Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_251.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.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/oY0Ffly00UkZQ70U5f>;
          Tue, 21 Feb 89 03:16:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 03:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #251

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
             Re: NSS and space settlement
        TLM (What kind of modulation is this?)
            Re: Energia questions
              Re: 1992 moon base
               Re: Mars video animation
               Re: the un/manned debate
             Re: Space Resources
             Re: NASA planetary footage?
           French small space shuttle: A go ahead !
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 89 14:27:33 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

[A long discussion, with which I totally disagree, of why we should not invest
in manned space travel in the immediate future]

>     It is interesting to note the curious mental attitude of
>     scientists working on "hopeless" subjects.  Contrary to what
>     one might at first suspect, they are all buoyed up by
>     irrepressible optimism.  I believe there is a simple explanation
>     for this.  Anyone without such optimism simply leaves the field
>     and takes up some other line of work.  Only the optimists remain.
>     So one has the curious phenomenon that workers in subjects in which
>     the prize is big but the prospects of success very small always
>     appear very optimistic.  And this in spite of the fact that, although
>     plenty appears to be going on, they never seem to get appreciably
>     nearer their goal.
>
>         Francis Crick, "What Mad Pursuit"

This is both correct and incorrect.  I work in mathematical statistics.
When one considers the amount of time needed to prove the results I announce,
this may be as small as 1% of the time I spend getting them, and I am
considered to be rather good at this.  Is the rest of the time wasted?
No; I may have no idea at the beginning of my investigation as to how
to proceed.  I have often proved things in the process of which I would have
been dubious about their existence, if I had thought of it before the research.
Many of these are "obvious" later.

Many scientific discoveries are the culmination of much apparently fruitless
research and seeming to get nowhere.  And much of the research is actually
fruitless; this is the nature of research.  Much of the time the prize is
totally different from that sought.  Quantum theory, the existence of isotopes,
relativity, biological antibiotics, and nuclear fission are all examples of
big prizes which were not found by looking for them.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

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

Date: 16 Feb 89 15:23:06 GMT
From: romeo![e-mail]  (Bob Currier - DCAC Network Comm. Specialist)
Subject: TLM (What kind of modulation is this?)



On page 59 of the March 1989 issue of Popular Communications there is a
sidebar that lists Russian satellite frequencies, along with the
types of modulations used. I know what FSK, SSB,WBFM, NBFM etc etc
are, but I have never heard of TLM. Can somebody help me out here?

If anybody knows what it is, then the *next* question is: what type
of receiver do I need to pick it up?  (Yeah, yeah, I KNOW, a TLM rig :-) )


Thanks,

Bob Currier
Network Communications
Duke University
Durham, N.C

[e-mail]       [e-mail]
==============================================================================

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

Date: 16 Feb 89 23:09:48 GMT
From: asuvax!enuxha![e-mail]  (Norman C. Kluksdahl)
Subject: Re: Energia questions

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
> How close does it come to being able to
> go into LEO?  Could it do so if it jettisoned the engines and just
> send the shell into orbit?  If so, how come the Russkies haven't built
> an orbiting facility this way?
>
Have some patience.  Why haven't they done it yet?  After only 2 (count 'em,
2) launches of the Energia, they haven't had a chance to do that yet!  Heavy
emphasis on the yet.  Look at their achievements in the past couple of
years.  A new launch vehicle--Energia.  100,000+ kg to LEO.  Launched
Buran on the second launch of the core.  Mir is in orbit, and will soon
be expanded.  They have automatically docked Progress vehicles for many
years now to re-supply their Salyuts (and now Mir).  The first flight of
Buran was unmanned, and totally ground controlled.

In short, give them time.  They WILL use Energia to launch a major orbiting
space facility.  (While the last of our Saturn V's lie rotting on their
sides as tourist attractions.  Sigh.)

Norman C. Kluksdahl            Arizona State U.
        ..noao!ncar!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied

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

Date: 16 Feb 89 18:36:18 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chad Fogg) writes:
>I understand that there are a few enclosed and sealed off artificial
>habitat experiments where simulated patches of greenery and hydro-
>ponics reside. I've heard of one in the SW US that is in operation.
>
>I've also seen photographs of a dome at the South Pole station. Is this
>part of the study?
>
I assume you are refering to the geodesic structure - that IS the South Pole station!
Well, the above ground part of it, anyway.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  |  att!groucho!sw, [e-mail]
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 02:55:39 GMT
From: tektronix!tekecs![e-mail]  (-for inetd server command)
Subject: Re: Mars video animation

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Cain) writes:
>The other morning while at work I saw a video of a computer animation that
>was done at JPL. If anyone missed it, you missed truly some of the best
>computer animations ever rendered out to video. My question is to anyone at
>JPL, is that available for distribution or was it just something for internal
>use and press footage only, or is there a lot more than the 2:00 minutes I saw
>then.

