Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_5/V9_555.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.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/EYnHnfu00UkVE2XE46>;
          Wed, 26 Jul 89 00:24:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 89 00:23:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #555

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 555

Today's Topics:
               Re: Space Goals
   Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.
               Apollo 11 mission events
            Re: Lagrangian Points
          Re: NASA funding is not transitive
                Freedom's logo
               Jonathan's Space Report
            Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)
             Station alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 12:48:53 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Space Goals

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach]) writes:
}        My two cents:  those in JFK's world saw the Moon as "impossibly far",
}but the goal of safely returning a man from the Moon's surface in under a
}decade was accomplished.  How about one of three projects which are "impossibly
}far and too soon" for the moment:
}[projects omitted]

What we *really* need is a D.D. Harriman....[1]
















[1]  Robert A. Heinlein, "The Man Who Sold the Moon"
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
            Disclaimer? I claimed something?
"When things start going your way, it's usually because you stopped going the
 wrong way down a one-way street."

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

Date: 11 Jul 89 19:43:16 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu![e-mail]  (Juan Chen)
Subject: Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
>
>        The Arts and Entertainment (A&E) Cable Network is rebroadcasting
>    the original NBC coverage of the APOLLO 11 mission to the Moon in
>    1969.  The dates and times are:
>
>    "Liftoff" - July 16, 9:20 AM - 11 AM
>    "Moonwalk" - July 20, 10:30 PM - 2 AM
>    "Splashdown" - July 24, 1:30 PM - 3 PM
>
>        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
>

  For the cableless, CBS will broadcast a special Thursday 13, July
during primetime. I think it starts at 2000hrs CDT over here,
but as they say...CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS...



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan G. Chen                            [e-mail]
University of Texas@Austin              (or grumpy, or doc, or happy...)
P.O. Box 8362
Austin, TX  78713
=======================================================================

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

Date: 10 Jul 89 15:26:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Apollo 11 mission events


Out of curiosity I looked up dates and times of some of the events
surrounding the Apollo 11 mission.  I think most everyone realizes the
20th anniversary of that mission is nearly upon us.  (Digression - I find
it a strange feeling to think that there is an entire generation out there
who have never, not once in their entire lives, looked up at the moon and
wondered if people will ever walk up there.  But then it occurs to me that
I wonder myself when people will ever walk up there *again* and know that
this youngest generation still has an opportunity to find this sense of
wonder I felt more than 20 years ago.)

Anyway, I picked up David Baker's "History of Manned Space Flight" and
determined the following dates and times of the listed events.  Times
are given as central daylight time (CDT), 5 hours behind UT, because
that's the time Mission Control in Houston was on and more importantly
because that's the time I was on.  The launch of course was in EDT (UT-4)
at Cape *Kennedy* and I think the splashdown was in Hawaiian standard
time zone, UT-10 hours, but I'm not certain.  As long as it's clear I've
converted them all to CDT.

69/07/16  08:32:00    liftoff from pad 39-A
69/07/16  08:43:49.3  earth orbit insertion
69/07/16  11:22:13.5  trans-lunar injection
69/07/18  22:11:55    equigravisphere
69/07/20  12:44:00    CSM/LM undocking in lunar orbit
69/07/20  15:17:39.9  LM touchdown on lunar surface
69/07/20  21:56:15    Neil Armstrong's "one small step for [a] man"
69/07/21  00:30       lunar surface excursion ended (time approximate)
69/07/21  12:54:00.8  LM ascent stage liftoff (They desecrated the flag!)
69/07/21  16:35       CSM/LM ascent stage docking
69/07/21  18:42       LM ascent stage jettisoned
69/07/21  23:55:42    trans-earth injection
69/07/24  11:21:19    CM/SM separation
69/07/24  11:50:35    CM splashdown
69/07/24  12:53       crew recovered (on USS Hornet)
69/07/24  14:57       CM recovered

CM: command module
SM: service module
CSM: command-service modules
LM: lunar module
--
Roger Noe                            [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
University of Illinois               40:06:39 N.  88:13:41 W.
Urbana, IL  61801  USA               [phone]

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

Date: 11 Jul 89 19:11:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Lagrangian Points

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chandrasekhara Sudhama) writes:
>...Would someone please explain
>(either on this network or in private email) the stability of the
>equilibrium points in the Earth - Moon system? That is, why are
>points #1 and #2 in stable equilibrium? If I remember right, they
>are 60 degrees ahead of and behind the moon in her path...

