Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_402.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/sc1dzW:00WBw8GiU5T>;
          Sat, 13 Apr 91 02:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 02:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #402

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 402

Today's Topics:
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
        Re: Teflon (Was Re: Space technology)
           Re: Advancing Launch Technology
             Re: Space technology
                  Re: Mars?
        Re: Teflon (Was Re: Space technology)
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
           Re: Soviet manned lunar program
             Re: I want to go to orbit...
             Re: Space technology
   Venus described as volcanic and geologically active (Forwarded)

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: 12 Apr 91 17:50:55 GMT
From: kiwi![e-mail]  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
> >  NASA never guaranteed to launch anything.
> >The language in the standard Launch Services Agreement
> >states NASA will use "their best endeavours", which
> >means no warranty etc.
>
> Still sounds like grounds for a lawsuit to me.  *What* "best endeavours"?

Maybe the problem with the contract is the simply the capitalization.  If
we read this as "NASA will use their best Endeavour", then Hughes was just
ahead of their time, since Endeavour is still under construction. :-)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Doug Davey   bellcore!bae!ddavey   [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Apr 91 21:09:01 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!sdd.hp.com!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Nikhil Ranjan Joshi)
Subject: Re: Teflon (Was Re: Space technology)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] writes:
>>The trick in making non-stick frying pans is to get
>>the pan to stick to Teflon as *nothing* sticks to Teflon!!
>
>O.K., I give up.  What's the trick.


A Mech. Eng. friend of mine once said that the pan has a lot of
small mushroom-shaped bumps on the surface (though very flat of
course).  The Teflon is poured in liquid form and flows around the
mushrooms, and then cools and solidifies.  So it actually doesn't
"stick" to the surface of pan.  Though I'm not so sure about this
anymore since others have pointed out that Teflon has a rather
high melting point.  What this has to do with astronomy I'm not sure
of anymore, so no more will I comment...

 -nik

-------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil R. Joshi
Senior, AY
Caltech
-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 01:37:08 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Advancing Launch Technology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
>...it's just a fact that with such a
>small number of complete chemical launcher design iterations, we just
>DON'T KNOW what the lowest possible cost of that technology is.

You repeat this as if it was an argument in your favor.  The fact that
chemical rockets have such long design cycles is one of their problems.
If we want to wait around until 2500  to colonize space (no exageration
-- this is based on the curve of chemical rocket launch costs since 1960),
and assume no other new technology between now and then, what you say might
be reasonable.  But then you go on to talk about 10-20 years for newer
technology to come on-line. The long design cycle means we will not reduce
chem rockets an order of magnitude, or anywhere near that, in the 10-20 years
it may take to develop laser launch (much less the 5 years Sandia says it
needs for EML -- already less than half NASA's typical chem rocket design
cycle, for the first implementation of the technology!).   Indeed, the
government chem rocket proposals we have seen in this newsgroup where
numbers have been given (ALS, HLLV) do not reduce costs at all, when
examined with realistic operation and market assumptions.

When NASA was contemplating the Shuttle in the late 60's, RAND did a
study that showed NASA would be better off sticking with Saturn V for
manned, heavy lift ability.  They reasoned that money going into
Shuttle R&D would reduce the money available to potential Shuttle customers.
The Shuttle would dry up demand for itself, Shuttle would fly far less than
the proposed 55 flights per year, and the R&D costs of Shuttle would
not amortize to a lower cost than Saturn V.  All the while, NASA was
declaring that Shuttle would drop prices by your order of magnitude.
A bold try, I must admit, going to reusability, but the bottom line is,
Shuttle still costs $8,000/lb., the same technology in a different
dress.

Private industry, on a smaller scale and with different paradigms, is
making progress on launch costs, in its own fashion (going after response
time and entry level launch costs instead of cost/lb., for example).
While private industry progresses, government is no longer able to
reduce chem rocket costs.  Government launch R&D should indeed go
directly to EML, gas gun, tethers, and laser launch.   That 10-20 years is
in large part a function of how much basic science and technology effort we
put into it.  If we keep pouring most of the money into chem rockets, it
will probably be longer than 20 years; if we change our priorities now,
it could be less than 10.   To sum up, there is room for incremental
and paradigm improvement of chemical rockets by private industry.
Government should advance technology or get out of the way.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 12 Apr 91 15:08:21 GMT
From: wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Space technology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil OKunewick) writes:

>Well, there yuh go again, trying to not give credit where credit is due.

