Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_129.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 20KB

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/UZALy9y00VcJMNe05M>;
          Tue, 10 Oct 89 01:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 89 01:34:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #129

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
             space news from Aug 28 AW&ST
 Asteroids (was Re: What to do with the $30 billion (irrelevancies))
            AuAustralian Launch pPad     ?
       Comment on complaints about money spent on space
            Re: The End of Galileo
     Re: Comment on complaints about money spent on space
         What would we do WITHOUT 'Freedom'?
                   Re: CSA
        AmRoc launch problems, from UPI (long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 89 02:09:21 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Aug 28 AW&ST

Cover story is, of course, Voyager at Neptune.

Editorial observes that the entire Voyager project has cost about $865M.
"...the world and the international scientific community... owe the Voyager
team every accolade -- not only for their achievements, but also for
reminding us that lack of imagination and resolve put greater limits on
humanity's grasp than lack of resources."

Voyager sees many things, including cloud shadows on Neptune.  [As before,
I am keeping Voyager coverage light since more timely sources have done
it already.]  Satellite N1 is now the second-largest moon in the Neptunian
system, somewhat larger than Nereid; it would have been seen from Earth
long ago except that it is in a very low orbit quite close to Neptune,
while Nereid is much farther out and easier to notice.

Third operational Navstar launched on Delta Aug 18, after three weather
delays.

Soviets looking at planetary missions to Mercury, Venus, and Phobos as
part of a somewhat-revised planetary program.  The Phobos mission would
include a sample return.  Manned Mars missions have gone on the back
burner due to cost and difficulty; equipment reliability and human factors
are seen as the significant problems with such a project.  The Phobos
spacecraft bus, with modifications to increase reliability, will remain
the major spacecraft, and Proton the major launcher (Energia was not
mentioned).  The Soviets are looking seriously at surface missions with
several small landers or penetrators rather than one fancy one, adding
redundancy and widening coverage.  Current plans are:

    1996 Phobos sample return, essentially a rerun of the 1988 mission
    with soil-analysis instruments replaced by the return vehicle.  An
    attempt will be made to get subsurface samples, either with a
    penetrator that is reeled back in or by drilling after landing.

    1998 Venus mission with 6-8 penetrators to examine surface chemical
    composition in a variety of terrains.

    2002-3 Mercury mission, orbiter plus either several penetrators
    (including cameras) or a soft-lander.  Proton launch would require
    a Venus gravity assist.  Mercury's geology is odd, with much more
    of its mass in its core than is usual for inner planets, and geology
    will be the focus of the mission.

Soviets simplifying 1994 Mars mission to stay on schedule.  Each spacecraft
will be an orbiter, a balloon, and several small "surface stations".  The
major change is use of a small off-the-shelf reentry craft rather than
a large new one, which would require considerable testing.  This dictates
splitting up the original large lander.  The surface stations might be
either penetrators or soft-landers.  France, which is taking a significant
role in the 1994 mission, is concerned that the mission is still changing
and still not firmly committed to launch.

Letter from Al Globus observing that calling for a fifth (sixth, seventh,
etc.) orbiter is the wrong approach:  as long as there is no commitment
to replace the shuttle with something else, what is needed is a commitment
to continuous orbiter production.

Letter from G. Brachet, chairman of Spot Image, saying that AW&ST was wrong
to claim that most Spot sales, and sales growth, involves government
customers.  This has been true in the past, especially in the US, but is
no longer true overall and is less true now even in the US.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Oct 89 00:25:37 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Asteroids (was Re: What to do with the $30 billion (irrelevancies))

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

> The lunar samples are
>considered to be definitely lunar, based on comparison with Apollo samples.
>But from where on the Moon?  Good question.  Based on chemical composition,
>at least some of them are from areas well away from the Apollo sites, perhaps
>even the far side.

I'm surprised you aren't emphasizing the differences between the lunar
meteorites and the Apollo samples, Henry.  They are proof that Apollo
did not provide an unbiased sample of the lunar surface, and that more
lunar exploration is warranted.

