Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_106.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/obeaPQe00WBwQ7gE4P>;
          Sat,  2 Feb 91 02:14:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  2 Feb 91 02:14:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #106

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
              Galileo Update - 01/30/91
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #061
             Re: Humanity's Launch Window
         Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait
              Magellan Update - 01/30/91
            SPACE Digest V13 #082

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 22:13:25 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!caen!engine.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Ken writes:
>>>> [MTC only for Freedom]
>
>>>I wonder if we are seeing the first results of Staffords Synthesis Group
>
>>The current restructuring effort is a result of congressional requests
>>to cut the price of station.
>
>Agreed. That doesn't mean the people responsible havn't been talking
>to Stafford's group for guideance. I don't know if they are or are
>not; I was just speculating.

   I think the folks responsible are more concerned with coming in under
   budget than they are with providing any sort of infrastructure to
   support Space Exploration Initiative. I do have to admit, however,
   that even though I'm working on the program, I really don't know for a
   fact what anyone else is or isn't doing or who's talking to whom.

   I'm sure that won't surprise you.

>>There has been little or no conscious effort
>>to incorporate the suggestions of the Augustine committee.
>
>True. But the Augustine Committee is less concerned with the architecture
>of the space infrastructure. Stafford is very interested in it so it would
>have been nice if they talked to him and his group.

   Agreed. It would be nice. The one thing I do know for a fact is that
   there are no Level II requirements for evolution (growth beyond
   assembly complete). That's one issue we're working here at Langly at
   the moment: trying to identify the disconnects between the Level I
   requirements and the Level II requirements. The PRD says 'Space Station
   Freedom design shall allow for growth of the truss structure required
   for addition of power generation capability to the solar power modules
   and for addition of a dual keel structure consistent with the phasing
   and configuration described in the Reverence Evolution Configuration'.
   This is a Level I (HQ) requirement. These requirements aren't carried
   down to the Level II (and Work Package) level, so those folks don't have
   any reason to worry about whether a design (or design revisions) will
   or will not allow station to fit into some sort of broad architecture
   of an infrastructure.

>>I would also add that (in my opinion) if you're trying to incorporate
>>Stafford's sugestions, stopping at MTC isn't the way to do it.
>
>Depends on the architecture selected. Maybe (pure speculation here)
>Freedom becomes a microgravity free flyer and the life science and
>transportation node is in a cheaper station.

   I think in most architecture that would indeed be the logical path
   to follow.

>>Since congress
>>gives every indication of not wanting to fund _TWO_ stations,
>
>There are indications that may change. All this will be revisited
>when Stafford's group is done and releases their work. The Appropriations
>Committees recently released a few million for mission studies with
>the direction that they be used for planning. The implication was that
>if reasonable numbers are given for funding and schedule then work may
>begin at some level.
>
>Congress is putting limits on the money to be spent. They care a lot
>less about how many stations are built with the money.
>
>>As a side note, vehicle assembly plays havoc with a micro-g environment.
>
>Indeed it does. All the more reason to separate the transportation node
>from the micro-g node.
>

   I could be cynical and say that they'll probably go through another
   restructuring study once we've settled on an architecture and look at
   what has to be done to allow station to fit into that architecture, but
   it's Wednesday, and I made a new years resolution never to be
   cynical on Wednesdays.


--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 13:12:16 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

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

>>A lunar/mars initiative will require a significant amount of life
>>sciences research...

>Only the bloated, $400 billion "manned" version of lunar/Mars exploration
>requires this.

Why? Any program putting people into space will need to answer these
questions. Again you make the mistake of assuming that since one manned
program is expensive that therefore they must all be.

>Given the economic and political improbability of such a project,

We need to wait for the end of they Synthisis group before this can be
said.

>not to mention its economic and scientific stupidity,

The problem here is that no activity in space meets your definition
of worthwhile activity. Yet you continue to advocate space science.

  Allen

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 18:45:42 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 01/30/91


                          GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                            January 30, 1991

     The health of the Galileo spacecraft continues to be excellent.  Today,
the CDS "B" (Command Data Subsystem) prime and extended memory readout
activity is presently in process and proceeding well.