This probably wasn't the same video, but at the Pacific Northwest Computer
Graphics Conference here in Portland, a NASA video was shown which described
the Mars sample-return mission.  The graphics were excellent, but it had
an interesting effect on the audience.  There were about a dozen little
devices that one by one were deployed from the spacecraft, kind of like the
old box-in-a-box-in-a-box-in-a-box novelty.  By the end of the video,
the audience was almost howling with laughter.  When the final Earth re-entry
vehicle appearred, I could barely even hear the soundtrack.  The video was
done in a very serious vein, but somehow the roomful of computer hacks
thought it was quite hilarious.

Kendall Auel                   ^ ^
                      /O O\
Tektronix, Inc.                  | V |
Information Display Group        /  """  \
Interactive Technologies Division    / """"" \
([e-mail])         /|\ /|\

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 04:47:15 GMT
From: right![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Kirby) writes:
>
>I have just about enough of this manned/unmanned thing.  I think
>we all understand fairly well that both are needed.

Some *misunderstand* this, and then go further to declare that because
manned spaceflight is more expensive, it should get more funding!  Manned
spacelflight at the present time serves only to take resources away from true
science and discovery, delaying the era when valuable, widespread manned
presence in space can be achieved.  Manned spaceflight activists, by
demanding the bulk of the resources, are destroying the space program for
us all.

> Both the manned and unmanned programs provide results (both tangible and
> intangible).

Unmanned provides *all* the private-sector benefits of space, and the
overwhelming bulk of the scientific benefits, despite being shafted when
it comes to public funding.  Unmanned also provides greater intangible
benefits, in the form of expanding our consciousness of the cosmos around
us, rather than being confined to Earth and Earth orbit.

>The scientific probe activists...  while your telling us the great
>virtues of 30 billion dollars worth [of probes] have you ever
>considered what we would do with all this information?
>where we would store it?

Ever heard of CD-ROM?   Photographs of all surfaces in the solar system
can fit in a small room; a few more database servers can hold other sorts
of data (gamma ray, IR, etc.)  Of course, we will be able to store and
retrieve more information yet, and will do so, but this is gravy.  Researchers
and the public should be able to access this data at negligible cost through
networks or distribution of CD's.

>Already we are on the verge of saturating nasa's NASCOM
>network.  with the HST and the other great observatory programs going into
>service, we will rapidly climb into the terabytes a year worth of
>information being transmitted from space to earth.  We need to be
>continously thinking about new technologies to retreive, store, and
>process this information.

Communications is more of a bottleneck than storage.  For example, Magellan
may give us a map of Venus with a few holes in it, because it cannot get enough
time on the Deep Space Network when Galileo is doing maneuvers in the same
part of the sky.  (This conflict is in turn the result of Shuttle hijinks,
but I won't go into that).  The remedy is to increase funding for the DSN
several times, and to increase funding for K-band and optical communications
research, with which we can greatly increase our bandwidth and sky coverage
at lower cost.  All these costs are negligible in relation to manned programs.

The processing bottleneck depends on how much processing we want to do; in
other words, how important the data is to scientists.  It is interesting
that this problem does not come up as often with manned missions:  such data
is often merely the side effect of multi-billion dollar missions done for
other reasons, and processing it does not produce anything of value.

We need to think about these bottlenecks, *and* we need to do something
about them.  JPL could sure use a lot of new image processing machinery.
JPL *invented* image processing, but you'd never know it from their current
level of funding.  NASCOM and DSN need new eqipment and better technology.
We need to distribute the results to more scientists who are funded to work
on them, as well as other interested members of the public.  All this
could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently
thrown at manned programs were available for the effort.

>How can nasa work against
>a tightening budget to keep it's programs active?

NASA's budget is not tightening.  It is being increased from $10 billion
to $13 billion next year.  Most of the new money will be wasted on the
Station and Shuttle.

>is there really
>a tangible market for private industry research and developement
>of space?

Huh?  We have had private industries in space since the 60's.  Communications
and remote sensing are thriving, despite being severely hampered by the
Shuttle program and other government interference.


Nick Szabo              [e-mail]

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

Date:    Thu, 16 Feb 89 13:28:42 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Space Resources
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"[e-mail]"

/> There is no reason those who make it to that time should *ever* have to die,

/I hope you're right, because dying is not something I want to be around
/for when it happens. ... At 47 years can expect anywhere from 2-4 decades
/of further existence if you avoid accidents, homicide, and disease.
/                                  ^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^
/Dan Mocsny

Not to mention SUICIDE or WAR! Especially when confronted with...

