Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_426.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/Ac3cH:K00WBw4YfU5d>;
          Fri, 19 Apr 91 01:48:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 91 01:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #426

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 426

Today's Topics:
             Re: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT
          Re: Space research, teflon, etc, etc,....
          Re: launch on Friday from the Cape
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
             Re: Space Camp in Huntsville
             Re: Laser launchers
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
            Galileo status reports
              Skydive from Space
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
            Re: Cape York launch facility
              For Nick Janow Re: L-SURV
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits
        Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

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: 17 Apr 91 23:53:53 GMT
From: van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!herald.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!draco!swrdpnt![e-mail]  (Scott Young )
Subject: Re: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT

> Actually, I like the flare alerts. I've been watching the sun for the
> last few weeks since reading them, and trying to correlate what I
> read with what I see. If I really knew what I was doing, I would send in
> reports.
>
> Michael


  How have you been watching the sun, with a telescope and a solar filter,
or with an H-alpha filter, or what?  I also have been watching the sun
since I started reading the flare alerts, and (as far as I can tell), most
of the alerts involve the very large sunspot groups I can see with my 8"
SCT and a Mylar filter.  I haven't yet seen any white-light flares (if such
a thing exists), and since I don't have an H-alpha filter, I haven't seen
a correlation between the alerts and prominances.
   Regarding "knowing what you're doing", there isn't really too much to
know.  If you are making anything more that casual peeks at the sun, by all
means send your observations to people who will use them.  I think the AAVSO
has a Solar section, as do several other groups (I don't seem to remember
their names right now...)


      Scott Young


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to: [e-mail]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 14:15:07 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Space research, teflon, etc, etc,....

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Rehak Ext. 3-9437, AIS Central Services  -  Swen Parson 146) writes:
>
>Now don't get me wrong, I believe in having a strong defense.  I
>beleive that necessity is the mother of invention.  I just think
>it's sad that in today's day and age, governments drive necessity
>which in turn tends to be something of a military nature.  Thomas
>Edison, Henry Ford, and the Wright brothers suffered alone for
>many years trying to perfect their inventions.  Maybe we should
>be finding modern day inventors like these and start funding their
>research.  Space research doesn't necessarily have to be done by
>NASA.  Being a part of the government, NASA is burdened by the
>usual government mismanagement, waste, meddling, restriction of
>scientific thought, and a 'just get the job done attitude'.  The
>Challenger is a good example of my last comment.
>
>There has to be a better way to promote scientific research.

Well if there is, and I doubt it, any government funding will make
it just as inefficient as the current system. Control always follows
the money. The same waste, mismanagement, meddling, and restrictions
on scientific thought would inevitably flow with the money. Backyard
tinkerers are unlikely to deliver the complex transportation systems
we all want. Like it or not, we are stuck with the government doing
a job that's too big for anyone else. All we can hope to do is pressure
the government to do the best possible job they can.

Gary

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

Date: 16 Apr 91 04:03:00 GMT
From: sgi!cdp![e-mail]
Subject: Re: launch on Friday from the Cape




It's a Spacenet sat, but only by acquisition.  The craft in question is
ASC-2, which became Spacenet's by virtue of the GTE acquisition of Contel.
If memory serves, it's being launched to 101, which is the prime piece of
orbital real estate in the US arc.  ASC-2 does have six Ku-band transponders,
some of which are 54 MHz and others 72 MHz.  Obviously, it could carry video,
but ASC-1 was overwhelmingly a data sat with occassional business video.  I
think that GTE Spacenet's strategy differs a bit from that of Contel ASC in
ways that might have consequences for use of the crfat, but I don't know.

Ken Donow
W. L. Pricthard & Co.
7315 Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 500 E
Bethesda, MD  20814
Voice:    301-654-1144
Fax:    [phone]
Email:    cdp![e-mail]

My employer has lots of his opinions, and I represent none of them here.

