Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_5/V11_558.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/UaUkZKC00VcJ0b4E49>;
          Sat, 23 Jun 1990 02:16:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 1990 02:16:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #558

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 558

Today's Topics:
            Re: Public Perception Of Space
              Galileo Update - 06/21/90
               Re: Model rocket contest
           Aim for the Moon - Model Rocket contest
               NASA want's YOUR Ideas!
               High School Debate Topic
        Orbital Mech Tutoring (was Re: HST crazy idea)
       Re: NASA Headline News for 06/21/90 (Forwarded)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jun 90 22:18:23 GMT
From: uc!shamash!timbuk![e-mail]  (Lou Adornato)
Subject: Re: Public Perception Of Space

The idea that the gov't shouldn't spend tax money except to protect
individual freedoms is simplistic.  There's ample precident of the
gov't spending for "frills" that have benefitted all of us.  Take, for
example, roads.  A road protects freedom only in the most abstract
sense, but it encourages trade and therefore is in the public
interest.  The alternative is a system of toll roads that would enrich
a few individuals at the cost of the entire economy (remember what
happened to prices when OPEC effectively made every road in the world a
toll road?).  Public education (theoretically) produces a more capable
work force and a more intelligent electorate.

The purpose of taxation in a democracy is to underwrite activities felt
by the majority of the public to be necessary but either unprofitable
or too valuable to be placed in the control of an advantaged minority.
Note that the founding fathers did _not_ object to taxation, but rather
to taxation without representation.

The funding of scientific and technical research easily meets these
criteria; In one sense, research is just another road between our
manufacturers and thier markets, albiet a road that traverses time
instead of space.  The basic research into unducted fanjet engines
(mentioned previously) which has been picked up by the aeorspace firms
will mean jobs and overseas sales, which means more tax money.
Although I have no figures, I would be willing to bet that this
research will end up paying for itself in a few years.  Considering
that aerospace is one of the few areas where America maintains a trade
surplus, the system seems to be working.

It's been standard practice for several generations (and will continue
to be acceptable under the GANTT accords) for any country to protect
it's immature industries by levying import tarifs on competing foreign
goods.  These tarifs create an artificial floor price for these goods,
and provide an advantage to the domestic manufacturers.  These tarifs,
although charged against the importer, are obviously passed on to the
consumer, even the consumer of untaxed domestic products, since the
price has been artificially inflated (and helps to cover the cost of
entry into the indusrty).  It's not that big a logical jump from an
import tarif to protect an immature industry to subsidized research to
protect embryonic industries.

So much for the propriety of gov't funding for research.

A completely separate issue is whether gov't funding for research,
especically NASA, prevents the emergence of a private sector industry.
Another completely separate issue is the effectiveness of gov't funding
for basic research, and that I'm not going to get into.  Maybe someone
who has gone through the grant application process can enlighten us.

While it can't be argued that there are large aerospace contractors
making a lot of money off of a federally funded space program, it might
also be argued that the ease (!) with which these contractors can
profit from the federal program makes private investment seem too risky
in comparison.

Again, I feel that this is simplistic.  The heart of the matter
is that the technology and the markets are not yet mature enough to
provide a return on investments.  This is due to problems at both ends;
the technology is still too expensive (due to lack of maturity), and
the markets are not yet big or diverse enough (let's face it, it's not
that hard to saturate the market for perfectly round ball bearings).
At this point, the cost of entry into the market is simply too high for
individual concerns.

As proof of this I submit the fact that no one has done it yet.  While
I normally find that kind of logic deplorable, I find it hard to
beleive that if the Donald Trumps of the world saw a profit in private
space exploration, they wouldn't have been gone out and made it.  And
they're a _lot_ more capable of sniffing out a potential profit than I
am.  (For example, I thought that Savings and Loans where for putting
money _into_.  It would never have ocurred to me to just go in and ask
for a free sample.)

In order for space technology to emerge as an industry, products or
processes will have to be found that a) produce a saleable product, b)
are profitable and c) can't be done cheaper on Earth.  The second of
these criteria could either be be met through a huge per-unit price tag
(unlikely) at current payload costs, or be the result of a more
moderate price and greatly reduced payload costs.