>>Asteroid sky survey with Hubble and ground-based telescopes

>The telescope techies can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding
>is that the Hubble telescope's usefulness for sky surveys is nil.  It's
>a narrow-field deep-sky instrument, great for in-depth examination of
>specific objects but totally unsuited to searches and surveys.  The data
>return from telescopic study of asteroids is also, um, kind of limited.
>It's not, in any way, shape, or form, a substitute for closeups.

Telescope work is not a substitute for probes, but probes are not
substitutes for scopes, either.  I suggest they are complementary.
Spacecraft are for close up examination of selected objects.  Telescopes
can make much less detailed observations, but can look at thousands
of objects.

Also, telescopes can *discover* new asteroids.  Advances in CCDs are
making it possible for surprisingly small telescopes to search for
earth approaching asteroids.  The Spacewatch Camera is an example of
such a scope.  A battery of small telescopes, scanning for asteroids
swinging by the Earth, could greatly increase the number of known
EAAs -- and find the ones in easily reachable orbits.

There are estimated to be some 1000 EAAs greater than 1 km in
diameter; several hundred times that many > .1 km in diameter.  If
we've determined the orbits on many asteroids, there's the possibility
for visiting many in a single mission.  We could have a single
spacecraft fly by a dozen EAAs, or have a ion engine propelled
sample-return spacecraft sample several EAAs.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Sep 89 12:43:23 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!usage!basser!metro!otc!softway!peg![e-mail]
Subject: AuAustralian Launch pPad     ?


        G'day.

        As you may or may not be aware, In Australia's top end
they are thinking of opening a "launch pad". I am interested in the environmentl effects of such an event. What has been the story , environmentally, in the
US, and what sort of effects could we expect in Australia?

        Anyone?

        Calaamari.

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 13:52:38 GMT
From: eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Comment on complaints about money spent on space

This is an extract from "Liftoff", by former Apollo-11 astronaut Michael
Collins (Aurum Press 1988, ISBN 1 85410 027 0):

"....I pulled out some numbers from the 1987 federal budget. In round
numbers the Defense Department's appropriation was $300 billion, the
Department of Health and Human Services (including Social Security) got
$200 billion, and NASA $10 billion (including $2 billion extra to start
building a replacement for Challenger). In other words, the Defense
Department spends the entire NASA budget every 12 days and it takes
Health and Human Services 2 or 3 weeks to go through $10 billion."

If these figures are indeed true, how can people possibly complain that
space projects are swallowing valuable funds, as it seems they have been
doing lately? The next time someone offers me derisory comments about
Space being a waste of money, I shall quote them the above extract!

Cheers!

--
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]
Voice: [phone] ext.2129

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 07:25:23 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!usage!basser!metro!otc![e-mail]  (Greg Wilkins)
Subject: Re: The End of Galileo

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:
>
>
> I have read and heard about the Galileo spacecraft's 22 month mission
> at Jupiter, which will end about October 1997.  Does anyone know what
> will happen then?  Will the spacecraft be shut down?  Does it plunge
> into Jupiter (because of the 10 satellite-gravity assists)?  Is this
> how long its RTG's are supposed to last?
>
> Does someone have some information on this?
>
One event that is certain after the end of the Galileo mission is that a
huge discussion will take place over the network:

  - Alternate Galileo Missions,
  - Should we have sent it to pluto???
  - How can we retrieve the atmospheric probes for the Smithsonean?
  - Will it find the 11th planet?
  - How can we defend ourselfs against the mutant earth-jupiter
    hyper-intelligent flying bacteria??

    etc. etc. :-)

-gregw

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 16:50:19 GMT
From: calvin![e-mail]  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: Comment on complaints about money spent on space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Clews) writes:
>This is an extract from "Liftoff", by former Apollo-11 astronaut Michael
>Collins (Aurum Press 1988, ISBN 1 85410 027 0):
[]
>    ... In other words, the Defense
>Department spends the entire NASA budget every 12 days and it takes
>Health and Human Services 2 or 3 weeks to go through $10 billion."
>
>If these figures are indeed true, how can people possibly complain that
>space projects are swallowing valuable funds, as it seems they have been
>doing lately? []

The annual budget of the National Science Foundation (of the US) was
about $1 Billion in 1987.  Thus, if you want to compare apples to apples,
NASA gets the lion's share of physical science funding, while NSF research
does the lion's share of the spectrum of physical science research.

