Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_104.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/MZ:7dZ:00VcJ01p053>;
          Tue,  3 Oct 89 05:22:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  3 Oct 89 05:22:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #104

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
                 NASA images
               Re: Flame On!!!
            Toxic materials on the Shuttle
      DDHarriman (was Re: space news from Aug 14 AW&ST)
      NASA selects Small Business Research proposals (Forwarded)
       Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature)
           What to do with the $30 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 28 Sep 89 16:12:16 EDT
Resent-From: Harold Pritchett <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 11:23:47 CDT
From: "Craig Pepmiller" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA images

Where should I write at NASA to get access to Voyager/Pioneer produced images
for research?  Also does NASA have a repository of Earth and Lunar images?

Thanks,

Craig Pepmiller
Computing Services
University of Missouri--Columbia

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

Date: 28 Sep 89 22:16:41 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Flame On!!!

In article <28SEP89.11863199.0057.MUSIC@SDSUMUS> [e-mail] (Andy Edeburn) writes:
>   Let's face it, we're never going to get to Mars alone. It is going
>to take a world-wide effort. You rednecks better get over the fears
>and paranoia about working with the Soviets, because right now, they're
>kicking our a__ in the newly reborn space-race.

 and then

>---------------------------------+
> | "It is always better to trust |
> |   your dog, rather than your  |
> |     neighbors." - Walton      |
>---------------------------------+

Well then, since the Soviets are our neighbors --

who is the dog??

> Think before you post!!!

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

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

Date: 28 Sep 89   11:47 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Toxic materials on the Shuttle

Date: 28 September 89, 11:33:54 EST
From: TCEISELE at MTUS5
To:   SPACE+ at ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject: Toxic materials on the Shuttle

While the environmentalists are worrying so vigorously about the plutonium
in the Galileo RTG's, I kind of have to wonder about how much attention they
are really paying.  For example, as I recall, the window framing on the Shuttle
is made from beryllium to save weight, and beryllium's purely chemical toxicity
is in the same range as that of plutonium, even including its radioactivity.
But nobody seems to worry about beryllium, simply because it isn't
*radioactive* (whoooooo!).  Of course, the beryllium isn't a serious
risk either, since after having a shuttle fall on you hard enough to vaporize
the window frames, being poisoned is the least of your difficulties.  I
suspect that the solid lumps of plutonium aren't going to be exactly easy
to vaporize, either.

Tim Eisele
Michigan Tech

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

Date: 27 Sep 89 21:41:15 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!infmx![e-mail]  (David Cortesi)
Subject: DDHarriman (was Re: space news from Aug 14 AW&ST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Watkins)
writes regarding Henry Spencer's signature:
>>"Where is D.D. Harriman now,   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>>when we really *need* him?"    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]
>
>OK. So I'm ignorant. Who is D.D. Harriman?

Here's your Cliff's Notes version (I hope I have this right)...

Delos D. Harriman was "The Man Who Sold The Moon" in Robert Heinlein's
story of the same name.  A businessman overtaken by a passion to reach
the moon, he raises the money for the first Earth-to-moon expedition
using what Heinlein meant to portray as absolutely shameless promotional
techniques (but which seem pretty tame by present-day standards) -- like
selling lunar building lots, promising to paint company logos across the
face of the full moon, etc.  Alas, by the time the expedition is launched
the middle-aged Harriman gets a medical down-check and can't go; he has
to watch the rocket leave without him.

In the final chapter Harriman is filthy rich, very old, and still earthbound.
He hires a seedy pilot who had been fired by all the now-thriving space
transport services to fly him to the moon, knowing that he may not survive
the acceleration.  He does last through the landing and, gray and wheezing,
makes the pilot dress him in a space suit and lay him outside, where he
dies peacefully, looking up at the full Earth.

It made me all weepy at age 10 and you know, it still does...

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 02:04:06 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects Small Business Research proposals (Forwarded)

[I know, marginal space connection. -PEY]

Jim Ball
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.               September 28, 1989


RELEASE:  89-150

NASA SELECTS SMALL BUSINESS RESEARCH PROPOSALS


     NASA announced today the selection of 248 research propo-
sals for immediate negotiation of Phase I contracts in NASA's
1989 Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR).
Proposals were selected from 198 small, high technology firms
located in 35 states.

     SBIR objectives are to stimulate technological innovation in
the United States by using small business, including minority and
disadvantaged firms, to help meet Federal research and
development needs and to encourage commercial applications of
Federally supported research innovations.

     These SBIR awards were selected competitively from 2142
proposals received in response to the SBIR solicitation which
closed June 28, 1989.  Selections were made on the basis of
scientific and technical merit, capabilities of the firm and
value of the proposed research innovations to NASA.  This is the
7th year of the NASA SBIR program, which is conducted in
accordance with Public Law 97-219, the Small Business Innovation
Development Act of 1982, as amended by Public Law 99-443.