I think you have the numbering wrong; those are normally numbered 4 and 5,
with 1-3 the straight-line points.

I know of no intuitive explanation of why the "Trojan points" at 60 degrees
are stable.  It is a non-trivial mathematical result.

Even worse is an explanation of why the Trojan points are stable against
small perturbations, while the straight-line points are not.  Or of why
the Trojan points stop being stable against perturbations if the mass
of the primary is not at least N times that of the secondary (I forget
the value of N but I think it's something like 30).

As in other areas of celestial mechanics, there is just no substitute for
mathematics in this.
--
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jul 89 17:27:42 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>>...  The cuts Eric describes would result in a
>>$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is cancelled.
>    The other programs may not have anything to do with space,
>however.

I must reluctantly agree with Jonathan, even though I, too, think that
the Space Station as currently conceived is a waste.

NASA has no well-defined mission for the next century, other than place
holding in LEO at ruinous expense.  Whenever someone outside NASA
proposes an ambitious or exciting alternative, NASA seems to be on hand
at the hearings to testify against it and in favor of the station.

Recent testimony (taken during breaks between mass resignations as
career technocrats scrambled to catch the aerospace contractors' golden
revolving door before ethics legislation closed it) to the effect that
NASA would have to cancel the station if the budget is cut further, is a
classic in the "I'm taking my dolls and going home" genre.  It's also a
self indictment -- if NASA has boxed itself in to the point where
balancing the budget is a fatal blow, it has itself to blame.

The time has come to abolish NASA.  (It probably came in 1980, but
better late than never).  In the true 80's corporate raider spirit of
Gordon Gekko, we should spin it off into its components.

    * Aeronautical research - a strong, important and well managed
      program dating back to the 40's.  Retain present structure
      intact and rename National Aeronautics Research Authority
      (NARA).  Keep those high angle of attack planes flying!

    * Military space research - let the military do it.  No more
      polluting the national civilian space effort with secrecy
      and confused channels of authority as with the SDI and Keyhole
      work of recent years.  If USAF wants a Blue Shuttle let them
      build it out of their own fought-for budget.

    * Commercial launch services - let industry do it. This also
      includes on-orbit repair and servicing. Reagan got this
      started, busting a few shopkeepers' hearts in the organization
      in the process.  USG is not there to make money.

    * Space based industrial research - let industry and governments
      worldwide cooperate to do it.  The results could have clear
      benefit to many nations, but the scale of investment is too
      large to make single country or single company efforts feasible,
      and direct massive USG subsidy is dead wrong.

    * Scientific space research - now we're talking!  Reorganize
      the US effort under the National Space Exploration Agency (NSEA)
      with a specific set of goals for the next half century, as well
      as the responsibility to maintain ongoing efforts like the
      Great Observatories.  The emphasis on international cooperation
      would be heavy, as NSEA would interact with similar agencies in
      Europe, Asia and USSR.  The US Space Station would be cancelled
      outright, and NSEA would be directed to work jointly with Europe
      and Asia (and maybe USSR) to design and build an international
      platform by 2001.

Phone Tree Alert! (the sci.space equivalent of Attention K-Mart Shoppers!
<grin>)  Let's get the above passed right away.  Comments?
--
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\    Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\    uunet!bfmny0!tneff

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

Date: 11 Jul 89 17:20:23 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!basser![e-mail]  (James Ashton)
Subject: Freedom's logo

NASA selected the official logo for the space station Freedom on the
5th of May.  Here follows a PostScript rendition I worked out:

----------Cut Here----------
72 25.4 div dup scale    % in millimetres
55 150 translate    % roughly centred for A4

[1.0 0.0 0.55 1.0 0.0 0.0 ] concat    % slant the picture

/box    % fill a standard size box
 { 0 3 rlineto 6 0 rlineto 0 -3 rlineto closepath currentpoint fill } def

10 4 33        % six rows of four boxes
 { 0 exch moveto box
   moveto 7.5 0 rmoveto box
   moveto 29.5 0 rmoveto box
   moveto 7.5 0 rmoveto box pop pop
 } for

