Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_067.TXT

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/AZ70d=i00VcJ830k4o>;
          Sat, 23 Sep 89 18:57:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 89 18:56:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #67

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
               Re: Pluto fly-by
             Re: Galileo Mission
      Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)
            Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.
         Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions
       Re: NASA Headline News for 09/12/89 (Forwarded)
             Re: Mars Mission ship design
          in search of chaotic astro-data...
      Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)
           Re: SpaceCause---request for info about
      Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)
             Re: Laser propulsion
              Alternate Voyager Missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 89 22:42:44 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pluto fly-by

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Sparks) writes:
>Does Pluto's orbit actually intersect Neptune's orbit? If so has any body ever
>done a computer simulation to see if and when they would ever collide?

They don't intersect when you look at them in 3D.  The idea that Pluto might
be an escaped moon of Neptune has been kicked around for a long time, but as
far as I know nobody's ever been able to figure out a way to get Pluto from
Neptune's orbit into its current orbit.
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 14:08:59 GMT
From: usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Galileo Mission

In article <25079aa2@ralf> [e-mail] writes:
:In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lee Mellinger) wrote:
: >In article <24fbc5fb@ralf> [e-mail] writes:
: >:In article <1050400001@cdp>, [e-mail] wrote:
: >There is 48 pounds, 24 in each of two RTG's that supply a total of
: >4200 Watts of electrical power.
:
:Thanks.  I guess Galileo will be broadcasting with a bit more than 21 watts of
:power.... (Voyager started with 400 or so watts from the RTGs)

I understand but haven't made a check to be certain, that Galilieo
will transmit at the same power (21 watts) as Voyager at X band.  That
is because, I also believe, that Galileo is using the dame transmitter
as Voyager.


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: 13 Sep 89 06:50:15 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>
>Second, DICTATING space goals may be the underlying problem.  If you
>proceed from the assumption that someone gets to make and enforce some
>*policy* about what's going to happen in space, then you are ultimately
>forced to re-invent NASA even if you started by abandoning it.  NASA
>is the avatar and logical culmination of "top-down" space exploration.
>You can scrub its little face and tug a frilly frock over its misshapen
>shoulders, but it'll always be a gummint agency.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that alternative goals need to be
governmental or coercive in nature.  In fact, I agree that
non-governmental, non-coercive means tend to be the most effective.

Still, your multinational corporation, entrepreneurial startup, or
non-profit organization still needs to *some* plan of action.  I'm
talking about goals as plans, not (necessarily) policy.

>A truly alternative approach would be to say, Nobody is deterred from
>doing anything they want in space, period.  USG will continue to
>underwrite basic research into materials and methods, but will not
>"explore space" per se except for JPL's unmanned probes.

Sounds like an reasonable policy.  Now what do you (generically
speaking) want to do in space?

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 15:05:04 GMT
From: bungia!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.

At least the Vice President is strongly pro-space. IF he did say that, I am
sure he has already been corrected. He seems to be an intelligent fellow who
has enough stage fright to make some truely remarkable gaffs on camera. On the
other hand, the news media hates his guts and has a history of mis-quoting and
fabricating speech fragments for others in office that they disagree with.

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 16:42:05 GMT
From: henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
:In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ( Avatar) writes:
:
:>The real reason that everyone in management
:>at KSC keeps spouting this lie is to keep a lid on the fact that they all
:>GOOFED when we went to STS, and that their fat-ass salaries chew up most of
:>the damn budget. No :-)'s here, check it out....
:
:I'm an engineer and not a great defender of management, but I _have_
:to point out that most NASA managers, particularly at the center
:level, make less than $100,000 per year.  Here at Dryden, more of the
:salary budget is spent on engineers' and technicians' salaries than on
:managers' salaries.

The same is true here at JPL, except that I would say much more.

:Among the other perks of government service are cabin class travel,
:early-1970's reimbursement rates for hotels, lowest-bidder airlines,
:obsolete infrastructure, drug testing, and abuse from a lot of
:assholes.

I'll second _all_ of that and add impossible parking to the list.

:Not even the incompetents work here for the money.  Or the perks.

:Mary Shafer   [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer


Lee

"I'm the NRA"

|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: 13 Sep 89 07:46:10 GMT
From: mcsun!sunic!chalmers!mathrt0.math.chalmers.se!milou![e-mail]  (Bertil Jonell)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 09/12/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Meanwhile, Associated Press says anti-nuclear protesters may
>picket NASA Headquarters in Washington today calling for a halt
>to the Galileo launch aboard the space shuttle next month.  The
>spacecraft carries two radioisotope thermonuclear generators
>necessary to provide electrical power during the mission to
>Jupiter.
How about powering Galileo with a anti-nuke protester
in a treadmill? :-)
Bertil K K Jonell @ Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
NET: [e-mail]
VOICE: [phone] / [phone]     "Don`t worry,I`ve got Pilot-7"
SNAILMAIL: Box 154,S-43900 Onsala,SWEDEN      (Famous last words)

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 20:08:52 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin Bagley) writes:
> 7)     Clean up all the Mars dust out of Freedom, and get it ready for
>        the next trip. Meanwhile, it can still be used as a space station.

I would favor a new design of special adsorptive filter to collect the
Mars dust immediately rather than cleaning it up afterwards.

