Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_3/V11_374.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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/MaFufte00VcJ4EfE5W>;
          Wed,  9 May 90 01:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  9 May 90 01:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #374

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 374

Today's Topics:
              Re: Fermi Paradox
               Astro-1 Payload
              Re: B-70 Featured On Wings
                  GEMINI 6-8
             Re: Astro-1 Payload
             Re: Manned mission to Venus
                   CD-ROMs
               trivia question
                Re: Apollo 12
Re: Recovering old spacecraft (was Re: (How to get rid of) space garbage)
            Magazine advice/recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 90 16:13:43 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu![e-mail]  (Donald A. Varvel)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox

In article <[e-mail]6> [e-mail] writes:

>     One of the big variables in determining if life is possible in a given
>star system is there must be a planet of sufficiant mass + makeup in the
>"life zone" of the star. Trying to estimate the number of potential life-
>supporting planets is difficult because we don't now for sure if other
>stars even have planets - we only know about one system for sure.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As sources for data about frequencies of various sizes of objects in
systems that condense from dust clouds, we also have the systems of
the outer planets.

While solar wind and possibly other factors such as perturbation by
neighbors disrupt satellite systems in the inner solar system, the
outer planets are less affected.  Jupitor is the second-best model
of a planetary system we have available.  Both Galileo and the
Inquisition recognized that.

It isn't a perfect model.  In particular, most of the moons of outer
planets have insufficient gravity to retain an atmosphere.  Still,
it appears that the only place in the solar system where two relatively
equal-sized objects condensed together is the earth-moon system.  And
it appears that most objects have smaller satellite objects.  We might
even draw some conclusions about sizes and orbits.

-- Don Varvel ([e-mail])

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

Date:     Mon, 07 May 1990 12:55 EDT
From: SIMMONS DONALD F  <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Astro-1 Payload
To: <[e-mail]>

     Ignorant question of the day - What exactly is this Astro-1 payload
scheduled to go up on the shuttle next week, and what will it do? I have
seen it meantioned a hundred times in those NASA bulletins, but never an
description of it. Anyone know?

Donald Simmons   27000@AECLCR

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

Date: 7 May 90 19:03:28 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Craig Ruff)
Subject: Re: B-70 Featured On Wings

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>With all of the talk about the B-70, I thought I would pass on the
>following tidbit:  "Wings" is showing the XB-70 show ...

The local listing in my area says it will also be on at midnight MDT
Thursday/Friday May 10/11, that is 2 AM Friday May 11 EDT.
--
Craig Ruff          NCAR            [e-mail]
[phone]      P.O. Box 3000
            Boulder, CO  80307

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

Date: 7 May 90 18:07:31 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com!renoir.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: GEMINI 6-8


        [e-mail] (Mark Perew) writes:

        >> Gemini 6 and 7 (or was it 7 and 8?) launched within a few
        >> hours of each other and later did a rendezvous in space.

        GEMINI 6 was originally planned to dock with an unmanned AGENA
    docking target, until the AGENA booster exploded in mid-flight on
    October 25, 1965.  NASA then decided to have GEMINI 6 rendezvous in
    Earth orbit with GEMINI 7 during its planned two-week stay in space.

        GEMINI 7 was placed into orbit on December 4, 1965, with astro-
    nauts Frank Borman and James Lovell aboard.  GEMINI 6 was set to
    launch on December 12 with astronauts Walter Schirra and Thomas
    Stafford.  Two seconds into the launch, a booster problem caused
    a mission abort.  GEMINI 6 finally left the ground on December 15.
    That same day, the two spacecraft maneuvered within fifteen centi-
    meters (six inches) of each other.  This was vital in determining
    the ability of the APOLLO Command/Service and Lunar Modules being
    able to rendezvous and dock with each other in space.

        GEMINI 7 spent almost fourteen days in Earth orbit, a record
    for manned space endurance until the Soviet SOYUZ 9 mission in
    June of 1970 (almost eighteen days).

        GEMINI 8, launched on March 16, 1966 with astronauts Neil
    Armstrong and Dave Scott aboard, performed the first successful
    manned space docking with an AGENA target vehicle.  Unfortunately,
    a malfunctioning GEMINI thruster sent the craft into a dangerous
    roll which forced the crew to use over seventy-five percent of
    their maneuvering fuel to stop the motion.  An emergency return
    to Earth was ordered for GEMINI 8.

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

             "The Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

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

Date: 7 May 90 19:23:01 GMT
From: shiva.cs.umd.edu![e-mail]  (Yuan Liu)
Subject: Re: Astro-1 Payload

The latest issue of Sky and Telescope has an article on ASTRO-1.
Basically, there are four instruments on board. They are three UV scopes and one
X-ray scope. I don't have the detail at hand. You can either look it up, or
send mail to me and I'll give you a summary.