     Tomorrow, the Low Gain Antenna (LGA) will be switched from LGA-2 (the
aft-facing boom mounted antenna) to LGA-1 (the forward-facing antenna) to
provide communication capability given the changing sun-spacecraft-Earth
geometry.  Additionally, a planned sun acquisition activity will be performed
to maintain a thermally safe sun pointed attitude.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 15:06:22 -0800
From: [e-mail] (60351000)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #061

PLEASE stop sending information on the SPACE Digest.  I never wanted this info,
and I don't want it now!

Thank you.
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 23:00:03 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Humanity's Launch Window

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>
>Looking at what is happening in the Gulf, as well as other historical
>trends,

What other historical trends?

>it seems that we are taking care of the Japanese national defense
>(not to mention many of their technical R&D costs), leaving them free to
>spend money on space exploration.  Recall that the Japanese recently
>launched the first lunar probe in 20 years.

Many of the technologies we will need for space development
(automation, laser communications, teleoperation, sensors, etc.) are
being develop most fully in our defense efforts.

The only thing the Japanese really have over us is efficiency --
they manage to get some things done on quite a bit smaller budget
and less time than the U.S. -- "quick is beautiful."  But some
"off the beaten path" U.S.  projects (Pegasus, AMSAT) also demonstrate
this capability.  In overall aerospace and science they are still behind
the U.S.  We could learn some things from them about manufacturing
automation, though.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...

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

Date: 31 Jan 91 01:19:49 GMT
From: csn!bilbo1![e-mail]  (Jeff Privette)
Subject: Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jonathan
Leech) writes:

|>In article <[e-mail]> you write:
|>|> I realize that the resolution would be on the order of meters, but
|>|> I'm still surprised that we haven't seen any.
|>
|>    One of the networks subjected a Landsat image to analysis last
|>week.  The analyst pointed out what he claimed were new supply roads
|>in Kuwait.  I suspect the analyst was the only person who saw them,
|>however.
|>    Jon ([e-mail])
|>    __@/

As our office deals frequently with the EROS Data Center in S.D.,
an officemate recently asked someone there if such imagery was
available.  The person quickly noted that they aren't able to talk
about what is even available -- and read a prepared statement which
the bosses had given them in anticipatation of such data requests.
Basically, the tone was "the DoD is a customer of Eros and as such
we cannot discuss what products we may or may not have of sensitive
regions."

On another note, if TM data was available, roads and large buildings
would certainly be visible with very little training.  In a remote
sensing class, we often used digital images which unmistakably showed such
beasts.  Runways and even large bridges are also visible.
TM has 30 m resolution (max.) and SPOT can achieve 10 m.
Perhaps more revealing might be the thermal channel 6 which unfortunately
has resolution of just 120 m I believe.  Nevertheless, after sizeable
explosions and their subsequent fires it would seems the targets would
be visible...

Finally, there have been many reports of cloud cover in the area so
I suspect that since it takes Landsat a couple of weeks to cover the same
area twice, there is a poor chance that good TM imagery has even been
collected.  On the other hand, AVHRR covers every point on earth at
least twice daily so, although resolution is just 1.1 km, there are
probably some clear views.

As perhaps a more appropriate application, it would be nice to have
images of the oil spill so we could begin assessing environmental damage
and estimate current patterns.

Jeff

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 18:53:40 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 01/30/91


                          MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            January 30, 1991

     The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system are performing nominally.
All STARCALS (star calibrations) and DESATS (desaturation of the reaction
wheels) since yesterday were successful.

     The mapping command sequence M1030 was sent last night to the spacecraft,
along with the associated parameter files, and is now executing.  Later today,
a command will be sent to reset the battery heater set points.  This will
correct the condition mentioned yesterday where the temperature of spacecraft
Battery #1 had gone above the alarm limit of 20 degrees Celsius several times.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

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

Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 18:19:06 EST
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 03:09:51 EST
Resent-From: Tom <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #082
Resent-To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: To: [e-mail]

In SPACE Digest V13 #050
 Nick Szabo:  writes :

>Indeed.  The DoD needs to do things in space, rather than just go there.
>As I write DoD satellites are playing an important role in Iraq
>targeting and damage assessment.  The DoD gave up on space stations in the
>60's.  Private industry never seriously considered them.  Even NASA has
>now redesigned Fred so that it is a "space station" in name only.