1.2 setlinewidth 0 setlinecap    % square ended lines coming up
14.5 21.5 moveto 6.5 0 rlineto stroke
36 21.5 moveto -6.5 0 rlineto stroke

2.4 setlinewidth 1 setlinecap    % round ended lines coming up
23.5 17 moveto 0 9 rlineto stroke
27 17 moveto 0 9 rlineto stroke

0 33 moveto 0 47 22 47 36 34 curveto    % two curved points
21 46 3.5 44 3.5 33 curveto fill
13.5 10 moveto 27 -3 50 -3 50 9 curveto
49 -2 26 -1 13.5 13 curveto fill

/Helvetica findfont 9.6 scalefont setfont    % should be Helvetica Narrow
2.5 45 moveto (FREEDOM) true charpath gsave fill grestore
0.18 setlinewidth 0 setlinejoin 1 setgray stroke % make the chars thinner

showpage
----------Cut Here----------

The rendition looks pretty close to the original to me.

                        James Ashton.

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

Date: 13 Jul 89 02:14:43 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report

[Truth in Advertising Dept: I have congratulated Jonathan via mail in
the past on his reports.  Now that he's back I want to do it publicly
so he can bask a little.]

If I could only archive one person's contributions to sci.space it
would be Jonathan McDowell's Space Reports.  No other posting summarizes
so much hard, international, factual and timely space information in
such a modest and unassuming manner.  Grateful as I am to Henry for
abstracting AvWeek (or as I was before I subcribed myself), Jonathan's
info has more vitally to do with the cutting edge of space.

So three cheers for Jonathan!  May his Reports continue, and if you
(dear reader) like them too, mail Jonathan and let him know.
--
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\    Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\    uunet!bfmny0!tneff

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

Date: 13 Jul 89 19:45:59 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Seldon) writes:
:In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
:>
:> Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they
:>found the SURVEYOR 3 probe on the lunar surface? I read a while back (in
:>a now-forgotten magazine) that they took the probe's camera off for "a
:>souvenir"...
:>
:
:  I know that they brought back several small pieces including the remote
:sampling arm. It was more than just a souvenir, they were examined to see
:what the effects of a long term stay on the moon were. Effects like
:micrometeriod impacts, radiation, cosmic rays, etc...
:
:                         [e-mail]

The scoop housing was presented to Dr. William Pickering on his retirement as
Director of JPL in 1976.  The scoop door is on display in the first
floor of the JPL administration building right next to a moon rock
(both have a video camera trained on them 24 hours a day).  My office
is about 100 feet from them, I pass by them several times every day.

Lee

"I'm the NRA"

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Jul 89 06:10:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Station alternatives

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>So, what are the appropriate alternatives?  Or should we refrain from
>offering any so that when the money is taken from NASA we can blame all
>future space program woes on the congress?

    What do "we" have to do with it, anyway?  If the appropriations
subcommittee were to listen to sci.space, they'd get at least as many
different opinions on what to do as there are posters.    A more
appropriate question is what *NASA* is putting forth as an alternative
to station (e.g., nothing).  This is perfectly understandable given
the territoriality of the NASA centers involved, albeit a bad idea.

    That aside, here are some things NASA should be doing whether or
not station is funded:

    Take over developing NASP as an *operational* research vehicle,
since DoD isn't willing to put the money in.  This would easily absorb
funding levels on the order of current station funding.  NASP is a
high-risk aeronautics research project with no commercial applications
at this time ("Orient Express", indeed), and is well suited to NASA's
(supposed) mission and abilities.  While we're at it, DoD should be
completely cut out of NASP and the secrecy level of the program
dramatically reduced.

    Pathfinder ought to be funded at levels far beyond the piddling
amount NASA is asking for.  CRAF and Cassini should be fully funded
and launched as soon as possible.  SSEC recommendations beyond this
should be turned into real missions quickly, particularly sample
return from small bodies.  The Mars rover/sample return should be
decoupled from any Soviet joint mission and flown.

    Throwing a few tens of millions at graduate scholarships in space
sciences, along with a major initiative to analyze the rotting
gigabits which noone has ever looked at, will provide the human
resources for a renewed planetary science program in the next century.

    It would be interesting to split the space science function of
NASA from the rest ala the Japanese model, though the concept of NSF
running it instead, as might well happen, is not a cheery one.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #555
*******************