Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_5/V9_582.TXT

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

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/4YqalQG00UkV82rk4E>;
          Sat,  5 Aug 89 00:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  5 Aug 89 00:25:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #582

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 582

Today's Topics:
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
           The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.
         Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.
   Russian Mars probe (was Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.)
           Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
 Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial
              Martian enigmas...
Re: Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
           Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
           Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
        Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
           Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
          Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 89 04:33:27 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>I just frankly think the other stuff, the "our generation is GOING"
>horse****, is just another regrettable 70's artifact of overenthusiasm,
>like Rolfing and est.  Columbus's generation didn't "GO" either, in
>numbers any more significant than our space specialists have gone.  That
>analogy is fairly flawed so I won't push it.  :-)

Maybe it depends what you mean by "our generation".  Armstrong's
generation may not go, but then Armstrong was 39 when Apollo 11 landed
-- I was 3.  I would guess the readership of newsgroups spans a number
of generations.

(Rolfing and est, what's that? -- Anything like golfing and ESP? :-)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 17:56:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.


        The most likely explanation for the failure of PHOBOS 2 a few
    months back was a technical problem - the Soviets are roughly ten
    years behind the United States in space technology.  PHOBOS 2 had
    to make some special images of Mars' largest moon, Phobos, in
    preparation for landing some instrument probes on its surface.
    There was no separate scan platform for the cameras, so the entire
    craft had to turn away towards Phobos, then re-aim its communications
    antenna back to Earth to transmit the data.

        Well, PHOBOS 2 did turn to image the moon as planned, but it did
    not turn back properly.  Some faint signals were picked up two hours
    after the probe was apparently lost, but Soviet controllers could not
    keep the link, and PHOBOS 2 is now lost for good.

        There was a photo of an undefined object in one of the images
    PHOBOS 2 took, and it is believed to be jettisoned propulsion rockets
    PHOBOS 2 used to brake into Mars orbit.  It may have hit the probe,
    but a technical error with the craft itself is believed to have
    been the problem.  The Soviet engineers were reported to prefer
    the collision explanation, rather than admit to defects in their
    own technology.

        I know this isn't nearly exciting as the idea of an ancient
    civilization on Mars zapping our space probes so as not to detect
    their presence (Gee, then why didn't VIKING 1 and 2 get fried, or
    all those other successful Mars probes?), but human error is
    usually the most likely culprit.  If you've ever studied the
    history of the Soviet Mars program, you will find that in roughly
    twenty launch attempts, only *one* probe, MARS 5, has ever been
    fully successful.

        And you should also be aware that the press loves a sensational
    story, and tends to print first and ask the pertinent questions
    later, if at all.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]

             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 23:18:13 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: The Soviet PHOBOS 2 Mars probe.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes:
}    months back was a technical problem - the Soviets are roughly ten
}    years behind the United States in space technology.  PHOBOS 2 had

Of course, they're about ten years ahead in routine, frequent, short-lead-time
access to space....  Comes from not throwing away the current generation of
launchers before the next generation has proven itself (or is even built....).
When you've used the same booster over a thousand times, you know just how it
will behave, and don't have to bring everything to a screeching halt after a
malfunction in order to determine whether it's a design flaw.
--
{backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf   ARPA: [e-mail]   FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA   AT&Tnet: [phone] (school)   FAX: ask
DISCLAIMER? | [on the next instruc after a disk head seek to track 1,000,000]
What's that?| "You have to do a CALL(service repair person)" -- Fred Schneider

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 03:46:08 GMT
From: cs.dal.ca![e-mail]  (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane)
Subject: Russian Mars probe (was Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.)

I caught a bit on the CBC news a few weeks ago about a recent U.S.S.R. probe
to Mars - sorry I don't remember the name.  Apparently the probe suddenly
went dead as it entered the planet's orbit.  According to the news piece,
the Russians have been very closed mouthed about what happened to the probe
but have made comments about something "extaordinary" which "shouldn't have
been there".  They have refused to release the final pictures taken by the
craft which apparently sparked these comments but were planning to show
them at an upcoming scientific conference.  There was no mention of this
being evidence of life on Mars or of alien life but that seemed to be the
suggestion of the piece.

Does anyone have any details or further knowledge about this?

PS. I don't normally read these groups so sorry if this has already been
    discussed and sorry about the cross-posting.

--
John Wright      //////////////////     Phone:  [phone]  or  902-424-6527
Post: c/o Dr Pat Lane, Biology Dept, Dalhousie U, Halifax N.S., CANADA B3H-4H8
Cdn/Eannet:[e-mail]  Uucp:[e-mail] or {uunet watmath}!dalcs!lane
Arpa:[e-mail]  Internet:[e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 13:35:08 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!sunic!tessan![e-mail]  (Patrik Andreasen)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy)

But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and
there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money.

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 16:35:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: space news from June 19 AW&ST, and Apollo-anniversary editorial

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>(Answer:  abandoned and forgotten.)  For that matter, Galileo has been
>almost-ready-to-fly for a decade now -- where is *its* followup?  (Answer:
>there isn't one.)

    How can you design a followup to a mission that hasn't flown yet?
It would be silly to build something else and launch it before Galileo
tells us the next questions to ask.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

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

Date:     Mon, 24 Jul 89 11:23 EST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Martian enigmas...

I'm new to this list.  My question is...Has there been any discussion
of the Martian "enigmas" photographed by Viking and Mariner?