>Many uses were not really dreamed of (i.e. the non-stick frying
>pan) until something showed up that would make it practical.  I doubt
>many people had non-stick frying pans in mind when they developed
>teflon.

>Teflon probably wouldn't even have been invented if NASA hadn't
>needed a slippery, heat-resistant, abrasion-resistant, non-conductive
>material.  Matter of fact, the government spending millions of dollars
>to develop a non-stick frying pan would most likely have been labeled
>a huge waste of taxpayers money; thus the program would have probably
>been killed after a few million had been spent, but before there were
>any usable results.  But once the material was developed, it became
>clear that the uses for this stuff were endless.

To give credit where credit is due, I was under the impression that
Teflon was developed by the Air Force back in the '50's for use with
ICBM's for something. This spinoff seems to have come from being on
the verge of war with the Soviet Union for 40 years or so. Does this
mean we should keep it up?

The space program, or a lot of activity carried out under the aegis of
the space program, (I subjectively believe) has a lot of merit simply
by itself. I wouldn't want to base an argument for continuing the space
program on no-stick frying pans. I'd be very very nervous debating the
point.

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
"The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extermes, in
which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself
of almost all sense and meaning." - Winston Churchill, _The Birth of
Britian_
"X-rays are a hoax." - Lord Kelvin

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

Date: 12 Apr 91 13:05:22 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!news-server.ecf!ecf![e-mail]  (MURTY Hema Sandhyarani)
Subject: Re: Mars?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Meyer) writes:
>Just wondering when the human race gonna stop this self-killing and
>reach the planet Mars?
>
>-"Where no man has gone before..."
>
    Probably when those with such opinions (like most of us here
    on this net) will stand up to those who stand in our way.
    For those in the Toronto Globe and Mail receiving area,
    see Polanyi (recent Nobel Laureate) editorial on recent
    world events in Tuesday's paper.

Hema Murty
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Apr 91 14:50:38 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Teflon (Was Re: Space technology)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil OKunewick) writes:
>   Teflon probably wouldn't even have been invented if NASA hadn't
>needed a slippery, heat-resistant, abrasion-resistant, non-conductive
>material.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Briggs) writes:
>Hmmmm.  While I agree with much that has been said about spinoff
>technology, perhaps the example of teflon isn't a good one.
...
>have hashed most of the details, but I think the fact is that the
>discovery of teflon was largely an accident by some chemist types who
>kept their eyes open.  Even if the lab turns out to have been a NASA
>one, it probably wasn't a substance produced on demand according to
>NASA specs.

Teflon was discovered in 1938 by Pluckett.  Its commercial introduction
occured in 1947 (delayed by WW2).  I understand it was used
in the Manhattan project, as it is chemically very inert (attacked
only by alkali metals and strong hot bases); specifically, it does
not react with hydrofluoric acid or uranium hexafluoride.

Unless NASA has invented a time machine, they obviously had nothing to
do with the invention of Teflon.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Apr 91 00:08:10 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits



I agree, NASA is definitely government.   NASA employess enfjoy the
same benefits and restrictions as all other federal employees,
federal holidays, diplomatic passports, conflict of interest
regulations etc.

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

Date: 12 Apr 91 02:09:23 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: Soviet manned lunar program

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
> <...lots of stuff about the Soviet lunar programme deleted>

> Sigh...I *wish* the Soviets had gotten there first. Then the US would have
> been forced to turn their attention towards Mars. I bet the first manned
> Mars mission would have taken place ten years ago if the Americans had lost
> the moon race in the 1960s.

No you don't.  The Soviet ego would have gotten so big that the current
thaw in the Cold War would still be 30 years in the future, and who knows
if the Soviets would have felt the need to curtail the arms race.

In the mean time, the USA would have wasted another 10-15 years chasing the
next holy grail in space.  Instead of the Shuttle, space science, and great
observatories, we would have been spending every free dollars attempting to
make footprints in Martian soil.

IMHO, the Moon race is something that everyone had to get out of their
system before anyone could go on and do any serious science in space.
Granted that the space transportation system is not all that it was billed
to be in the early 70's, the shuttle has been a giant learning step which
has allowed us to do some neat things in space and learn volumes along the
way.  In contrast, we did learn a great deal during the moon race, but
most of what we learned during Apollo (IC's, calculators, new alloys &
plastics, etc) could have been learned right here on Earth without actually
flying the missions.