/    ...enough resources in the asteroid belt to construct an infra-structure
/    consisting of 40 trillion people with 40,000 trillion tons of supporting
/    structure, occupying aporx. 1 billion cubic km...
/    ...theoretically possible to convert the sun into a white dwarf,
/    which would extend the lifetime of SOL 1,115 times...
/    ...civilization consiting of 10(16) - 10(21) power humans on a surface
/    area equivalent to 1 billion earths...potential lifespan of at least
/    10 trillion years. All of this is possible within the solar system.
/                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
/ Paul Hughes

Not MY solar system!  Not if I can help it.  Perhaps Mr.Hughes and
Dr.Frankenstein will team up with the Immortals and the FTL freaks and
they will all live happily (!?) ever after in ANOTHER GALAXY.

However, thinking about the some of the physics of such a so-called
civilisation makes a good demonstration of the weakness of gravity.

Assume the aforesaid mass and volume are equally divided between L4 & L5,
so each society would mass about 2e19kg.  For reference, the Earth masses
6e24kg and the Moon 7e22kg.  A cube of 5e8 km**3 would have about 800km
to a side.  The gravitational constant is about 7e-11 m**3/(kg-s**2).
So the outermost parts of this thing would have an acceleration of
   G*M/r**2 = 7e-11*2e19/8e5**2 = 14e8/64e10 = 2e-3 m/s**3,
which is 2 tenths of a percent of the surface acceleration on the Earth.
Also, the escape velocity would be
   Sqrt(2*G*M/r) = Sqrt (28e8/8e5) = Sqrt(3400) = 58 m/s.
By contrast, the Earth's Ve is 11200 m/s and the Moon's is 2380 m/s.

----
"Pave Paradise,                |         Dale M. Greer
     put up a parking lot."        |   Center for Space Sciences
        -- Joni Mitchell    | University of Texas at Dallas
                    | UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::GREER

The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 11:15:34 SET
From: [e-mail]
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Re: NASA planetary footage?

This mailing refers to the question of
Jim Moskowitz, who is searching for planetary mission videos:
(SPACE Digest #231 from 4 Feb 89)

If you are not restricted to NASA missions, here is one source:
The Max-Planck-Institute for Aeronomy (which built the camera
on ESA's Giotto spacecraft to Halley's comet) sells video tapes
with a short (10 min approx) animation of the approach to Halley's
nucleus.
The sequence shows nicely how the black comet nucleus emerges
from the bright sunlit dust coma, how more and more features
on its surface show up as the probe approaches and, in the last
seconds, how the images degrade as the camera mirror gets
damaged in the cometary duststorm.
The tape can be ordered for all kinds of TV systems (VHS tape,
PAL, NTSC and Secam System or U-matic high/low key) and
comes for approx. 50 US-$ for private/academic use and
approx. 200 US-$ for public presentation use (VHS tapes).
For details you should contact
   Dr. H.U. Keller
   Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie
   Postfach 20
   D-3411 Katlenburg-Lindau
   Federal Republic of Germany
His EARN e-mail address is U0166@DGOGWDG5, on SPAN ECD1::LINMPI::KELLER

Personally I like the sequence very much, as I remember that night
here in the control centre. The images displayed on that night
were very cryptic due to the false colours used, but the
processed ones in "real colour" are much better.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are mine, not ESA's or mbp's.
            No guarantee, no liability.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Lutz Massonne, mbp Software&Systems GmbH   | Tel. [phone]
European Space Operations Centre               |
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5                            | ESC1325@BITNET
D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG                          |

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

Date: 17 Feb 89 14:07:08 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: French small space shuttle: A go ahead !

The French CNES (centre national d'etude spatial) managing the space
program of France has officially announced its technical and financial
support for the small space plane Hernes (20 tons) to be build.

Matra Espace and Aerospatiale are the two main contractors in charge.
The technical feasability studies are done and developement has begun.

Hermes will be lauched by Ariane 5, a heavy booster currently under
development. Its first flight is scheduled for 1996 that is in 7 years.

England strongly oppose it and will not take part of any of its finacial costs.
This shouldn't surprise anyone since Thatcher is still in power. Decadence ...

Germany has some plan and might be soon heavily involved. Hopefully this
will work and help us make Europe one step closer.

Jean-Marc Debaud.
Carnegie-Mellon
[e-mail]

*Beware ! Europe (beside England) is waking up !*

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #251
*******************