I have recently read a book "The Monuments of Mars - A City On the
Edge of Forever" by Richard C. Hoagland.  While the subject of this
book may seem rather outlandish, the author does present some interesting
points.  Hoagland speculates about the origin of the so-called "face"
as well as the "pyramids" and "city", primarily in the area called
"Cydonia".

I am non-committal in my own views about these "enigmas".  I have heard
several opinions from those at this lab (IU Cyclotron Facility), and from
one astronomy professor at Indiana University.

The impression I get is that the subject interests them but they talk
about it in such a way that they appear detached from it.  Understandably
so.

Has there been any serious study of these "enigmas" by organizations whose
reputations are not questioned by most of the scientific community?

Finally, is anyone else on this list interested in this aspect of Mars?


Thanks in advance...GRAHAM@IUCF

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 13:54:00 GMT
From: apollo![e-mail]  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Science observations selected for NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
[...much about the Hubble Space Telescope...]
>     The HST is such a powerful, new resource for optical
>astronomy, that observing time was heavily oversubscribed.
>During the first 12-month observing cycle, 11,000 hours of
>observing time were requested, with only 1200 hours available.
>The average length of an accepted observation is 10 hours.

Time for a naive question.  Does this 12-month observing period include
the 7 months' worth of checkout time?  If not, why on (or off :-) Earth
are there only 1200 hours of observation time available?  Is this the
time that has been allotted for such use, or total available time?  If
the latter, why only 50 days' worth?  (Hey, I *said* it was naive!)

--
>>> "Aaiiyeeeee!  Death from above!" <<<  | Steve Rehrauer
    Fone: [phone] x6168             | Apollo Computer, a
    ARPA: [e-mail]             | division of Hewlett-Packard
"Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'.  Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 16:24:55 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes, referring to small, high-performance jet aircraft:

>If a private market in such things were allowed, we wouldn't have to buy
>things designed by the government.

Then buy a BD-5J.  There isn't one cent of government money in BD-5Js.

Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft
does exist, why is this market _so_ small?  Why is there essentially
only one entry in the market?  Maybe the market has decided that this
isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources?

I am, of course, assuming that the market is rational.  Since this is
apparently also your assumption, I don't think we're very far off.

I think that, to some extent, the same argument applies to the market
and private space efforts.

I'd like to point out that I'm part of the aeronautical side of NASA
and not connected to the space portion except as a tax payer and
interested bystander.  But we have a joke that the first A in NASA is
6 point and the S is 36 point.


--

M F Shafer                          [e-mail]
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 19:06:39 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft
>>does exist, why is this market _so_ small?

>Price.

Exactly.  This is precisely what I've been saying.

>>Why is there essentially only one entry in the market?

>There are more than one. I know of people who own F-86's. A company in
>Addison Tx. has imported some Alpha jets which it sells (for about 2M
>each). A company in CA inports MIG-19's from China and is attempting to
>get permission to import MIG-21's. The Alpha and Mig-21 will do better
>than mach 1.

>Finally, although not jets, there are a lot of WWII fighters out there.

Yes, but these are _all_ government-funded.  Some of the members of this
discussion keep saying that the government is bad, that nothing produced
for the government is any good, and that free enterprise is the answer.
I was pointing out that the free-enterprise "fighter" was a dismal failure,
contrary to the arguments of the free-enterprise-only enthusiasts.

>>Maybe the market has decided that this
>>isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources?

>The great thing about a free market it that it isn't monolithic. There
>is nobody allocating resources.

"The market" is a term for all the businesses and consumers (real and
potential) of a product.  Thus I was saying that if this were such a
great business opportunity, some capitalist would be out there building
"fighters" and making a lot of money.  Since that isn't happening, maybe
this isn't a great business opportunity. So the market isn't allocating
resources to it.

This assumes, of course, that there is no external effect, such as
legal prohibition, on the market.

Back to Econ 1A!  :-)

--

M F Shafer                          [e-mail]
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 13:25:28 GMT
From: indri!caesar!blake![e-mail]  (Siobahn Morgan)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J.A. Fegan) writes:
>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (James P. Galasyn):
>>
>>  Now, I wouldn't want to be living next to any blue-white giants like
>>  Sirius, but maybe somebody can.
>
>
>ok so what's wrong with living next to a blue-white giant?
>
Plenty!  The major drawback is the short Main Sequence Lifetime (when
it is stable, burning hydrogen into helium).  For the sun, the MS life
is estimated to be 10 billion years.  For blue-white (very hot) stars
like Sirius, the lifetime is closer to Millions of years, hardly
enough time to get any serious evolution started.

Also due to the higher temperature, the star would be producing more
light in all wavelengths, but most of it would be in the Ultra-Violet,
not good for life as we know it, but who can tell what little bug-eyed
monsters might enjoy?

Siobahn (Shabang) Morgan
[e-mail]

"Yes,...No,...Yes,...No,...." - response to a single question by long
                                suffering faculty member.

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 18:48:46 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrik Andreasen) writes:

>(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy)

>But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and
>there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money.

One.  The other two were destroyed in crashes--one in Canada, one in
Korea (I think)--during flight demonstrations.  Probably G-LOC, maybe
the T-38/F-5 inverted pitch hang-up.
--

M F Shafer                          [e-mail]
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 24 Jul 89 21:33:46 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Richmond) writes:
>
>I realize that you lose a lot
>of observing time being in LEO, and that it really needs to be
>there, but ...

Why does it really need to be LEO?  Why not put it in a higher orbit?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #582
*******************