BTW, does anyone think that humans could have landed on Mars by 1980,
especially given what we now know about radiation in space and calcuim loss?
Would we have been able to build space machines that would last long enough
without breaking to get to Mars and back?  Could anyone last 9 months in
an Apollo capsule without going crazy?  (AKA, Capricorn 1)

-john-

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

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 00:17:14 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: I want to go to orbit...



oops, I think you are right about $ 750 K contract c vlaue.
He is still working on that job, he had an ad in AW&ST a couple
of months ago to hire some more people.

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

Date: 13 Apr 91 00:59:47 GMT
From: unmvax!uokmax![e-mail]  (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Space technology

The idea of spinoffs has a long history.  I remember a Walt Disney special
I saw in the 50's (I was 5-6 years old) which used some beautiful film to
make the point that we should invest in science and technolgy for the sake
of serendepitous gains.  The modern industrial lab dates from the 19nth
century but they were largely mission oriented.  The big kick off for
serendepity was the manhatten project and radar.  Pure physcics bet Roosevelt
a billion dollars that they could make a bomb and they won.  The history of
pure and applied research has never been the same since.  My view is that
there is this contract between society and science that says " Scientists,
we'll give you guys carte blanch to do whatever the hell you want as long as
you give us a new major weapon system every 10 years.  Then, in the post war
era it became politically acceptable, then politically necessary to finance
the goverment as a whole and science in particular by deficit spending.

There are innumerable cases of pure and even silly research results that lead t

something of value to technology and society.  The question is more
do big science projects lend themselves to an efficient production of
serendipitous discoveries?  And given that society is going to spend a
major fraction of its research budget on a big science project, can society
(and science) really afford to act as is all big science projects are
equally valuable.  Can we really afford, as a society, to spend our
technolgical capital with no regard to japanese commercial competition,
the rapid extinction of 80% of all species of living things, and other
things with the idea that it doesn't matter what you spend your resources
on, nature will reward us with useful results, irrespective of what we
spend our money on?  Do big science projects (like the space station, and
the superconducting supercollider) provide dollar for dollar value and
idea for idea value over small projects and mission oriented projects?
Or do they develop political constituencies that feed them and expand them
irrespective of any useful goal they can or once could achieve?

Robert W. Murphree
442 Park drive \
Norman, Ok 73069

[e-mail]
internet

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

Date: 13 Apr 91 01:14:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Venus described as volcanic and geologically active (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                           April 12, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])

Jim Doyle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadina, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  91-53

VENUS DESCRIBED AS VOLCANIC AND GEOLOGICALLY ACTIVE

    Widespread volcanism and a geologically active surface were
descriptions of the planet Venus presented today in the first
published papers by members of the Magellan Project science team at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

    In the papers published in Science magazine, Magellan
scientists described geologic features of Earth's sister planet as
they begin the unprecedented task of mapping an Earth-size planet.
The reports describe extensive and explosive volcanism, tectonic
deformations, mountain belts and a number of impact craters that
indicate a relatively young surface age of a few hundred million
years.

    Science team members described several types of lava flows,
evidence of lava rivers hundreds of miles long and craters created
by meteorite impacts that caused surface material to be ejected as
far as 600 miles.

    The Magellan spacecraft is producing comprehensive image and
altimetry data for the planet Venus," said Project Scientist Stephen
Saunders and his co-authors in one of the papers.

    The Magellan spacecraft was launched May 4, 1989, and began
mapping Venus on Sept. 15, 1990.  Its primary mission goal of
mapping 70 percent of the planet was accomplished April 3.  Project
officials said that when the first mapping cycle of 243-days -- one
Venus rotation beneath the orbiter -- ends on May 15, a total of 84
percent of the planet's surface will have been acquired.

    NASA officials announced last week that because of the
excellence of the radar images produced by the spacecraft and the
excitement they have generated in the science community, a second
mapping cycle has been approved.

     The first priority of the second cycle, beginning May 16, will
be to acquire the remaining 16 percent of the planet's surface in
radar imagery, including the south pole which has not been imaged by
spacecraft before.

    The papers, written by science team members from JPL and other
American and foreign institutions, covered the first 21 days of
Magellan radar image data.

    The Magellan Project is managed by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory for NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #402
*******************