Until (or unless) someone can demonstrate a product or process that
meets these three criteria, then space must be considered an immature
industry, and therefore eligable for subsidy of one sort or another.
And until someone can _prove_ that direct subsidy is counter
productive, then logic dictates that we continue with the methods that
have been used (and seem to have worked) in the past.

One last point.  Most of us are pretty familiar with the rate of change
in the computer industry, and tend to, at least subconciously, guage
all technological progress by that standard.  We should try to put this
into perspective.  Space technology is about 30 years old right now.
Compare how far we've gone in 30 years not to how far the computer
indusrty has come, but rather how far the automobile and the airplane
went in similar periods.  I just recently had a chance to see, on the
same day, a full size orbiter mock up and a mercury capsule.  Until
you've done this, you don't really get a feel for how far things have
come.  True, it's not on the same scale as the Eniac to Apple price
ratio, or Eniac to Cray performance ratio, but it's pretty close to the
difference between the Wright Flyer (1907) and the Junkers dive bomber
(1937).  I hate to say this ('cuz we're none of us getting any younger),
but these things take time.

Lou Adornato    |  Statements herein do not represent the opinions or
Cray Research   |  attitudes of Cray Research, Inc. or its subsidiaries.
[e-mail]    |       (...yet)

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 01:21:19 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 06/21/90


                              GALILEO
                      MISSION STATUS REPORT
                           June 21, 1990

     As of noon Thursday (PDT) , June 21, 1990, the Galileo spacecraft is
94,751,810 miles from the Earth, 71,573,100 miles from Venus and traveling at
a heliocentric velocity of 55,374 miles per hour.  The spacecraft spin rotation
is at 3.15 rpm in a dual spin configuration.  The spacecraft attitude sun point
angle is at 4.5 degrees.  Round trip light time is 16 minutes, 58 seconds.

     Cruise Science Memory Readouts (MROs) were successfully performed for
the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV), Magnetometer (MAG) and Dust Detector (DDS)
instruments on June 18 and 21.

     Commands were sent on June 18 to power on the Energetic Particles
Detector (EPD) replacement heater to maintain instrument temperatures within
acceptable limits.  Flight data indicated that portions of the EPD could
drop below the flight allowable lower temperature limit of -25 degree C
without additional heater power.  Subsequent to the heater turn-on,
temperatures increased to near predicted levels and are well within acceptable
temperature ranges.  Also on June 18, four EPD-related Delay Action Commands
(DACs) were transmitted.  These commands will be executed by the spacecraft
on June 21 and cycle the EPD replacement heater off and then on again after
the planned EPD motor stepping activity.

     The EPD motor was successfully stepped on June 21 as part of its motor
maintenance activity.  The EPD was moved to Sector O and then back to
Sector 4.  EPD performance was as expected and without incident.

     Commands were sent on June 18 updating the DDS memory with a new program.
This program allows DDS increased memory storage which will be used to capture
low signal amplitude dust events. The program is scheduled to begin executing
next week.

     The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have remained very stable.  The AC
measurement continues to indicate a near short circuit to chassis.  The DC
measurement continues to indicate a reading near 20.4 volts.

     The first series of "scrubs" to the Attitude and Articulation Control
Subsystem (AACS) flight software memory was approved.  These scrubs are
required to provide adequate space for the pulse mode high rate spin up that
will be used during Probe release and all 400 Newton engine burns.
       _   _____    _
      | | |  __ \  | |       Ron Baalke           |  [e-mail]
      | | | |__) | | |       Jet Propulsion Lab   |  [e-mail]
   ___| | |  ___/  | |___    M/S 301-355          |
  |_____/ |_|      |_____|   Pasadena, CA 91109   |

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 15:55:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Daniel Alexander Davis)
Subject: Re: Model rocket contest

even if such a rocket achieved escape velocity it would still have to
push through the stmosphere, and this could prove deadly for a plastic
and cardboard rocket.

Dan Davis (is), the Repunzel of the Mathematics Department.
Carnegie Mellon student
Disclaimer - don't look at me, I'm also a music major,
I don't have to know what I'm doing.
[e-mail](arpanet).

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

Date: 20 Jun 90 23:12:39 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Glenn Read)
Subject: Aim for the Moon - Model Rocket contest


In Msg #696624 Edward V. Wright States:-

>The FAA is not in charge of this.  You need a license from the
>Dept. of Transporation's Office of Commercial Space Transporation.
>The regulations are very complex, you will need a lawyer, and the
>cost of the license will almost certainly exceed the $5000 budget
>for this project.

