Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_083.TXT

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

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/oZ8QPWS00VcJM6rk4U>;
          Thu, 28 Sep 89 03:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 03:22:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #83

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
           Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe --
            Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.
        Stop using "Economies of Scale for Launchers"
              Re: Saturn V & F-1
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
           Re: NASA forced to photo Cydonia
              Re: Saturn V & F-1
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
             Re: NASA missions/time table
 Atlas Centaur-68/FltSatCom prelaunch news conference set (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 89 22:20:12 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Wayne Hayes) writes:
>
>     As I said in a recent posting, I personnally have been convinced
> by the posters of sci.astro that the risk of contamination is negligible,
> and even that the chance of life there is also small.  But the philosophy
> is still strong:  don't mess with planet that may have life that we
> may screw up.  I'm still uneasy about it, but not as much as before.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 I agree with the philosophy that it is not our business to mess with
 the space (and life) out there without an adequate understanding of
 the long term consequences. Then in a more philosophical sense one need
 not be too much concerned about the birth and death of species. Nature
 is intelligent enough to deal with the follies of any space mission.


 Tomi

  We have found a strange footprint on the  shores of the unknown.
  We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account
  for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the
  creature that made the footprint. And Lo! it is our own.
                                                  Arthur Eddington

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

Date: 18 Sep 89 19:41:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe --


I might note that the assumptions as to the "lethality" of
Pu-238 RTGs are a holdover of the long discredited Goffman-Tamplin
"Hot Particle Theory".  The popular statement being that "... one
pound of Pu uniformly dispersed around the world would give everyone
lung cancer ...".  A little reasoning demonstrates that this cannot
be so.  During atomspheric nuclear testing each "gadget" set off
fissioned a small amount of its plutonium and vaporized the rest --
SEVERAL POUNDS PER BOMB dispersed into the stratosphere where it circled
the earth to eventually fall out.  In fact, estimates are that from
7 to 10 metric tonnes of Pu have been dispersed in this fashion.

Of course, weapons grade Pu differs markedly from the short-lived
Pu-238 in its radiation output; the point is that the hysteria about
RTG's is based more on myth than fact.


--paul hager         [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Sep 89 04:56:53 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekigm2![e-mail]  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.

Hi,

So what if Quayle said abhorant things about Mars.... if the folks that were
listening beleived it or didn't know any better what do we, the informed
really care about the matter.

If Qualye personifies those that elected him and truely doesn't know about
the current state of science and the citizen, then brazenly tells untruths
to the masses, whoes to know 'cept the press, and then only if one of 'us'
informs the press.

If on the other hand Qualye really is a sharp person who understands more
than we give him credit for, and a good politition to boot, personifies
a boof intentionally to hide underlying intelligence (easier to do that
than the obtuse) may have ocassion to say untruths to rally support for
a topic because he knows the audience very well... after all he did make
it to VP somehow. Said another way, the masses certainly do not understand
much less care about the problems of life on other planets and would rather
hear a Jules Verne or ERB version of reality than fact. If you think about
it, several major world wide events have succeeded because they were based
on emotion in lieu of fact.

TFYT  (Thanks for your time.... for those of you who don't know about TLA's).

--
Tim Margeson [phone]
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-022                          @@   'Who said that?'
Vancouver, WA. 98668
e-mail replies to: [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Sep 89 23:38:13 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!bruce![e-mail]  (Kam Hung Soh)
Subject: Stop using "Economies of Scale for Launchers"

I have just read the upteenth article titled "Economies of Scale
for Launchers" which is not about economics or mass production,
but technical discussion on rocket propulsion.  Can't writers use
a more appropriate title?  (Or am I being difficult?)

*************************************************
[e-mail]
--
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Sep 89 06:38:07 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!parsely!bucket![e-mail]  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Saturn V & F-1

[e-mail] (Bob Campbell) writes:

>The problems I see with rebuilding the Saturn V are:

>1:  No job for it.

>    Face it.  If we needed them we would have kept building them.
>    The fact that formerly operational ones are rusting on display
>    should tell you something.  Before you get too excited about
>    the launch system, have a use for it that needs it and will
>    be supported.