Yuan Liu               | Computer Science Dept.
[e-mail]    | U. of Maryland
(O)301 454-6152        | College Park, MD 20742
(H)301 345-2848        | U. S. A.
--
  o  |     +
----||  , lZ
 \/  |  > /K
 /\ \|  ^----^

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

Date: 7 May 90 19:23:57 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!quiche!calvin![e-mail]  (Mark SOKOLOWSKI)
Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>About Mark Sokolowski's posting:
>
>It is some of the worst nonsense I have read in quite a while.
>Specifically:
>
>1. Missions to Venus/Colonization:
>
>Continuing on Venus surface conditions: the atmosphere at the surface is so
>thick, walking in it is more akin to wading than walking on dry ground.
>Also, due to some interesting refractory effects, the horizon appears to curve
>over your head; even when you are standing on a flat plain, it looks like
>you are in a bowl.
>
This isn't true, as the photos from the Veneras have revealed. In fact, the
view from the surface is much like on the Earth on an average cloudy day,
except that everything seems yellow because of the filtering from the
sulfuric acid clouds. In addition, a reprocessing of those pictures to
reequilibrate the luminosity has shown that Venus' soil is the same as
our own in terms of color (and composition).
>
>All in all, a pretty bleak place. Much less hospitable than the moon;
>much less easy to colonize than the bottom of our own ocean.
>
I don't see why Venus would be so bleak. After all it is brighter on its
surface than in the cold darkness of the Oceans. Furthermore, artificial
light, greenhouses with trees and vegetation would make life fairly
acceptable there. I would even tell you that being there would be more
enjoyable for me than in some space station lost between the Earth and
Mars, millions of Km's from any object greater than a grapefruit...
>
>Also, unless you have a rocket _much_ better than the ones we currently
>have, it will take you  several months to get there. Several months of
>free fall. You see those pictures of the Soviet cosmonauts coming back
>after free fall? Straight from the capsule to the stretcher.
>
Wait a minute: It will be about 2 month and 3 weeks for the travel to
Venus, and Venus is our closest neighboor! Of course, the first mission
can only deal with a flyby, in which case the whole mission would take
less than 2/3 of the time to simply go to Mars. And about the rockets,
the Energyia can send a Mir sized spacecraft together with an equally
massive supply unit (about 35-40 tons) to Venus (and Mars if you
substract a few tons). Sorry, but the logic here points all the way to
Venus. For the Saturn V, the figures should be about the same, and 3 or
4 shuttle flights can do it too...
>
>All in all, a one-way trip such as you propose would be a very expensive
>way to die, and for symbolic reasons. Symbolic reasons for exploration
>have generally been unsuccessful. Look up any discussion about the
>'Star Raft' expeditions to Africa in the time of the Ming Dynasty.
>Finally, there are a hell of a lot of more constructive things to do with
>several billion (tens of billions?) dollars than give someone a fun way
>to suicide.
>
First of all, I'm not talking about a sophisticated suicide. What I want
to see in such a mission is the breaking of an ultimate frontier. If we
can land on Venus and STAY THERE ALIVE, then we'll be ready for the entire
solar system...
>
>2. Space technology is not so advanced that only a few thousand people
>can understand its use. Maybe in _THIS_ country, but I doubt even that.
>
True for the PRINCIPLES of this technlogy i.e. action-reaction principle.
But what about liquid hydrogen handling, when this hellish liquid boils
at 10 K (only a teflon-kevlar alloy isn't like glass at this temperature),
vaporizes 10 times faster than water for an equal amount of added energy,
is 100 times less visquous than alcohol (leaks through holes of 1/10th of a
micron), and is explosive when its concentration in air is above 4%. Not
talking about the fact that because it is 14 times less dense than the
liquid oxygen it is combined with, the turbopumps have to turn at 1500
rotations PER SECOND MINIMUM. (So the transmission system, IS IT REALLY SO
EASY TO MAKE AS THAT OF A CAR?????).
Funny that Challenger hasn't exploded because of a problem with one of its
3 main engines... And funny that the decision to put human beings in a
REUSABLE LIQUID HYDROGEN PROPELLED spaceship was the most stupid ever
(And in fact, is the space shuttle really reusable when they change
those main engines at almost every flight????).
And this is only an example, dealing with liquid hydrogen....
>
>3. Space technology is ***__NOT__*** something that is without promise
>until we get around to building warp drive several centuries from now.
>
Everybody is talking about those asteroids, but some scientists, like
Carl Sagan, are now speaking against their exploitation. It seems that
they aren't quite so much of them out there, and beside, they keep a good
record about the history of the solar system. Everybody is now concerned
with environment, but it doesn't mean that we should consider the rest
of the solar system as a garbage can. In fact, I am afraid about man going
to Mars, the kind of destruction it can do there. First, we have to solve
our problems here. Not have so much of them that we will have to export
all our garbage (cultural and material) in the entire galaxy. That's why
I think we sould not industrialize space for now (I mean, centuries from
now). We can go there to conquer, set new frontiers, learn, not colonize
in an utmost imperialistic way. Will it really matter to have a factory
on the Moon when there will be 10 billion people down here. I bet the rare
materials recovered from our satellite will be used to make better weapons
and extermination means to control our growing social and geopolitical
problems. I'm a little crude here, but I'm sure that a blind faith
on salvation from space (and equivalently, a blind faith in the arrival
of some martians that will help us) is dangerous because it will surely
let our problem down here grow faster than the actual solutions that
will be brought by the space-related exotic means. Look at the shuttle!!!
They were promising us ONE FLIGHT PER WEEK!!!!!! Factories, thousand
of people in space by the 1990's... And it costed billions of truly waisted
money, for any unmanned rocket can do the job of the shuttle (I don't care
about the fact that man is FLEXIBLE, can have INITIATIVE, since the
reliability needed for a spaceship that can carry men cancels that).
When sending men out there, we should be realistic about why we do it!!!
Sending a manned mission to Venus wouldn't surely be a waist of money,
if we compare the costs with those put up for the B-2 and other military
curiosities, and because we HAVE TO send mens on such a mission in order to
have some interest from the rest of humanity!!!!