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 18:05:33 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:


>...Compare
>and contrast the design and operational histories of R 100 and R 101,
>for example.
>James Nicoll

I suggest everyone here read something on the R100 and the R101. I am
continually struck by the resemblance to a _lot_ of things going on in
the space program today.

--
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: 17 Apr 91 19:44:28 GMT
From: mintaka!olivea!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!ducvax.auburn.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Space Camp in Huntsville

Yes, I have been to Space Academy Levels I and II, and I have never had such a
good time in my life! My group from Level II still gets together every summer.
If you get the chance to go, do so! You will NOT regret it!

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

Date: 19 Apr 91 02:10:01 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Laser launchers

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>At the power levels required to loft real payloads
>into orbit, atmospheric blooming is an intractable physical problem.
>Once the air is ionized into a plasma, the plasma is optically opaque
>cutting off further power transfer. Talk to the guys who have actually
>fired high power lasers, the laser fusion folks, and see what they
>say about the absolute necessity of having a hard vacuum to fire the
>beam through.

I've heard that the laser weapons people were trying to solve a
similar problem using a pulsed laser beam, with each pulse lasting a
small fraction (milli-? micro-?) of a second.  In their case, the
surface of the target was turning to plasma, preventing the beam from
penetrating further.

Has anyone looked into applying this technology to laser launchers?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 03:24:53 GMT
From: wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Other examples include... the removal of microgravity scientists out of
>the Fred plan when they asked for politically unpopular design changes they
>require for their work.

    There is that phrase again "politically unpopular".  I keep runing
into this phrase only on this group.  Who is building the space station anyway
Scientist or those stupid no Brains politicians?  Sounds to me like the no Brain
politicians.  In that case I suppose Fred will probably fall on another country
somewhere.  I really feal sorry for those poor scientist that look bad because
of NASA's retarded administrators and congressman.


                        Will........

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 09:04:33 GMT
From: theory.tn.cornell.edu![e-mail]  (Jeff Moersch)
Subject: Galileo status reports

So how come the Galileo status reports stop just as soon as the spacecraft
starts having problems?  I would think this is a time people would be very
interested in having up to date information on what's going on.  The people
who paid for the mission deserve to know what's up!

Jeff Moersch
[e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Apr 91 11:50:42 GMT
From: unmvax!nmt.edu![e-mail]  (Daniel Briggs)
Subject: Skydive from Space

Here's a fun little tidbit that I thought sci.space'ers might
appreciate.  It's from the "Maybe You've Heard" column in the April
_Skydiving_ magazine.

"Plans have been announced for an October attempt to set a high
altitude freefall record.  The project, dubbed "Skydive from Space" by
its New York promoters, calls for British jumpers Harry Taylor and
Nish Bruce to jump from a balloon floating 120,000 ft. over Texas.
The world record freefall is from 80,630 ft.  (Joe Kittinger's famous
jump from 102,800 feet wasn't a real freefall since he was stabilized
by a drogue during part of his descent.)"

Sounds like fun, eh?  BTW, that shot at Kittinger's record strikes me
as a bit nitpicky.  Certainly most skydivers refer to an ordinary
tandem jump as "freefall", and that is also drogue stabilized.  It's
obviously just a matter of definition, though.  Likewise, 23 miles may
not fit normal definitions of "space", but it's certainly getting
pretty close!

--
This is a shared guest account, please send replies to
[e-mail] (Internet)    [phone]
Dan Briggs / NRAO / P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM / 87801  (U.S. Snail)

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 15:32:16 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (will) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Other examples include... the removal of microgravity scientists out of
>>the Fred plan when they asked for politically unpopular design changes they
>>require for their work.
>
>    There is that phrase again "politically unpopular".  I keep runing
>into this phrase only on this group.  Who is building the space station anyway
>Scientist or those stupid no Brains politicians?  Sounds to me like the no Brain
>politicians.  In that case I suppose Fred will probably fall on another country
>somewhere.  I really feal sorry for those poor scientist that look bad because
>of NASA's retarded administrators and congressman.