Simplistically, then, one could argue that NSF is at least ten times and
maybe a hundred times more efficient than NASA, as far as science bang for
the buck.

(As I don my asbestos suit) I said simplistically, of course, because not
even I compared apples to apples; it was more like apples to oranges, while
A. Clews compared apples to aardvarks (NASA vs. HHS ?).  Also, I didn't
mention DOE or NIH funding.

(my opinions, of course)
--
John Sahr,     Dept. of Electrical Eng., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
johns@{alfven,calvin}.ee.cornell.edu,  {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns
--When the dust settles, each B2 bomber will fund NSF for more than a year--

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 02:43:34 GMT
From: datapg!com50!questar![e-mail]  (Al Viall)
Subject: What would we do WITHOUT 'Freedom'?

Excuse me, but I seem to see all of the bad points about 'freedom' being
posted, but not yet has anyone posted the good points. And don't tell
me there are none, because I know better.
Most of you have very valid ideas of where $30 billion could be used.
Personally, I could see it in my own back pocket for that matter, but missing
a chance that has already been delayed longer than it should, could very
well be the biggest blunder this country has made in ages. (: one of them :)

Some of the very things we take granted today, were either directly or
indirectly from the space program of the '60's. And that was still when space
was considered new to everyone. Nowadays, the general public sees another
shuttle launch as 'EHHH, No big deal!'.
With an outpost in space, we will have a focused effort in the sciences
in space and all the other goodies accosiated with it. And this is probably
the last chance for a long time that we will have the opportunity to see such
a thing accomplished considering that it takes 20 years just to cut
through federal red tape and another 10 years for congressional approval.
Instead of hacking away at funding for the Station to pay for the numerous
projects you have been contemplating, why not cut defense by 1% or even
.5% which would be more than enough to cover it.
Better yet, eliminate cost overruns by greedy industry contractors who
charge 150% over original cost of an item and pocket the rest.

As it is, we will be lucky to have ANY other country (i.e. ESA, Japan)
doing space business with us in the future anyway. Nasa will have to cut
back on the station anyways, which will directly affect the planned modules
of the ESA and Japan, showing once again that they can't trust the US
space industry; agreement or NOT. Blah!

As a potent launching pad for interplanetary journeys, whether manned or not,
we can't afford NOT to get the Station up there.
- Al -

--
  | INTERNET: [e-mail]  |  FLASH: "Dan Quayle's face    |
  |     UUCP: ..!amdahl!tcnet!questar!al | seen on Mars" It Looks Puzzled|
  |   "Uhh, Excuse me while I take a moment to adjust my tribble."       |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 16:52:59 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: CSA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <65*[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bradley thompson) writes:
>>Perhaps the people looking at the Corporate Space Administration
>>should coordinate with the Canadian Space Agency as to who gets to
>>be the CSA.
>
>CSA is the Canadian Standards Association, the Canadian equivalent of
>UL in the safety-certification business.  You had better believe that
>it's a registered trademark.  Any group having anything to do with
>technology that wants to use initials should pick another set.

In case you're curious, we were using "CSA" as more of a description
than an official name.  Also, the structure has been changed a bit so as
to be more of a service organization than a competitor of NASA, Canada
Space Admin, etc.

After talking to people, we could help advance the space program more by
acting as a (non-profit) liaison and information service which is completely
independant of any other (for-profit) organization or company.

And yes, we will be getting in touch with other organizations to see
about possibly merging, etc.

