Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_429.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/Yc3xDI200WBwAaLE5p>;
          Sat, 20 Apr 91 01:38:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 91 01:38:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #429

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 429

Today's Topics:
              Picture of Hubble Required
         Re: NEP to Mars!?!? - a thesis topic
    Re: test Einstein's theories during next total solar eclipses
          Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18
              Re: Galileo status reports
        Agenda for NASA into the 21st Century
     Re: NASA rejects industry in favor of entertainment
               Mars media alert
          Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

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: 18 Apr 91 08:28:57 GMT
From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!warwick!nott-cs!lut.ac.uk![e-mail]  (Jam Jar)
Subject: Picture of Hubble Required

Organization : Loughborough University, UK.
Keywords:

A quick request : I need a high quality image of the Hubble Telescope. I have
FTP access. Anyone got a pic, or know an anon ftp site that does? e-mail any
answers please.
Thanks for your time.
Neil.
--
THINK!              | [e-mail] |  Life is a sexually transmitted
     - or thwim.    `--------------------'  disease.
         ^-----------Nigel Rees - Graffiti 2------------^

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

Date: 16 Apr 91 15:57:43 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: NEP to Mars!?!? - a thesis topic

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>[I write: Voyager and Galileo use[d] gravity assist]

>    The Voyagers flew a direct trajectory to Jupiter, Nick.

Yes, but they didn't stop there.  Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune were only
possible via gravity assist from the previous planets.  It takes quite a
bit more energy to get out there than we can put onto chemical rockets.

And we ain't seen nuthin' yet.  Wait until Galileo starts using Jupiter's
moons to climb up and down Jupiter's gravity well.  Let's watch the Galileo
probe slam into Jupiter at 4 times the velocity of any previous aerobraking.
Take a look at some of the trajectories for capturing asteroid material
into earth orbit for only a small fraction of the cost of getting materials
from the lunar surface [O'Leary paper].  Letting the solar sytem do the work
for us -- substituting brainpower for rocket power -- is the key to solar
system engineering.





--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"The biscuits and the syrup never come out even" -- Robert A. Heinlein
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 18 Apr 91 15:29:55 GMT
From: van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!herald.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!draco!swrdpnt![e-mail]  (Scott Young )
Subject: Re: test Einstein's theories during next total solar eclipses

[e-mail] writes:

> With all this talk of observing total solar eclipses, I hope some
> people are planning to do some real science.  For instance, why
> not record images (photographic film or CCDs) of the star positions
> near the sun during totality and compare to the same region at night
> (ie not during the eclipse) to look for shifts in the stars
> apparent positions and check Einstein's predicted angular shifts
> due to space curvature around the Sun.

  Sounds like a good idea, but I can see a few problems.  First of all,
to do the experiment suggested you need (I think) an image that shows an
area about a degree by a degree to show enough reference stars.  So, using a
CCD is probably out unless you use a *very* short focal length.  Also, if
memory serves, the predicted shifts are on the order of arcseconds, so you
would want a long focal length to get accurate positions.  Considering that
most ameteurs will be using small portable telescopes, it's very unlikely
that they will be able to get the perfect guiding required.  (Plus, polar
aligning a scope during the day is a pain!)
   If you happen to be in the path of totality and have the facilities to
try this interesting experiment, go for it.  If you are travelling to see
the eclipse, though, then concentrate on *seeing* it.  Take a few pictures
of the corona and prominences, and have fun.  I envy you.

            Scott Young
            All opinions etc. etc.


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

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

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

Date: 19 Apr 91 15:52:04 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Gutierrez) writes:
>> not both, hence, KSC sent the termination signal.
>           ^^^
>A more detailed report later said that General Dynamics did their own
>launch operations, and NASA/KSC wasn't involved at all.  Ooops...

NASA/KSC would not have been involved in any case.  Nor would GD have sent
a destruct signal.  Range safety for the Cape (including KSC) is handled
by the USAF.

Incidentally, KSC launches shuttles and only shuttles.  All other launches
are from the Cape Canaveral USAF base.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Apr 91 16:39:08 GMT
From: infonode![e-mail]  (Jeff W. Hyche)
Subject: Re: Galileo status reports

[e-mail] (Jeff Moersch) writes:

>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]
    What kind of problems is the Galileo having?