     Phase I projects are 6-month, fixed-price contract efforts,
normally not exceeding $50,000, to establish the feasibility of
innovative research concepts proposed by the contractor to meet
agency needs or opportunities described in the SBIR program
solicitation.  The projects showing greatest promise are eligible
for Phase II contracts to pursue concept development.  Phase II
contracts do not normally exceed 2-years in duration and
$500,000 value.  Approximately one-half the Phase I projects
proceed into Phase II.

     Phase III activities may be commercial development funded by
the private sector or may be procurement or continued development
for government use funded outside the SBIR program by NASA or
other agencies.

     As required by law, NASA allocates 1.25 percent of its
annual research and development budget for SBIR.  Approximately
$12 million of NASA's 1990 SBIR budget will fund these 248 Phase
I projects.

     The program is managed by NASA's Office of Commercial
Programs, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., and all individual
SBIR projects are managed by 9 NASA field centers.

EDITORS NOTE:  A listing of companies selected for this program
is available at NASA Headquarters (Phone:  XXX/YYY-ZZZZ) and all
NASA field centers.


            NASA  89-1  PHASE I  AWARD  DISTRIBUTIONS
                       September 26, 1989

STATE                 AWARDS        FIRMS
Alabama                   11           8
Arizona                    4           2
California                61          53
Colorado                   9           9
Connecticut                8           6
Florida                    6           5
Georgia                    2           2
Hawaii                     1           1
Illinois                   3           3
Indiana                    1           1
Iowa                       2           2
Kansas                     1           1
Louisiana                  1           1
Maryland                  11          11
Massachusetts             47          31
Michigan                   1           1
Minnesota                  3           2
Montana                    1           1
Nevada                     2           1
New Hampshire              4           1
New Jersey                 8           7
New Mexico                 1           1
New York                   9           7
North Carolina             1           1
Ohio                       3           2
Oregon                     5           3
Pennsylvania               8           7
Tennessee                  2           2
Texas                      9           8
Utah                       3           2
Virginia                  13          11
Washington                 4           4
West Virginia              1           1
Wisconsin                  1           1


          AWARDS  DISTRIBUTION  BY  NASA  FIELD  CENTER

NASA CENTER                 AWARDS                      FIRMS

Ames Research Center          26                          26
   Moffett Field, CA

Goddard Space Flight Center   37                          37
   Greenbelt, MD

Jet Propulsion Laboratory     25                          23
   Pasadena, CA

Johnson Space Center          37                          36
   Houston, TX

Kennedy Space Center          11                          11
   Kennedy Space Center, FL

Langley Research Center       34                          33
   Hampton, VA

Lewis Research Center         37                          37
   Cleveland, OH

Marshall Space Flight Center  36                          36
   MSFC, AL

Stennis Space Center           5                           5
   Stennis Space Center, MS

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

Date: 28 Sep 89 15:46:12 GMT
From: mcsun!sunic!sics.se![e-mail]  (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature)

In article <[e-mail]>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW (Peter Scott) writes:
>jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>"Where is D.D. Harriman now
>>when we really *need* him?"
>
>Hmm... has anyone tried pitching the commercial space program to Donald Trump?
>I was just in Manhattan and visited Trump Tower.  It's obvious the guy isn't
>afraid to spend money...  ah, I can see it now... the *real* "Trump Shuttle"...

Well, Trump is no dummy (or else he wouldn't be immensely rich) and he probably
wants a good chance of a good return on his investment. Building a space station
isn't the same profitable venture as real estate development. At least it hasn't
been shown that it is...
--
Per Danielsson        UUCP: [e-mail] (or ...!enea!sics!pd)
Swedish Institute of Computer Science
PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN

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

Date: 28 Sep 89 04:30:49 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (nick szabo)
Subject: What to do with the $30 billion

Sender:
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nick Szabo)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: IBM AWD, Palo Alto
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
writes:

>In other words, it's all the projects *they* find attractive this week.

What projects, specifically, do you believe are fads, what is your evidence,
and why is this a bad thing?

>Our lack of complete knowledge about the solar system means that plans may
>have to be modified in the light of new information, but it does *not*
>make it impossible or undesirable to *have* a plan.

It does precisely that.  A plan is something to be _followed_, that we get
locked into.  Imagine a PERT chart for 'The Plan', the Space Station/Moon/
Mars scenario.  (Ridiculous as this is, I've actually seen one drawn up.)
Now imagine changing that PERT chart to fit a discovery that in fact the
asteroids are much better places to put our first space settlements.
Pretty much have to wipe out the whole thing, don't you?
In real life that means telling tens of thousands of beaucrats (and
hard-working engineers swindled into doing the wrong thing) that their
jobs are obsolete, go home, we're closing down the MoonBase.  And you
think we have trouble with NASA and the Shuttle now?  You ain't seen nothin'
yet.

>So long as each mission
>is conceived in isolation, each will have to fight for funding by itself,
>follow-ons to successful missions will be rare, and the pace of exploration
>will be slow.  It doesn't have to be that way.

There is nothing to stop us from developing standard buses, like the Mariner
Mk. II (Galileo-class) or Obsever class, and mass producing these.  (I would
prefer developing a new bus closer to the JPL Getaway Special or the AMSAT
piggyback-sats, but thats another story   If you this is what you mean by "planning" than I
agree.