 Would this apply if you were to launch offshore - I remember something
 about a group using  a barge  type platform towed offshore to launch a
 quite  large  vehicle.  They had  some big bucks backing them and  the
 senior technical people were ex NASA.
 Sorry this is all a bit vague but it was some time ago -
              - details anyone..

    ``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe,
      why it is as it is and why it exists at all.''
        - Stephen Hawking

---------------------------------------------------------------------
uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Glenn_Read             Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]                           BOMARC DYNAMICS
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 01:00:26 GMT
From: pyrdc!netxcom![e-mail]  (Edwin Wiles)
Subject: NASA want's YOUR Ideas!

This may or may not be old news, but it was new to me!

NASA Wants YOUR Ideas!

According to a radio report from National Public Radio, NASA has an 800
number that they want you to call on if you think you've got a good idea
for them to use in space.

This is not intended for "Industrial Giants Only", it is intended for
anyone who believes they've got a good idea.

To give the example that appeared in the story, one grade school child
suggested that NASA build spacestations between here and Mars, and then
build bridges between them so that astronauts could walk to Mars.

No. I'm not joking.

I've just now called the number, and it does indeed lead to NASA.

    Here it is:  1-800-677-7796

The person who answers (and you'd better be prepared to be on hold for
a while) will ask whether you've called to receive a packet on how to
submit a suggestion to NASA.  It's known as the "NASA Outreach Project".

                    Enjoy!
--
        "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?"    | Edwin Wiles
    Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare.    | NetExpress, Inc.
  ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles    | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
       [e-mail]    | Vienna, VA 22182

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

Date: 21 Jun 90 15:58:07 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!umich!umeecs!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: High School Debate Topic

A while back somebody posted requesting sources for this years high
school debate topic on space. I received a copy of a document Congress
put out on this exact subject. It is good source material and is available
for free. To get a copy, write or call your representative and ask for:

Document No. 101-24

OUTER SPACE: What Should be the United States Government Policy Toward
the Region Beyond Earth's Atmosphere?
Nationsl Debate Topic for High Schools 1990-1991

Each member of Congress got 40 copies. As the title implies, it is
for the high schools, but if you wrote and asked I suspect you could
get one.

  Allen

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen W. Sherzer         |          Death to all extremists!              |
|   [e-mail]            |                                                |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 12:11:41 GMT
From: usc!samsung!xylogics!merk!alliant!linus!helios![e-mail]  (Cookson)
Subject: Orbital Mech Tutoring (was Re: HST crazy idea)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (I) wrote:
>>... How about
>>putting Hubble in a porlar orbit that follows the terminator,  that way it
>>would always be in sunlight.
>
>Nope, sorry, won't work -- the Earth-Sun axis rotates once a year, and you
>can't make the orbit go with it.  You can come close with a sun-synchronous
>orbit, which gets short eclipses about two months of the year.  That's a
>popular orbit for sky-survey missions like IRAS and COBE.  Unfortunately
>it cannot be reached by the shuttle from KSC, which is a problem with a
>satellite like HST, which has specific plans for in-orbit servicing and
>new instruments already in the works.

Ok, I understand the problem with getting the shuttle to it, but why can't
the orbit be given an apporpriate precession (sp?) rate to follow the terminator
as the earth revolves around the sun??

Dean


% Dean Cookson                  $ Anyone can be taught to sculpt    %
% [e-mail]                $ Michaelangleo would have had to %
% {devax,et al..}!linus!mbunix!helios!cookson $ have been taught how not to.  %
% Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and       $ The same is true of great   %
%       are of questionable sanity                $ programmers               %

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 20:19:21 GMT
From: uupsi!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 06/21/90 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Philip C. Plait) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>
>>President Bush visited Marshall Space Flight Center yesterday.
> ....
>(deleted)
>>that an American flag should be planted on Mars in 30 years.
>
> I guess this means we'll never go to Mercury.
>
> The flag might catch on fire.

Not if it is planted in a landing zone where high temperatures are not a
problem.  Believe it or not, there are such places on Mercury.  In fact, there
are places where extreme COLD would be a problem.

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #558
*******************