--
                                  // Jeff Hyche
    There can be only one!    \\ //  Usenet: [e-mail]
                               \X/   Freenet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Apr 91 18:05:19 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Agenda for NASA into the 21st Century

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

>I would like to challenge this agenda of yours Nick.  Hold it up to light, so
>we can judge it as you have.  At least tell us what you think should be
>done in space, since I've only been able to get a rough idea based on
>what you think should NOT be done.

There is a problem in thinking that I have, or should have, a fixed
agenda.  If I have an agenda, it is to get rid of myopic plans and agendas
that can't change to fit new discoveries in space science and technology.

That said, one can create an agenda far superior to the obsolete 1950's
Collier's plan which currently soaks up most of our space efforts.  The
following is a _scenario_, not a _plan_.  Please rethink this as new
technology and discoveries take place.  For simplicity I have confined
myself to NASA and a ten-year period; it may be the case that some of
these functions are better handled by industry or other government agencies.
NASA is _not_ the space program.  I am also following a politically possible,
finite budget similar to today's NASA budget, and am explicitly specifying
the cost of programs.

N.B. I: I use specific rocket names for simplicity; I am actually referring
to any launchers of similar payload size and mass.

Into the 21st Century
---------------------
An agenda for NASA 1994-2004

total budget: $14,000 million/year constant dollar budget, 1994-2004
    [total $140,000 million]

goals: -- implement the spirit of the Augustine Commission Report
       -- greatly enhance our knowledge of the solar system
       -- innovate for 21st century industry

* exploration: [total budget $69,100 million over 10 years]
    -- Antartic sample return [$100 million over 10 years]
    -- Solar System Radar [$500 million over 10 years]
    -- asteroid/comet sky search [$1,000 million over 10 years]
        -- goal: discover & track every asteroid & comet of dia.
           >1 km this side of Jupiter
    -- space telescopes (infrared, optical, ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma-ray)
        -- 30 Pegaus-class [$1,500 million over 10 years]
        -- 10 Delta-class [$2,000 million over 10 years]
    -- 120 Diaz microprobes (Pegasus class) [$6,000 million over 10 years]
        -- 15 to Moon
        -- 15 to Mars
        -- 5 to Venus
        -- 5 to Mercury
        -- 20 to Jupiter
        -- 40 to 120 asteroids & comets
        -- 20 to Targets of Opportunity
    -- 40 Van Allen miniprobes (Delta class) [$8,000 million over 10 years]
        -- 4 to Moon
        -- 4 to Mars
        -- 2 to Venus/Mercury
        -- 5 to Jupiter
        -- 15 to 80 asteroids & comets
        -- 2 to Saturn
        -- 2 to Uranus
        -- 2 to Neptune
        -- 2 to Pluto
        -- 2 to Targets of Opportunity
    -- 10 mini-rover/samplers (Titan 4 class)[$4,000 million over 10 years]
        -- 2 to Mars
        -- 2 to Moon
        -- 2 to Galilean moons
        -- 2 to comet
        -- 2 to asteroid
    -- CRAF (Titan 4 Class)    [$1,000 remaining over 10 years]
    -- Cassini (Titan 4 Class) [$1,000 remaining over 10 years]
    -- Metis Outer Solar System Illuminator (Titan 4 class)
                    [$2,000 million over 10 years]
    -- Thousand A.U. (revised, Titan 4 class)
                    [$2,000 million over 10 years]
    -- Mission to Planet Earth
        -- 100 Pegasus-class probes [$5,000 million over 10 years]
        -- 20 Delta-class probes [$4,000 million over 10 years]
    -- Space Shuttle
        -- 20 flights [$8,000 million over 10 years]
        -- 20 Spacelab flights [$10,000 million over 10 years]
        -- 10 long duration flights  [$5,000 million over 10 years]