Mark S.
-------

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

Date: 7 May 90 22:53:51 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu![e-mail]  (Craig L Cole)
Subject: CD-ROMs

Hi everyone!

I've been constantly reading about CD-ROMs that contain pictures taken by
the Voyager probes - I'm very interested, but no one has posted exactly
how to get them!

Besides Voyager, I'd be very interested in pictures taken by Viking and
Mariner.  Venera would be nice, but I have no idea how many images
the Soviet Union has released to us.

Actually - I'd be interested in ANY space related CD-ROMs and would like
to know who to write and how much they cost. If I can get any images straight
from the net (.GIF is great), PLEASE remeber I'm fairly new to this stuff.

If anyone else is interested, drop me a note - I'll forward any replies I
get, and if a lot of people are interested, I'll post a summary.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! E-mail or posting is fine. Thanks
in advance!

                                    Craig Cole
                                    [e-mail]
                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 May 90 20:13:58 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Shirley Peters)
Subject: trivia question


I figure this would be the best place for a question like this...

There was an astronaut named Scott something,  he 'blasted into orbit'
sometime in 1962 (most likely this month.)  Does anyone know the date?

If anyone knows, please e-mail me.

Thanx,  Shirley

Shirley Peters                                           [e-mail]
                       I'd rather be sleeping!
--
Shirley Peters                                            [e-mail]
                           I'd rather be sleeping!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 8 May 90 01:27:04 GMT
From: usc!samsung!emory!ogicse!plains![e-mail]  (M.G. Stinnett)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Mosley III) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jonathan A Bishop) writes:
>>      Lately, I've been wondering something.  Why was the decision made to
>> launch Apollo 12 in a thunderstorm?
>...as I recall, it was the last launch window for the DECADE. The decision to
>launch despite the weather came down from high up (read: The Trickster) as
>a way of adding insult to injury towards a certain Communist government
>over who beat who to the moon first.

Come on now. Do you have anything to back this up?

After all, the "man on the moon" competition was effectively ended when
the Soviets quit playing. We'd done it already; there was no pressure
political or otherwise, to get in one more before the end of 1969.

Nixon was interested in the space program, but not that interested.
Somehow I just can't see the NASA administration, and especially the
astronauts, passively caving in to such an order. Nixon was not a
micro-manager.

--M. G.

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

Date: 7 May 90 16:27:29 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Recovering old spacecraft (was Re: (How to get rid of) space garbage)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rev Dr Phil Herring) writes:
>Re the last remark about using large planets for assistance: gravitational
>assist only works if you want to accelerate the craft as well as re-point
>it. It always comes out of the encounter faster than it went in...

No, you can decelerate rather than accelerate by suitable choice of
trajectory.  The various sun-probe proposals use Jupiter flybys to kill
virtually all of their orbital velocity, dropping them just about straight
down into the Sun.
--
If OSI is the answer, what is |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the question?? -Rolf Nordhagen| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 May 90 21:06:26 GMT
From: dsac.dla.mil!dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil!dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil![e-mail]  (Tom Ohmer)
Subject: Magazine advice/recommendation

I and a friend of mine are interested in subscribing to some space oriented
magazines.  I've heard of 'Countdown,' and 'Space Flight News.'  Any
critiques/suggestions welcome by e-mail.  I will post a digest if enough
others show interest, if not, I can mail to those supplying adequate
addresses.  Thanks in advance!
--
Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center,
            DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH  43216-5002
UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer   INTERNET: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]   AutoVoN: 850-9210   Disclaimer claimed

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #374
*******************