Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_321.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/po3.andrew.cmu.edu.3019.0.0>;
          Thu, 11 Aug 88 10:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.23015543.38129>;
          Thu, 11 Aug 88 04:05:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00292> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 11 Aug 88 04:04:35 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05342; Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT
    id AA05342; Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #321

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 321

Today's Topics:
               Re: 20-year anniversary
        Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft
            Cheap way out of the galaxy!?
                Re: Satellites
        Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred
      Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells)
         Re: Automated vs. personned spacecr
               Space Shuttle fuel leaks
        Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft
           Large Amateur Telescope project
        Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft
               Re: 20-year anniversary
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 88 21:39:06 GMT
From: silver![e-mail]  (kannan)
Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes:
<Next year will be the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 and I'm sure that
<everyone would like to celebrate it.  It never hurts to be prepared in
<advance, so lets start to kick ideas around.

<My idea is that they launch Discovery on or before July 20, 1989, even
<if its faucets do leak.  Any others?

Anniversary or no anniverrsary, launch Discovery only when Crippen
is absolutely sure that there is nothing wrong and the Challenger
tragedy should not as far as it is humanly possible be repeated. If
there were no human lives at stake, go ahead and launch it but since
it is a manned mission all precautions have to be taken.


>Dan Tilque    --    [e-mail]

Kannan
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Aug 88 20:46:00 GMT
From: linus!necntc!primerd!hobbiton![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft


[Lines, lines everywhere and not a bit to eat...]

On ships with human brains for pilots...
>A gold mine here for SF authors -- have they worked it yet?
>(Really, I'd like titles and authors for my own enjoyment.)

Try _The Ship who Sang_ by Anne McCaffery.  Very nice book dealing with
the subject.

===============================================================================
Burton Choinski                                             Prime Computer Inc.
   At: [e-mail]                            Framingham, Ma.  01701

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

Date: 4 Aug 88 00:13:32 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Tat Lim)
Subject: Cheap way out of the galaxy!?

Seen in Aviation Week & Space Technology, 7/25/88, page 51:

    "During one-sixth of a polar orbit, a satellite is exposed to
     intergalactic space."

--
Kian-Tat Lim
[e-mail], [e-mail], GEnie: K.LIM1

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

Date: 3 Aug 88 20:39:51 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Satellites

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nitin R Kulkarni) writes:
>
>     1. How many satellites has the US and the USSR launched into
>        deep space ?
>     2. Their probable location in our solar system as of today.
>     3. The dates when they were launched.

Do you count solar orbit as deep space?  If that's OK, then:
All the following are solar orbiting, unless otherwise noted.
The box scores are as follows:

    USSR    19
    US    16
    Japan    2
        ESA      1
    __________
        38

The data I've got only goes through 1987, but the '88
efforts are recent history.  The full list follows...


Pioneer 4    3/3/59     US    solar orbit
Pioneer 5    3/11/60  US      "     "
Venera 1    2/12/61     USSR
Ranger 3    1/26/62  US    (missed moon...)
Ranger 5    10/18/62 US    (missed moon...)
Mars 1        11/1/62  USSR    (lost earth lock 65.9M miles)
Mariner 3    11/5/64  US
Mariner 4    11/28/64 US
Zond 2        11/30/64 USSR    (Mars probe)
Luna 6        6/8/65     USSR    (Lunar soft lander missed moon)
Venera 2    11/12/65 USSR    (passed Venus, no data)
Pioneer 6    12/16/65 US    (still returning good data)
Pioneer 7    8/16/66  US    (still active)
Pioneer 8    12/13/67 US    (still active)
Mars 4        7/21/73  USSR    (missed Mars orbit)
Mars 5        7/25/73  USSR    (orbiting Mars)
Mars 6        8/5/73   USSR    (Mars lander failed)
Mars 7        7/21/73  USSR    (Mars lander failed)
Venera 9    6/8/75     USSR    (orbiting Venus)
Venera 10    6/14/75     USSR    (orbiting Venus)
Viking 1    8/2075     US    (orbiting Mars {except lander})
Viking 2    10/9/75  US    (   ditto  )
Helios 2    1/15/76  US
Voyager 2    8/20/77  US    (solar system escape, en route Neptune)
Voyager 1    9/5/77   US    (likely solar system escapee)
Pioneer 12    5/20/78  US    (orbiter portion orbiting Venus)
Pioneer 13    8/8/78   US    (5 payloads hit Venus, rest solar)
Venera 11    9/9/78     USSR    (all but lander in solar orbit)
Venera 12    9/14/78     USSR   (   ditto )
Venera 13    10/30/81 USSR    (   ditto )
Venera 14    11/4/81  USSR   (   ditto )
Venera 15    6/2/83     USSR   (   ditto )
Venera 16       6/7/83   USSR    (   and again )
Vega 1        12/15/84 USSR   (Venus/Halley mission)
Vega 2        12/21/84 USSR    (       "         )
Sakigake    1/7/85     Japan  ( Halley mission)
Giotto        2/7/85     ESA    (       "       )
Suisei        9/18/85  Japan  (       "       )