I'm afraid I'm behind on the ol' acronyms.  From context I assume you mean
sensing satellites.  You refer to 'moving civilization into space'.  While  I
will not argue the value of communications and sensing ability in orbit, I am a
little slow to understand the benefits civilization will reap using only robot
probes.  As far as I understand, no one has evolved to withstand vacuum and
gamma radiation.  This would suggest to me the *necessity* of a MANNED SPACE
STATION.  I.e., a place in space that humans live. (more than a few minutes)
Perhaps you envision a planetary station, yet in terms of energy (sunlight
availability, mostly) a planet costs more than open space to live on, and, it
costs more to move to/from.

>>-They would cost too much for what they deliver.

>6 orders of magnitude is perhaps a bit large.

You earlier compared a winnebago ('luxury'travel) to a space station (pioneer
efforts in a completely new environment).  Perhaps your judgement that it costs
too much is true.  perhaps it's only true because of things we might change
(like not using the shuttle).  And perhaps you judge too fast.
     Ignoring the fact that there is no way to judge the cost of previous moves
to new environmnets (fish-ampibian, or tree-savanna), let's try the next best
thing.  How much did it cost for a 4-wheel horse-driven carrige in the 1450's
(luxury travel) when magellan set out across the sea?  And how much did he pay
for his fleet (pioneering a new environment) most of which did not return, and
none of which was 'economical'?

>>Nick, maybe in fifty years, what you say would be true.  But right now, the
>>MIR *space station* is the pinnacle in terms of what we have learned (as a
>>species)

>I could pick many pinnacles from among the arts and sciences of our
>species: Bheetoven, Voyager, the Dirac equation, Rembrandt, the silicon
>chip, Darwin's theory of natural selection, etc. etc.  Mir would never
>cross my mind.

>What exactly has Mir produced?  A few $million in tourist revenue, a
>Bungled lottery, and some crystals?  While Soviets wait in food
>lines and raid each other's TV stations?   That is the dregs, not the
>pinnacle.

Mir has produced the BEST data on long-term effects on humans of the space
environment, which data will be quite necessary for the proper design of both
habitats and transportation systems (not to mention group interaction, effects
of isolation, etc...)

>For the Soviets, for a few years, as long as they were spending $billions
>on space anyway, a space station made sense, because they lack the ability
>to perform teleoperation.  Mir will not return even 10% of its investment.
>It will never house a signficant community of people or became
>self-sustaining in any way.  Its era was brief and will soon be gone.

It's not supposed to make money.  It's supposed to learn things, just like a
college student

>>Maybe you should find some way of expressing that itty-bitty bit of
>>irritation that you feel toward the Soviets better-planned space
>>program, or our non-planned program, rather than raging on people
>>who have innocently concluded that a space-station would be good,
>>including me, many strangers from this list, and even some soviets
>>who know more about it than all of us put together.

>Conclusions are not "innocent" until proven so.  Who have I "raged" at?
>I post my views and evidence for same, and I post my thoughts on other
>people's views with evidence for same.   I occasionally wax sarcastic
>about NASA.  If you think I am "raging", perhaps you are reacting
>Emotionally to a message would rather not hear.

Who ? - I can't remember.  But it was reading your rage about OUT-OF-DATE that
I realized you were picking on people
Not Innocent?  What, we all have a conspiracy to waste money on something that
               you don't like because of your lack of vision?

And yes, it is lack of vision.  You and I do not live in the AGE OF EXPANSION,
we live at the end of the FIRST WAVE OF EXPLORATION, which will be remembered
for it's economic costs and stunning suprises.  Hopefully, Magellan and Galileo
will be the beginning of the FINAL WAVE OF EXPLORATION.  Maybe Galileo will get
close-ups of the asteroids, and following that, some group of industrialists
will spend the $$$ to do a mining venture, maybe they'll find lot's of iron and
oxygen and nitrigen... and maybe our kids will live in THE AGE OF EXPANSION,
which is finally suited to economic gains, settling down, etc.

I hope it happens.  A global fuedalism, with all the kings owning The Bomb does
not strike me as a happy palce to be.

Sorry nick, but I can't accept the assumptions that you use to reach your
conclusions.  I think your assumptions are a little early in the program. Maybe
if we didn't have a Space program run by tired congressionals.  I'm learning
Japanese.

Tommy Mac           + One giant leap for a man,
                              one small step for mankind +
                                      -What he SHOULD have said.
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #106
*******************