Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_196.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

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/kblpxEW00WBwMhHk53>;
          Sun, 24 Feb 91 01:38:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <Iblpx=y00WBwAhG05=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 01:38:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #196

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
        Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions"
            Re: Magellan Update - 02/20/91
         Re: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91
         Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #193
    Re: UN Moon Treaty (was Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes)
           Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91
             Pioneer 11 Update - 02/22/91
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #187

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: 24 Feb 91 02:24:03 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (B. Charles Siegfried)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>* Of U.S. patents granted in 1989, 79,088 (76%) were issued
>  to corporations, 23,624 (23%) to private individuals, and
>  700 (1%) to government laboratories.  While some of the
>  private individuals are government funded, clearly the bulk
>  of innovation comes from outside the government laboratory
>  sphere.

    Patent-developing technology is nice, but quite a bit
of research will not result in patents for decades.  Patents
basically represent engineering research, but not "pure
reasearch."  Pure research will not result in immediate patents,
and because of this, private firms are less likely to support
research in these areas.  In fact, few areas outside of universities
do any pure research at all.  A great deal of government research
grants go to university-based research.  My professor, Govindjee,
is the nation's leader in the light reactions of photosynthesis.
He will never produce a patent, but someday the research he is doing
will result in chemical engineers making nearly 100% efficient
photocells.  Without that basic research, the engineering side
could never be done.  Although I don't support the government giving
large grants to stimulate certain areas of research (such as  the
human genome fiasco), it should support the universities enough to
provide the large amount of pure research that an growing economy
needs.  The supposedly "inefficient" government research is not so.


__
Bryan Siegfried
Biology and Economics at UIUC

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 09:15:17 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions"
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> Charles Radley writes:
   + However, you focus at length on the problems of cutting
   +openings, not of putting airlocks in them.  Anywhere you can
   +bolt a hatch you can bolt an  airlock instead, without any
   +fundamental difficulties.

>   ?? Really.... Would not hold pressure very long !   Airlocks
>involve complex redundant labyrinth seals.    A bolted interface
>is no good.

With appropriate seals it should do. When I scuba dive my life
always depends on the integrity of a bolted interface. Ditto for
other undersea applications like subs and underwater dive platforms
for oil drilling. They need to keep integrity for years at a time
and at pressures far greater than in space. You need to pick your
materials differently but I'm sure it is possible.

>  Interesting.  Please tell us how they plan to install an airlock.

I refer you to the External Tank Study published by the Space Studies
Institute (subtle advertizement: these guys do great work; send them lots of
your money). Martin has designed a structure called the Aft Cargo Carrier
(ACC) which connects to the bottom of the ET. It is designed to add
cargo space and one variant of it is an ET based space station. The
ACC has an airlock built into it. The crew can transfer to it via EVA
and have a shirt sleve environment in which to furnish the inside of the
ET.

>Windows would be nice too.

But not a necessity. However, the ACC does have windows.

>Which of them volunteered
>to be the first one to go through the airlock without a suit on ?

If it comes to that, I'll do it.

> Sorry, you just failed the leak test.   Start again.

Assuming that is in fact what happens, no problem. This approach
is so cheap that we just redo the airlock and use the next ET
instead.

>  Nobody has ever installed a kluge fit airlock in orbit, not
>even the Soviets want to be the first to take that risk.

The Soviets have installed kluge airlocks on the ground. They also
do kluge's in space.

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

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

Date: 23 Feb 91 03:12:01 GMT
From: europa.asd.contel.com!issm!wlbr!mahendo!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 02/20/91

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>
>>                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
>>                           February 20, 1991
>[...]
>>     The M1051 mapping command sequence with its associated radar control
>>parameter and mapping quaternion files was successfully sent to the spacecraft
>            ^^^^^^^^
>
>Are these the quaternions of Hamilton (i^2=j^2=k^2=ijk=-1)? And, in that
>case, what does quaternions have to do with the mappin of Venus?

Here is what Peter Ford on the Magellan project has to say about the
quaternion files:

     "Quaternions are a convenient way of describing the orientation of a
      body in inertial space as a set of 4 numbers q1 through q4. They are
      similar to Euler angles, but are mathematically easier to work with. To
      point the spacecraft, the Magellan attitude control computers are given
      a set of polynomial coefficients, called a quaternion file, that
      enables them to reconstruct the q's at any time during the orbit. The
      computers compare these quaternions with their best estimate of the
      current spacecraft orientation and issue commands to the momentum
      wheels to slew Magellan in the desired way."

The attitude of the spacecraft and its position relative to Venus is
important data needed to help process the raw radar data, as all of this
is fed into the Synthetic Aperture Radar processor to produce the images.a
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: 23 Feb 91 23:51:40 GMT
From: meteor![e-mail]  (Chris Bovitz)
Subject: Re: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>                     PIONEER 7 & 8 STATUS REPORT
>                         February 22, 1991
>
>     The Pioneer 7 spacecraft was tracked for 4 hours on February 16.  The
>CRD (Cosmic Ray Detector) and the PA (Plasma Analyzer) instruments were turned
>on for 1 1/2 hours each.
>
>     The Pioneer 8 was tracked on February 17.  Attempts to command the
>spacecraft were unsuccessful.  Three attempts were made at an uplink power of
>18 kW.  Telemetry received during the pass is being analyzed to evaluate the
>communications subsystem.  At the next tracking opportunity the uplink power
>will be increased.


Where are the members of the Pioneer family now?


--
        |  Chris Bovitz              |  "You drive me insane now.  |
 -------|  [e-mail]  |   There, I am insane."      |-------
        |  Univ of WI-Madison        |    --Dieter, _Sprockets_    |

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

Date: 22 Feb 91 03:05:26 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> Bill Higgins writes:
> > What has been the fate of poor old Lunar Observer in the new FY92 budget
> > proposal?  I haven't seen any mention of it in the press yet.