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

Date: 3 Aug 88 17:55:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Ritchey Ruff)
Subject: Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Yngve Larsson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Gregor) writes:
>>>space station "Freedom".
>>                ^^^ ^
>Well, coincindence of coincidences; The strange fact is that "Fred" is the
>Swedish word for "Peace". How nice of you to (sort of) honor Mir in this
>way.. :-)

And I thought the space station was named after someone named "Fred Om"
and it was just that Ronnie couldn't spell...

yea, yea...space station "Fred Om", or "Fred" for short...

--ritchey ruff    [e-mail] -or- ...!tektronix!orstcs!ruffwork
ps-John G, say hi to john S...

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

Date: 4 Aug 88 04:36:23 GMT
From: silver![e-mail]  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
writes:
>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz.
>
>This, of course, makes power supplies efficient (since, in essence,
>they're giving you the front half of a switching power supply), [. . .]

    Isn't this going to cause considerable inefficiency of power
transmission due to radiative losses, which go up with increasing frequency (I
don't remember the exact relation, but it's linear or worse)?

    Also, this is going to make it impossible to operate induction motors
(unless you want them to go VERY fast) without using electronic conversion of
the power to get the frequency down.

    (I said something about this before, but I think my posting got
hosed.)

    -- Lucius Chiaraviglio
       [e-mail]
       [e-mail]    (in case the first one doesn't work)

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

Date: 3 Aug 88 13:31:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecr


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will
Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:

>Hmmm... if those of us who
>get into this line of work write our contracts right, we'll probably end
>up owning the planet in a couple centuries, with compound interest on
>the back pay piling up while we're off to the stars...

Yep, the theory is fine - all you need is the technology.  I suspect this is
built on the "I've done all the difficult creative work, now you guys can
go and work on the details" management process.

However, I would be vastly surprised if a free-floating brain has any
legal rights like this.  Can a single human organ own a contract?  After
all, you wouldn't want to go in for your body amputation and then find
that the people running the program could wriggle out of their commitments.
You wouldn't even be able to storm into their offices, unless you're
considering developing the future of law enforcement.

            ... Bill

************************************************************************
Bill Witts, CS Dept.     *
UCL, London, Errrp       *       Don't believe everything you hear,
[e-mail](UK) *       or anything you say.
[e-mail](US) ***********************************************

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

Date: Thu 4 Aug 1988 13:27:56 EST
From: Harold Mueller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Shuttle fuel leaks

How do you find a leak in a hydrogen line?  Hydraulic fluid would be
easy to spot oozing out, but liquid hydrogen would vaporize.  I don't
suppose it would be such a great idea to traverse the line with a lit
match.

Harold Mueller <[e-mail]>
Bendix Field Engineering Corporation
c/o Code 5360
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375
[phone]/3356     AUTOVON 297-3240/3356

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

Date: 4 Aug 88 12:15:50 GMT
From: thorin!lhotse![e-mail]  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft

In article <45900001@hobbiton>, [e-mail] writes:
> On ships with human brains for pilots...
> >A gold mine here for SF authors -- have they worked it yet?
> >(Really, I'd like titles and authors for my own enjoyment.)
>
> Try _The Ship who Sang_ by Anne McCaffery.  Very nice book dealing with
> the subject.
>

Somebody had cat brains for pilots, quicker reflexes. (Actually,
working in tandem with human pilots, as I remember)

Jim

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

Date: 4 Aug 88 00:16:40 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc![e-mail]  (Jack Zeiders)
Subject: Large Amateur Telescope project




                 Large Amateur Telescope


    A group of Northern California amateur astronomers are getting
together to put a bid on a large piece of glass 70"dia. x 8" thk.
    We are basically the same group that built the 30" telescope
at the Fremont Peak Observatory. Now the opportunity has presented
itself to build a larger instrument, a 70".