We wont be using "CSA" any more as a name or description.  We're still
looking for a good name.  All postings will be in reference to "Space
organization" until we establish an official name.  (Any ideas? Mail me)

About our progress... we're trying to get some funding to get started
with salaries, office space, computers, etc.

- Daniel
--
Daniel Pezely <[e-mail]>       (Home: 728 Bent Lane, Newark, DE 19711)
Computer Science Lab, 102 Smith Hall, U of Del, Newark, DE 19716 302/451-6339

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 21:41:43 GMT
From: agate!shelby!portia![e-mail]  (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: AmRoc launch problems, from UPI (long)


    VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (UPI) -- A small California
company whose rocket was destroyed by fire on the launch pad as its
engine struggled to lift twin commercial payloads blamed the failure on
the malfunction of a fuel valve.
    American Rocket Co. of Camarillo had spent $15 million getting the
unmanned rocket ready for its first launch, a 15-minute suborbital
flight carrying a Defense Department ``Star Wars'' experiment and a
capsule designed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    ``Nothing good or great is ever accomplished without setbacks,''
said James C. Bennett, president of American Rocket Co., at a news
conference after Thursday's fire.
    Bennett said it appears that the valve through which liquid oxygen
flows onto the rocket's fuel, made from a synthetic rubber, did not open
fully.
    Bennett said the valve was allowing only about 20 to 30 percent of
the oxygen needed to properly ignite the solid fuel and give the rocket
the 75,000 pounds of thrust needed for its flight.
    Engineers stopped the 10:28 a.m. ignition sequence after 17
seconds, but large flames shot up, followed by massive clouds of black
smoke that engulfed the 58-foot rocket.
    The crew tried to put the clamps holding down the rocket back into
place, but it toppled over and continued to burn.
    The rocket was destroyed, although it did not explode. The fire
apparently also destroyed the payload -- the classified ``Star Wars''
project and a heat-shield parachute developed by MIT that could help
astronauts escape a space station emergency.
    Bennett said the cost of the valve that failed was between $5,000
and $15,000, and it had never failed in testing.
    An investigative team, including representatives from the
Department of Defense and Air Force, has been convened, he said.
    Bennett said the company would try another launch again within six
to 12 months with a ``more high-performance'' vehicle, but the failure
weakened the ability of AMROC and its 100 employees to compete in the
commercial rocket race.
    The 16-ton rocket was the first to use a hybrid engine that burns
both liquid and solid propellant. All previous rocket engines have
burned either solid or liquid fuel, but not both at once.
    The rocket was loaded with 6,800 pounds of polybutadiene rubber
solid fuel, which will not burn without the appropriate oxidizer. At
launch, the fuel is ignited by a chemical that burns on contact with air
and then liquid oxygen is forced into the motor to sustain the reaction.
    Unlike any other solid-fuel rocket, the rocket's Amroc H-500 engine
can be shut down in a fraction of a second by cutting off the oxygen
flow.
    American Rocket conducted more than 150 test firings of the hybrid
motor, including a full-duration test June 21.
    The rocket was to have splashed down in the Pacific about 150 miles
off the California coast and been recovered by a commercial boat.
    The launch time was set to coincide with the passage overhead of an
Air Force satellite called Delta Star, which was to monitor the flight
in an ongoing series of ``Star Wars'' missile defense system tests to
learn more about how to characterize rocket plumes from space.
    The rocket was named the ``Koopman Express'' after the company's
late founder, George Koopman, who died in a traffic accident in July.
    Koopman founded American Rocket in 1985. The company nearly went
under following the October 1987 crash of the stock market when one of
its major backers pulled out.
    But late last year, American Rocket found new financing and began
preparing for the launch of its first rocket.
    Space Services Inc., the small Houston company headed by former
Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton, launched the first U.S. commercial
rocket in March over New Mexico. McDonnell Douglas launched the first
U.S. commercial rocket into orbit in August.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #129
*******************