>
>>>I don't see any mention of
>>>Venus, not much of Mars, very little on asteroids, not much on the Moon,
>>
>>Lunar Polar Orbiter, Mars Observer 2, Asteroid Rendesvous, asteroid surveys,
>>and Lunar/Martian/Asteroid sample-return missions to Antartica...
>
>*One* mission apiece to the Moon and Mars.  CRAF is Asteroid Flyby, not
>Asteroid Rendezvous.

I haven't made myself clear.  CRAF and Mars Observer are approved missions,
and I assume they are paid for whether or not we scrap Space Station.  My list
specified how we can better spend the Station funds.  Here is the part of
my list pertaining to the Moon, Mars, asteroids and comets:

ARCF: Asteroid Rendesvous/Comet Flyby, a follow-on to CRAF
Mars Observer 2, a follow-on to Mars Observer
Lunar Geophysical Orbiter, an Observer class lunar-polar-orbiting mission
Asteroid, lunar and (probably) Martian sample-return missions to Antartica
  (we might find pieces of Mercury and/or Venus as well; these would be
   firsts).
Asteroid sky survey with Hubble and ground-based telescopes

Remember, this is only a small part of my original list (about $4 billion
out of the $30 billion Station money).  The rest included R&D, commercial
space incentives, and additional missions to all the gas giant planets.

With the approved missions plus these proposals, I count 2 asteroid/comet
missions, 2 Martian missions, 1 lunar missions, plus samples from all these
bodies via Antartica and an extensive asteroid sky survey, all before the
year 2000.   This is in addition to missions by the USSR, Japan, and Europe.
We could get some solid information about which parts of the solar system
are most promising for space settlement by the year 2000, if we got our
priorities straight.  As it stands now we will be living in ignorance for
some time to come.

I might also propose 2 more projects aimed at the Moon, asteroids, and Mars
that deserve more funding:

Lunar "Getaway Special": small ion-engine propelled spacecraft that have
been designed by JPL for launch in Shuttle GAS canisters, but could be
converted for launch by Delta, AMROC, or as a piggyback (like the AMSATS).
Each mission would orbit the Moon and return extensive amounts of data.
The missions would probably costs less than $100 million apiece, and could
be flown every year with the instruments for each mission based on answers
learned from and questions raised by previous missions.

Radio astronomy: We have been getting some good data on the asteroids and
Mars by examining reflected radio signals generated at Goldstone.  Upgrading
2 more DSN antennae for this would cost less than $100 million.

>The missions to Antarctica return meteorites that
>*might* be from the Moon/Mars/asteroids, but are so poorly documented
>and have so many complicating factors that they are not much use as samples.

The lunar samples are clearly lunar; the Mars samples probable, and asteroid
samples have long been well-known in Antartica and elsewhere.  You are in
disagreement with a large number of space scientists, who are
quite excited about the Antartic finds.  Antartic missions, well funded and
coordinated with probes and an asteroid sky survey, would be much better
documented than today.  The Antartic missions would cost a fraction of the
Galileo-class probes, which in turn are a fraction of the cost of Station.

>
>A program which is *planned* knows where it's going.

It _thinks_ it knows where it's going.  It goes straight thru the tunnel
and misses all the side passages.  Then it hits the dead end.

>On the whole, I agree, but I draw very different conclusions.  One mission
>per planet is not "lots of wells".  We need smaller, less ambitious missions
>in much greater numbers.

I agree with this 100%.  I am quite in favor of designing new probes along
the lines of lunar GAS.  Meanwhile, Galileo- and Observer-class missions
are pretty cheap compared to Station, so we can afford several more of those
too.  BTW, these two classes of missions will return data that dwarfs our
current store by several orders of magnitude.  I once saw a slide dramatizing
the detail that Galileo will show us of Europa.  One side of the slide
is labelled "Voyager", and shows Voyager's picture of Europa and a picture
of the NYC/Long Island area, a typical Landsat photo.  The other side says
"Galileo", with a question mark (for Europa), and a picture of the New York
City skyline, clearly showing all the skyscrapers and even little specks for
cars.  This is the magnitude of improvement Galileo will give us (technophobes
and tricky orbital mechanics willing...).

>It's not impossible.  In the mid-60s, there was a
>period of 18 months in which NASA launched *TWELVE* unmanned lunar missions.
>They could do this because they had a plan -- Apollo -- and those missions
>were a necessary part of it.

We would have been much better off to launch those 18 probes to Mars,
several asteroids, and several comets as well as the Moon, and then use
the rest of the Apollo money to launch several dozen more all over the
solar system.  There is no reason Kennedy could not have proposed this and
made it just as exciting as Apollo.

One mission per planet is not as much as we _could_ do, but it's a heck of
a lot more than we _are_ doing.

"The biscuits and the syrup never come out even."
                        Robert A. Heinlein



--
--------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj
These opinions are not related to Big Blue's

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #104
*******************