* new technology R&D: [$53,000 million over 10 years]
    -- advanced aeronautical research
            [$20,000 million over 10 years]
    -- robotics & aerospace manufacturing technology
            [$3,000 million over 10 years]
    -- microsat & minisats (Diaz & Van Allen):
        * bus              [$500 million over 5 years]
        * upper stage     [$500 million over 5 years]
        * instruments     [$500 million over 5 years]
    -- teleoperated satellite servicing vehicle
            [$1,000 million over 5 years]
    -- DSN pre/post cal and bandwidth upgrades
                [$2,000 million over 10 years]
    -- electromagnetic launch
                [$1,000 million over 10 years]
    -- gas-gun launch
                [$1,000 million over 10 years]
    -- electric propulsion  [$1,000 million over 10 years]
    -- nuclear thermal    [$1,000 million over 10 years]
    -- tethers        [$1,000 million over 10 years]
    -- laser communications [$2,500 million over 10 years]
    -- long-RTLT teleoperation [$2,500 million over 10 years]
    -- microgravity/vacuum earth extraction & processing equipment
            [$2,000 million over 10 years]
    -- microgravity/vacuum materials processing
            [$4,000 million over 10 years]
    -- advanced communications satellites
            [$3,000 million over 10 years]
    -- advanced remote sensing satellites
            [$3,000 million over 10 years]
    -- antimatter production & storage
            [$1,000 million over 10 years]
    -- micro & nanodevice research
            [$2,000 million over 10 years]
    -- superconducting materials & devices:
            [$1,000 million over 10 years]

Notes:

Bartolomew Diaz: Discovered the route around Africa in the
mid 1400's, opening up trade to India, which dropped the cost
of important commodities by a factor of 5, and motivated exploration
for other routes, including the voyages of Columbus.

James Van Allen: One of the world's premier space explorers.  Has
helped map magnetic fields, radiation belts, and other phenomenon
across the solar system.  Discovered the Earth's Van Allen radiation
belt with his instruments aboard the U.S.' first on-site space exploration
mission, Explorer 1.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"The biscuits and the syrup never come out even" -- Robert A. Heinlein
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 19 Apr 91 13:00:01 GMT
From: bionet!uwm.edu!caen![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: NASA rejects industry in favor of entertainment

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

>Freedom
>in the proper configuration -- with an unmanned, free-flying platform --
>would have served splendidly as a microgravity manufacturing base.
>NASA got Fred on the table in the first place as a platform for American
>leadership in space industry.  Hundreds of talented scientists trained
>themselves in the exciting new fields of microgravity and vacuum
>science and manufacturing.   By dumping the space manufacturing scientists
>NASA is not only ruining the careers of some of its most loyal customers...

  If dropping the unmanned/man-tended free flyer because of budget cuts
  was the wrong approach, what would the correct approach have been?

  For the sake or discussion I'll accept your premise that U.S. life
  science research isn't necessary and that the most important role for
  station is as a micro-g platform, and that space manufacturing has been
  "dumped." I disagree, but we've already been through that. I have no
  objection to going through it again, but not at the moment.

  Given the budget cuts imposed over the years, how would you have done
  things so as to retain the micro-g capability, which you say has been cut,
  while cutting cost at the same time?

>Nick Szabo                      [e-mail]

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

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

Date: 19 Apr 91 16:49:44 GMT
From: uupsi!pbs.org![e-mail]
Subject: Mars media alert

In the May issue of Life magazine, the cover story outlines a six stage
approach to changing Mars into an Earth-like planet by the middle of the 22nd
Century.  Perhaps recent remarks by the Vice-President were about this future
Mars.  If you want to know what he knows, read the May issue of Life. :-)

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

Date: 19 Apr 91 05:57:59 GMT
From: eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!noc.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Robert Gutierrez)
Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

I wrote:
> Aside from the usual news reports, does anybody have any better details
> on the Atlas Centuar KSC self-destructed???
>
> I know the payload was a Japanese satellite, but I'd like to know
> if anybody knows which one it was?
>
> CNN said the 2nd stage misfired, causing only 1 rocket to fire,
> not both, hence, KSC sent the termination signal.
           ^^^
A more detailed report later said that General Dynamics did their own
launch operations, and NASA/KSC wasn't involved at all.  Ooops...

> The fallout from the Japanese satellite and the Japanese government
> should keep NASA HQ busy for awhile...

Again, it was General Dynamics, but since it used KSC's facilities,
NASA-HQ may still get some flak from this one for not providing support
to General Dynamics on their "maden voyage," so-to-speak, like
not being so itchy on the trigger finger.  This will also make it hard
for General Dynamics to get further payloads in the future, as Hughes,
Toshiba, and GE Astro Electronics (???) does not crank out satellites
on a daily basis.

I'll bet those Arainespace launchings are looking better and better
every day to everybody else ...


    robert gutierrez

>         repeat after me:
>     my opinions are my own ...
>     my opinions are my own ...
>     my opinions are my own ...
>     my opinions are my own ...

  (and again...and again...and again...)

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #429
*******************