant.

> Their fears have been assuaged only partly by written orders from
> [Carlucci and others] barring such discrimination, and by an NSA
> pledge to make the company's internal communications network
> resistant to electronic eavesdropping."

Ah, so thats what the funny truck with all the antennas was! I picked
up my wife at work the other day and there was this  truck with
about a hundred antennas sticking out of it about a hundred yards from
the building she works in. I guessed it was NSA, I knew the KGB were
still barred from the area. I really would like to know how they are
going to make the microwave links between plants eavesdrop proof,
or on second thought, maybe I don't want to know that at all.

        Bob P.--
Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland
UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet
        I am solely responsible for what I say.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V8 #267
*******************