     The engineers are *building* it, but they have to do it to the
specs the folks with the money 'want'. They aren't 'no-brain politicians'
so much as 'technically ignorant, but talented at bureaucratic infighting,
and hierarchical ascension policians'. The point *isn't* to build a working
space-station, it is to control the funds and people involved in building
a space-station. It'd be nice if one actually got built, but not if the
building required massive changes in the way decisions get made. With
that in mind, if a bureaucrat sees an opportunity to kick a non-bureaucrat
out of the decision-making cabal, it is his (or her) duty as a bureaucrat
to do so. The micro-gravity folks screwed up by forgetting the real purpose
behind Fred, and asking for options based on what an operating space-station
might usefully and uniquely provide, rather than protecting their hinies
by remembering that Fred is just a way to justify moving money around within
the US government.

    The policians have an obligation to their home-ridings to make sure
as much of the money involved in making Fred gets spent *in* their
home-ridings. Otherwise, someone who promised to make sure that the
pork-barrel gets allocated in a more judicious manner (ie; in the riding)
might beat them in the next election. Whether or not the means to live
up to the government contract are found in that region really should have
little or no bearing on the attempt to get the contract. This kind of
thinking leads to (for example) having the headquarters of a nation's
navy located inland, far from the nearest ocean, but that's the cost of
democracy, I guess.

    No, I don't entirely believe the above. 'Who's paying' is a
good guide to the types of design decisions that will get made. Compare
and contrast the design and operational histories of R 100 and R 101,
for example.

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 10:00:56 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!brolga!covax.commerce.uq.oz.au![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cape York launch facility

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Lechowicz) writes:
>
>
> Does anyone know what the current  situation is with the launch facility
> proposed  for the Cape  York  peninsula?  If so I would  appreciate  any
> information.  Thanks in advance.
>

Last I heard was waiting for the environment impact studies.  Queensland
state govt. is still claiming the Space Port as an indication of their
progressive thinking !  Expected first launch is still claimed at c1995.
Anyone got a spare skyrocket :-)

--
David E. Bellamy        Email: [e-mail]
Dept. Commerce, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, AUSTRALIA

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

Date: 16 Apr 91 13:50:04 GMT
From: ccncsu!longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU![e-mail]  (Jay Nestle)
Subject: For Nick Janow Re: L-SURV


    This is a message to Nick Janow:  I was unable to
get mail to you directly.  I tried several different email
addresses and all of them bounced.

    I want to thank you for your FRANGIBOLT suggestion!
That is exactly what we were looking for, we made a copy of
the article you suggested and actually changed our paper we
presented on the topic only 2 days before, incorporating the
FRANGIBOLT.  Thanks again!

                    Jay Nestle

[e-mail]

   "Save the earth, develop space."  -  Bumper Sticker

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 17:17:31 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Perry G Ramsey)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (will) writes:

>     The policians have an obligation to their home-ridings to make sure
> as much of the money involved in making Fred gets spent *in* their
> home-ridings.

Home-ridings???  I think that's what we call "Districts" south of the
border.  In any case, I think you have the essence of the problem in
hand:

> The point *isn't* to build a working
> space-station, it is to control the funds and people involved in building
> a space-station.

--
Perry G. Ramsey         Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
[e-mail]  Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA
perryr@purccvm
Sometimes history repeats itself; sometimes it doesn't.  So get good odds.

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 20:05:18 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

>The micro-gravity folks screwed up by forgetting the real purpose
>behind Fred, and asking for options based on what an operating space-station
>might usefully and uniquely provide, rather than protecting their hinies
>by remembering that Fred is just a way to justify moving money around within
>the US government.

  I'll ask again. If my question's already been answered, I'm sorry, but I
  didn't see the answer.

  What is it that SSF might 'usefully and uniquely provide'?

  Are we just talking about micro-g levels or are we talking about some
  other system or resource?

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #426
*******************