The name for this, of course, would be: Freedom Maxi-Pad.

--
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)    Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.        (\    [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Sep 89 20:25:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!puma![e-mail]
Subject: in search of chaotic astro-data...



Greetings astronomers/astrophysicists:

    I am a graduate student doing my thesis research on chaotic time
series (methods for reconstructing underlying dynamics, etc.)  In the last
couple years, we here at the Center for Complex Systems Research (CCSR) have
been developing tools to analysize such data.  In the past, I have examined
simulation data of globular star cluster evolution and experimental data of
a radio pulsar.  I'm now looking for other interesting systems to test my
methods on.

    So...here's the deal.  I muck around a bit with astrophysical data
but am no astrophysicist.  If you are a person with previously unexplained
time series measurements of some interesting system and are interested in a
little collaboration, give me a call.  Typically, we look at systems which
at first appear to be either random or quasi-periodic and try to find some
simple underlying structure.  (For those in the know, I'm talking about much
more than a little dimension calculation.)  We are interested in a cooperative
effort (we look at the choas and you supply the astro(nomy or physics)).  If
this sounds interested and you think you might have some candidate data, phone,
email, or write to:

    Joe Breeden
    CCSR / Beckmann Institute
    U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
    405 N. Mathews Ave.
    Urbana, IL  61801
    [phone]
    bitnet: 11173@ncsavmsa
    unix: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 16:00:44 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>It would be nice if the anti-NASA individuals on the net could put
>together a list of alternative space goals (public sector, private
>sector, or both) rather than just bashing NASA...

The obvious goal is to return to the scheme envisioned in NASA's charter:
NASA does R&D, private industry does operations.  That means no NASA-run
launchers and no NASA-run space station, and a lot more emphasis on new
technology and experimental (i.e. risky) systems.
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 19:20:07 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu![e-mail]  (Feulner ... Matthew Feulner)
Subject: Re: SpaceCause---request for info about

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Elijah Millgram) writes:
>
>I have started getting junk mail from an organization called
>SpaceCause.
>

Rest assured that this is a worthwhile organization.  How could it
not be with Telly Savalas on the board of Governors.  :-)

Matthew

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 13:26:34 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Still, your multinational corporation, entrepreneurial startup, or
>non-profit organization still needs to *some* plan of action.  I'm
>talking about goals as plans, not (necessarily) policy.

Yes, but that should be up to them, not us.  People with no profit
motive, sitting around and theorizing what *should* be done in space, is
what got us in the mess we're in today.

At any rate it's the wrong era for this sort of thing.  American
business is convinced that the way you make money is by shuffling paper
and selling out to foreigners, not by actually building anything.  Real
action will probably have to wait for the next century.
--
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)    Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.        (\    [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 16:06:47 GMT
From: iconsys!caeco!jose![e-mail]  (Jim)
Subject: Re: Laser propulsion

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (6079 Smith James) writes:
>
> If the laser is powerful enough to vaporize the rock, and well-aimed enough
> to be constantly pointed at the target, who needs the rock?  Unless the
> missile is so reflective that the laser can't scratch it ( is this possible?)
> it will be destroyed before the rock gets there.
>
> Then the rock falls on Washington, hopefully on the SDI headquarters.
> (sort of :-)

If a laser is powerful enough to destroy a missle... and if the missle was
reflective....  and if someone was looking up and some of the reflected
energy entered their eyes....  Would the energy (now more scattered, so
less intense) still have enough power or intensity to cause blindness?

Jim Hood

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 17:55:12 GMT
From: frooz!cfashap![e-mail]  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Alternate Voyager Missions

Several people have asked why Voyager wasn't sent to Pluto.  A quick
glance at a chart of planet positions reveals that Pluto is now roughly
30 degrees from Uranus and Neptune and is well out of the ecliptic.
Furthermore, it is west of those planets (as seen from Earth), i.e.
behind in its orbit.  Thus a flight that includes either Uranus or
Neptune cannot include Pluto without a LOT of extra propulsion.  (Right
now.  Ask again in 150 years or so.)  (Actually, maybe we should start
planning now so we can launch in 150 years. :-( )

A Jupiter-Saturn-Pluto mission was proposed as part of the Grand Tour,
but I don't think Voyager I had enough energy for that trajectory.
(And it certainly didn't with the actual launch, with the under-
performing Titan first stage.)  In any case, that trajectory would have
severely constrained the Saturn encounter.

Someone else asked about searching for new planets and wondered
specifically why Voyager 2 was sent out of the ecliptic.  The short
answer is that finding a new planet is considered a very low
probability.  (There's an awful lot of volume to search, and there may
not be a planet to be found.)  Consequently the Voyager trajectory was
optimized entirely for observations of the Neptune system.  That sent
Voyager out of the ecliptic.

A slightly longer answer is that Clyde Tombaugh searched most (not all)
of the ecliptic to rather faint limits and found no new outer planets.
That would suggest any new planets would be away from the ecliptic.  On
the other hand, massive planets in inclined orbits would, over time,
disrupt the neatly co-planar structure of the inner solar system, so
massive planets should be near the ecliptic most of the time.  Planets
with low masses could be anywhere, however.  The bottom line seems to
be that there is not any strongly preferred place to search, and one
Voyager trajectory is just as good as any other from that standpoint.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #67
*******************