> PS. I was just about to send this out when I had a thought. NASA is
> donating a gama ray spectrometer to the Lunar Prospector. If they
> also donated the backup mars Observer bus as well could a better
> probe result? After all, it would look much better in lunar orbit
> than rusting in the Air and Space Museaum!

After all, we can put the spacecraft back in the museaum in a few (or
many) years after the mission is completed.  I would think that the
Smithsonian would much rather display a spacecraft that actually flew.

No smiley here--I think it really is feasible to return a moon orbitor
back to Earth.  The big trick would be getting the probe back to into
Earth orbit so the shuttle can pict it up.  Would it be possible to use
two IUSs and some type of simple docking adapter?  Perhaps there is some
other hardware in the NASM that could be adapted....

-john-

--
===============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]               [e-mail]
NeWave Communications                 ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
===============================================================================

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 21:33:46 EST
From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #193

Re: Terraforming Venus:

Lot's of replies, so I won't try to remember the original pieces-parts:

1) Earth did not tie up it's atmosphere in rocks, but in oceans, and, lately,
   plants and animals.  Water is the limitation on hospitality.

2) How is terra-forming Venus NOT a focus of SPACE-Digest?  It's in space.

3) ONE MORE IDEA:  Since comets have something better to do than making a tan
   faster salon, and Venus needs water, and the limitation is energy for
   transportation, why not import hydrogen?

   By exploding it, you can blow off some atmosphere, create some water,
   provide a place for the rest of the atmphere to dissolve into, AND provide
   a heat sink.

Tommy Mac          "B-52"
18084tm@msu               -How to Wreck Saddam's bingo game
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 23 Feb 91 16:42:25 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: UN Moon Treaty (was Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
<In reply to me>

>+ It all depends on who you are.  If the U.S. authorizes 3M to
>+conduct mining operations supported by a U.S. lunar base, I
>+seriously doubt  we are going to let a bureaucracy interfere
>+in this.  The U.N. is pretty  much irrelevant, except when we
>+can use it to our advantage.  Whether or not this is a good
>+thing is subject to some debate, but that's the way  it is.

>  I disagree, The Soviet Union, China and third world members of
>the security council will not permit the USA to collect vast
>profits with impunity.  They all will want their cut.

Sure they will.  The operative question here is, what can they do about it?
Sanctions?  I think the world economy would slide into a permanent recession
if they tried to embargo the roughly $1.2 trillion of trade that we take
part in.  Military force?  That would certainly cost more than any 'tax'
we might pay if they succeeded.  No, if we decide to get into interplanetary
mining, there's not a thing in the world anyone is going to do about it.
Besides, if they don't like us making so much money, they just have to go
out there and get their own profits.

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
Office of Information Technology     for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Feb 91 04:28:03 GMT
From: europa.asd.contel.com!issm!wlbr!mahendo!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91


                     PIONEER 7 & 8 STATUS REPORT
                         February 22, 1991

     The Pioneer 7 spacecraft was tracked for 4 hours on February 16.  The
CRD (Cosmic Ray Detector) and the PA (Plasma Analyzer) instruments were turned
on for 1 1/2 hours each.

     The Pioneer 8 was tracked on February 17.  Attempts to command the
spacecraft were unsuccessful.  Three attempts were made at an uplink power of
18 kW.  Telemetry received during the pass is being analyzed to evaluate the
communications subsystem.  At the next tracking opportunity the uplink power
will be increased.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: 23 Feb 91 04:31:43 GMT
From: europa.asd.contel.com!issm!wlbr!mahendo!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Pioneer 11 Update - 02/22/91


                        PIONEER 11 STATUS REPORT
                          February 22, 1991

     A second attempt to produce roll and cone angles of Canopus with
the IPP (Imaging Photopolarimeter) instrument on the Pioneer 11 spacecraft on
February 16 was largely unsuccessful.  The instrument appeared to lock on
numerous objects, probably due to noise from the high gain setting.  The data
are being applied, together with data from Sirius, to newly developed attitude
software in an attempt to obtain a spacecraft attitude.

     Unsuccessful attempts to switch receivers were continued on February 14
and 19.  All commands were successfully received by the spacecraft, employing
the new Idle-2 sequence of all zeroes, implemented at the DSN (Deep Space
Network).
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 20:19:47 EST
From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #187

RE: Terraforming Venus

Clayton E. Kramer Suggested algae in dirigibles, rather than Shields, etc.

I don't remember where, but I remember learning that you don't need dirigilbes
and don't want dirigibles.  The convection currents would keep the little guys
aloft (where it's cool), and dispersed.

I assume your speaking of the famous Blue-Green Algae (even though BGA refers
to about 20 different organisms.) that feeds on sunlight and CO2.  There are
also the algae/bacteria family in the ocean that feed on water and Sulfur.  I
think it's called chemosynthesis.  They live near fresh lava.  Lot's of hot
sulfur in Venus' atmosphere.

Here's what's really cool:  If we 'infected' Venus with life (Which some of the
Neitzche-and-clove-cigarettes-at-3-am-in-the-coffe-house types will argue is
immoral) we would be able to see the effects in a telescope in 5 years, and we
could start transporting other forms of life in 50!  This type of innoculation
has been deemed illegal by some post-moon-treaty agreement, BTW.

Naturally I have no references.  And maybe the originall propenents of this
idea had it all wrong.

But, shoot, how much would it cost to carry a few teeny-tiny organisms on the
next probe to Venus?  How much return on your investment would it be?

Tommy Mac  18084tm@msu
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #196
*******************