Yes, it tells me that the program was *deliberately killed*. No rational
program builds three such expensive pieces of hardware and then just
dumps them. The productyion line was ordered shut down by politicians.
Other wise the missions those Saturns were built for would have been
flown. As it was, the investment was wasted.

>3.  If we need to redesign anyways . . .

>    Without the advantages of existing designs and production
>    facilities, why not try to build it better?  It possibly
>    could prove cheaper than a redesign and give a better
>    engine (and better engineers!)

"Better is the enemy of good enough."

We don't want "state of the art. We want tried and true!
--
Leonard Erickson        ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

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

Date: 18 Sep 89 15:31:39 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>>I while back somebody posted details of an Air Force launch from
>>Vandenberg where the rocket exploded and dumped an RTG into the
>>Pacific. ...
>
>Why, to demonstrate that RTG's are safe?  Nice sample size!  <snort>

Better than nothing. It does show that they *CAN* be build to deal wiht
an explosion.

>It strikes me that a letter like that will primarily serve to remind
>readers that an RTG can indeed end up, and has ended up, in the drink --
>a factoid NASA would be unlikely to want to harp on just now.  :-)

Any reader who saw the Chalanger explode (which is I suspect 99% of them)
knows that a RTG can indeed end up in the drink. The anti-RTG crowd it
saying that if the shuttle explodes this time there will be megadeaths.
This is not the case. They know it could end up in the drink but showing
that it has happened in the past with no ill effects would go a long
way to calm those fears. On the other hand, pretending that it can't
go into the drink will make it look like there is somehting to fear.

  Allen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Allen Sherzer                     | DETROIT:                            |
|  [e-mail]                       | Where the weak are killed and eaten |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 18 Sep 89 14:55:11 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: NASA forced to photo Cydonia

* I've been reading all the material about the Face on Mars with a slight
sense of embarassment.  The first time I heard about the Face on Mars
was when I was in the local library one afternoon and happened to pick up
a copy of ANALOG SF with an article on it.  I paged through it skeptically;
there were a large number of the geometric arguments quoted in the
postings on the subject, but my attitude was that the most intelligent
thing an article could really say about it was:  "Here's something curious,
if we get a chance we should take a closer look at it."  End of subject.

I then put down the ASF and picked up the latest WHOLE EARTH CATALOG.  By
a strange coincidence, it also had an article on the Face on Mars ... which,
as I said in a letter to the editor of ASF: " ... also featured pictures of
photographs, supplied by the friendly folks at NASA JPL, of a five-kilometer-
wide 'happy face' and a lava flow with an unmistakable resemblance to 'Kermit
the Frog'."

I concluded the letter with:

"I hope we will be kept posted as new discoveries unfold."

This was pointlessly rude and unkind -- being the editor of a magazine,
particularly one which doesn't make much money or have a lot of prestige, is
undoubtedly an abusive job made no more pleasant by smartasses giving you a
hard time -- but I was younger then and couldn't pass up a joke.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | [phone]                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 18 Sep 89 03:05:26 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V & F-1

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes:
> 7) Get a payload contract for the new bird. (here's the business-end) ...
> The problems are technical, the need is for funds...

Actually, I would say the real problem is the business end.  Technical
problems can be solved.  I'm not as optimistic as you are about whether
the old-timers still remember how their heat-treatment processes worked
20 years ago, but I agree that it's at least a head start on the problem.
Rebuilding something vaguely similar to a Saturn V is a reasonably
straightforward engineering problem, i.e. something you can hand to a
competent engineering team with a reasonable certainty of results (although
you may have to live with a bit of uncertainty about budget and timetable
in the early stages).  It's large and complex but the basic technology
is in hand.

The hard part is finding somebody to pay for it.  People would be working
on commercial heavylift boosters if there were a reasonable assurance of
customers.  NASA might use it for the space station, just possibly maybe,
given some Congressional pressure and a few timely flights demonstrating
that the thing works reliably.  (Remember, NASA is not building backup
copies of the station modules, so reliability is a big issue for that.)
SDIO would certainly be interested, if they ever get deployment funding...
which no sane oddsmaker would bet on right now.  And other than those two
doubtful customers, there's... who?

