Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_4/V11_458.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 10KB

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/UaMUUaO00VcJE5:04g>;
          Tue, 29 May 90 01:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 29 May 90 01:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #458

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 458

Today's Topics:
          Re: COMPARISON OF PROBE TECHNOLOGY
    US/Soviet Planetary Activity (was Re: Manned mission to Venus)
               Re: wooden ships
Re: Alaska, Hawaii and Pacific Basin video transmissions to continue (Forwarded)
                Re: Why no ETs
             Re: Manned mission to Venus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 May 90 15:26:08 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: COMPARISON OF PROBE TECHNOLOGY

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Could you possibly elaborate on the properties of the Mars Observer a bit,
>Henry?  ...

It's an unspectacular Mars orbiter, originally supposed to be on its
way by now, but the victim of a schedule slip or two.  A substantial set
of remote-sensing instruments and some other odds and ends.  Based loosely
on a commercial comsat design.  Scheduled for Titan launch in 1992.

>I know that the NASA philosophy for future missions is based around two
>distinct types of "modular" spacecraft...  There is
>one basic bus for the missions to terrestrial-like planets, and one for
>deep space missions.  The latter class is the Mariner Mark II series, the
>first two examples of which are CRAF and Cassini.  Would the Mars Observer
>be perhaps the first example of the series designed for the terrestrial
>planets?  In any event, do you know what the generic name is for this
>series of spacecraft?

Well, it was intended to be the Observer series.  The original concept was
an ongoing series of moderately-frequent low-cost unambitious missions,
based on off-the-shelf hardware as much as possible.  The program would
have had a continuing, nearly-constant yearly budget, enough to launch
something modest every couple of years, and thus would not have to fight
it out with the big boys over each year's "new start" money.  Since birds
would be going up fairly regularly, people wouldn't try to pile every
possible instrument on each one for fear of not getting another chance in
their lifetimes (a very real phenomenon on Galileo, for example, and one
which massively inflates costs and schedules).  This plan -- a steady stream
of modest missions funded out of a constant budget -- has worked extremely
well for the Explorer series of near-Earth space-science missions.

Unfortunately, alas alack, It Didn't Work Out That Way.  The ongoing-budget
concept is gone, the Observers are indeed having to fight for "new start"
money, and consequently their goals, costs, and schedules are inflating
in the same old traditional way.  Mars Observer is a much more ambitious
mission than originally conceived, and it is years behind schedule and
far beyond its original cost target.  And the notion of a steady series
of missions is dead and forgotten; there are only vague notions about
when the next Observer might fly.  (The hope is that it will be a lunar
polar orbiter -- the first real lunar-science mission in 20 years! --
and that it will fly in the mid-90s.  Don't hold your breath.  Send your
money to the Space Studies Institute for its private lunar orbiter project,
which has a better chance of getting somewhere this century.)
--
As a user I'll take speed over|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
features any day. -A.Tanenbaum| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 May 90 21:52:57 GMT
From: thorin!ornat![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: US/Soviet Planetary Activity (was Re: Manned mission to Venus)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>    No, it indicates that the Soviet planetary science program has had
>>a remarkably unsuccessful series of Mars missions and lacks the
>>capability to stage an outer planets mission to date.
>The russians were able to land 2 probes (i.e. Mars 3 and 6) safely on
>the martian surface at the beginning of the 70's, and beside, a Zond
>capsule probably crashed there in the 60's.

    'Outer planets' should be taken to mean 'beyond Mars', of course.

>It's simply bad luck that so few data were actually returned back to Earth

    Yes, that's essentially what I said.  The Soviet planetary program
is obviously interested in Mars, and their future plans are centered
on it.    Hopefully they'll be carried out with greater success than
they've had to date.

>Now, what about american activity in planetary research in the 80's????

    If that's a question, you need to be more specific.  Henry is
probably the best person to summarize the reasons why there was so
little of it.  Considering the political and economic conditions in
the USSR, it wouldn't be surprising to see their planetary activities
cut back to a similar level this decade.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    ``The tuba recital is one of the most memorable experiences of
      music school.''
    - Seen on a bulletin board in the UNC Music School

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

Date: 28 May 90 07:06:31 GMT
From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!otc!softway![e-mail]  (Thomas Cohen)
Subject: Re: wooden ships

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian or James) writes:
>
>[British are inept explorers.]
>
That's not all he wrote...

Besides, some of them were actually quite good,
for example Capt. James Cook. (admittedly getting
killed and eaten by Hawaiian natives was hardly
the high point of his career).
But how do you draw the distinction between 'navigators'
and 'explorers'?.

Enuff, on with space.

>                    phil

--
thos cohen                      Softway Pty Ltd
                        ACSnet: [e-mail]
Internet:    [e-mail]        UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos

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

Date: 28 May 90 11:40:12 GMT
From: omen![e-mail]  (WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: Alaska, Hawaii and Pacific Basin video transmissions to continue (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
:     The station will provide the transmission via SPACENET 1,
:located at 120 degrees west longitude, transponder 17L, 4.060
                                                         ^^^^^

On most satellite receivers, that's S1/18.  The old American
EXXXtasy channel.  Hope Alabama doesn't shut this one down.

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

Date: 28 May 90 17:15:33 GMT
From: ogicse!plains![e-mail]  (Michael J. Hennebry)
Subject: Re: Why no ETs

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
<...                                                    because we don't
<worship the One True God Zxynklp. ...
                          ^^^^^^^ actually Mxzptlk. This is good enough for
a lot of them, but their freedom-of-religion types would insist they contact
us anyway.

<Some more possibilities to get the imagination working:
< - They're afraid that any contact might interfere with our broadcasts of 1950s
                                               actually current and future ^^^^^
<   science fiction movies, which they intercept and use to torture their
<   political prisoners.

This reason is even good enough for the freedom-of-religion types.

--
Mike [e-mail]
"You know, I've never killed a teacher before.
I'm not sure any Quarm has had occasion to kill a teacher.
There isn't much call for it."                --                Marquel

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

Date: 28 May 90 21:06:21 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] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes:
>>to Mars in the 80's. After all, russians weren't that much motivated
>>to go to a particular planet when they started their space program, and
>>this is why they have sent close to 20 spaceships to Venus, which indicates
>>that this location is a good choice for a manned expedition.
>
>    No, it indicates that the Soviet planetary science program has had
>a remarkably unsuccessful series of Mars missions and lacks the
>capability to stage an outer planets mission to date.
>--
The russians were able to land 2 probes (i.e. Mars 3 and 6) safely on
the martian surface at the beginning of the 70's, and beside, a Zond
capsule probably crashed there in the 60's. It's simply bad luck that
so few data were actually returned back to Earth (And if I recall well,
2 or 3 Mars missions actually returned photos matching those of Mariner 9
in details). And don't forget the overall advandage in terms of mass
for the russian probes (up to 10 times as massive as the american ones),
which means that their program is focusing on Venus because those massive
probes can easily survive there enough time to transmit the necessary data.
Now, what about american activity in planetary research in the 80's????

Mark S.
-------

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #458
*******************