    A 70" f4 or so Newtonian with a cass and Coude' focus. An altaz
fork is planned with computer control. Battleship technology is the
watchword for tube and fork design.

    The group is forming now and if you have strong interest in
contributing, let us know what you can help with.

    Right now we are looking for people willing to contribute cash
to finance the glass. We have about eight to ten who want to see this
scope become reality enough to contribute $1k each. We are looking for
other crazies who want to join us.  Most of us can't really afford to,
but we want this badly enough to put our money up.  We are not a rip-off
and this is not a scam.  We don't want cash in advance.  We are looking
for real people who can be relied on to help make a dream reality.

    We need about $25-30k to put a serious offer in for the glass.
Glass this size is not easy to come by, and this opportunity is too good
to pass up.

    The idea is that if we can get the glass, we can make the machines
and the mirror.  Once that is under way we can start on the tube and
mounting.  When the scope is well under way we will start looking for a
site and designing a building.  When you have something real to show
people will take your dream seriously.

    As the project matures we will need more crazies who may not have
monetary resources, but expertise in other areas.  But the people must be
active contributers not drones. I apologize if this offends anyone but
this is the way it must be.

    For further info contact:

    Kevin Medlock [phone]

    or me Jack Zeiders !hplabs!hpscdc!jackz
                        [phone] evenings to 10PM or leave msg.

    There are 13 of us as of 8-2-88


Standard disclaimers apply, If you have no interest or are offended please
disreguard this message.

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

Date: 4 Aug 88 13:57:07 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft


All this disgusting, hard-to-support, short-lived ORGANICS!  YECH!

Lets move the MIND to the space craft, not the brain.

You are welcome, A. C. Clarke.

AI guys, go to it.  Not just an "intelligence", but MINE!

(maybe with a few callable subroutines.....)


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
[e-mail] 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

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

Date: 5 Aug 88 00:23:31 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog![e-mail]  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;)
Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James E. Conley) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes:
>><Next year will be the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 and I'm sure that
>><everyone would like to celebrate it.  It never hurts to be prepared in
>><advance, so lets start to kick ideas around.
>>
>><My idea is that they launch Discovery on or before July 20, 1989, even
>><if its faucets do leak.  Any others?
>
>I would hope that NASA would cancel the launch if there we any unreasonable
                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>possibility of failure.  Last thing we need to be remindered is how twenty
>years ago we would put men on the moon, and now all we can do is scatter
>them over the Atlantic Ocean.

Perhaps you mean "reasonable".  But then since you seem to agree with
the current NASA administration, perhaps you do mean "unreasonable".
This is not a flame just at you, there were several others who expressed
similar sentiments.

My purpose in posting the original article was two-fold.  One was that
it's now a good time to start thinking about a 20-year celebration.  I
think it's unfortunate that we don't have some major new project ready
to go (or already underway) at that time.  (How many of you would have
predicted the current state of the U.S. space effort 20 years ago?)

My other purpose was to indicate that at the rate the Discovery testing
is going, they won't launch before the end of the century.  Every day I
open the newspaper and read about a new leak setting the launch back
another week or so.  It seems like NASA is trying for a Perfect launch;
something which anyone with common sense will tell you is virtually
impossible.  After all, there's always the "unreasonable" possibility of
it being hit by a meteor on its way up.

Anyway, many of the delays are caused by things which would not have
caused delays in pre-Challenger launches.  I'm not saying that they
should ignore every one of them, but their hyper-cautiousness is
becoming ridiculous.


---
Dan Tilque    --    [e-mail]

P.S. It occurred to me after I wrote this that maybe there's an SDI test
scheduled next July.  Then we could claim that the test is our
celebration.  I can't think of anything more reflective of our current
space effort than to blow up a satellite.

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #321
*******************