Of course, what we have here is a really vicious chicken-and-egg problem,
with a lot of vague potential demand that stays vague and potential because
there is no prospect of doing anything about it.  One good big launcher,
run by people with money and patience, might suffice to break the cycle
by turning potential into reality.  It would be slow to get rolling, but
I suspect it would roll.  But people with money and patience, in the
quantities required, are very scarce.
--
"Where is D.D. Harriman now,   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
when we really *need* him?"    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Sep 89 14:49:31 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>I while back somebody posted details of an Air Force launch from
>Vandenberg where the rocket exploded and dumped an RTG into the
>Pacific. The story went on to say that the Air Force found the RTG,
>cleaned it up, and used it for another satellite. Can anybody post
>the details (names & dates)? We need the information for a letter
>to the editor.

Why, to demonstrate that RTG's are safe?  Nice sample size!  <snort>

It strikes me that a letter like that will primarily serve to remind
readers that an RTG can indeed end up, and has ended up, in the drink --
a factoid NASA would be unlikely to want to harp on just now.  :-)

--
'We have luck only with women --    \\\     Tom Neff
          not spacecraft!'         *-((O    [e-mail]
 -- R. Kremnev, builder of FOBOS      \\\   uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP)

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 09:30:20 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NASA missions/time table

jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Hancock) writes:
>>    How would the RTGs handle an extreme high velocity reentry (or
>>atmosphere - crossing orbit, it might still leave the atmosphere of
>>course)?  ...
>
>This is actually considered the worst reasonably-likely accident (since
>it takes pretty unlikely ones to break the RTGs open during launch).
>I believe the RTGs aren't tough enough to survive high-speed reentry plus
>impact intact.

Not clear here if you are talking about the *really* worst reasonably-likely
accident, since you use the term "re-entry", implying that this is happening
after orbit and hence SRB and ET separation.  The worst case I have seen
studied seriously is loss of control shortly after launch resulting in the
entire stack diving back into the ground.  The velocity would confine the
ET propellant explosion enough to create an explosion of about 10kT.
Of course, this suggests that the shuttle somehow manages to get back over
land before the RSO can (wait for it) blow his stack.  Considering the
other toxics on board the shuttle, I think RTG breakage would be a minor
component of the total disaster.  Nevertheless heard on the radio of some
group trying to stop the Galileo launch because of this danger.  >Sigh<

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 18 Sep 89 17:36:24 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Atlas Centaur-68/FltSatCom prelaunch news conference set (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 September 18, 1989

George H. Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.


N89-64
ATLAS CENTAUR-68/FLTSATCOM PRELAUNCH NEWS CONFERENCE SET

     The pre-launch news conference for Atlas Centaur-68, which
will loft the FltSatCom F-8 communications satellite into orbit
for the U.S. Navy, has been scheduled for 2 p.m. EDT on
Wednesday, September 20, at Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
Participating in the briefing will be:

James L. Womack, Director, Expendable Vehicles, NASA Kennedy
Space Center

John W. Gibb, Launch Vehicle Project Manager, NASA Lewis Research
Center, Cleveland

Frank E. Watkins, Director, Base Operations, General Dynamics
Space Systems, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.

Commander James O. Hall, Deputy, FltSatCom Project, U.S. Navy

     The briefing will be carried by NASA Select television on
Satcom F2-R, transponder 13.  Audio-only also will be available
on the V-2 circuits, which may be dialed directly at
407/867-1220, -1240 and -1260.

     News Media representatives wishing to attend the briefing
should be at the KSC News Center by 1:15 p.m. for transportation
to the E&O building on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.  Those
needing accreditation should call the KSC News Center at
XXX/YYY-ZZZZ before 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, Sept. 19, to arrange for
badging.

REMOTE CAMERA SET-UP FOR LAUNCH

     On Thursday, September 21, photographers may install remote
cameras at Launch Complex 36.  Transportation to the pad will
leave the KSC News Center at 4 p.m. EDT.

LAUNCH DAY:

     On Friday, September 22, the launch window for AC-68 and
FltSatCom F-8 extends from 4:15 a.m. to 4:45 a.m. EDT.  Media
representatives may obtain badging at the Gate 1 Pass and
Identification Building on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station from
2:45 a.m. until 3:15 a.m.  All media then will be escorted to
Press Site 1 on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.  NASA Select
and V-2 coverage of the launch will begin at 3 a.m.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #83
*******************