Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_513.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/Ec:Cft600WBw09j05Z>;
          Thu,  9 May 91 02:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  9 May 91 02:23:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #513

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 513

Today's Topics:
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #499
           Ulysses Status for 05/03/91 (Forwarded)
               PLEASE REMOVE ME
        Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?
          Re: why _I_ think we need a space station
          Re: Want info. on SETI project???
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #494
     Re: Galileo Update On CNN  atmosphere probe question
              Re: Why the space station?
            SPACE Digest V13 #499
              Re: Why the space station?
              Re: Why the space station?

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]

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:    Tue, 07 May 91 09:50 CDT
From: Bob Rehak Ext. 3-9437
 <[e-mail]>
         (AIS Central Services  -  Swen Parson 146)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #499

The NASA Headline News for 05/02/91 mentioned a school program
called MATHCOUNTS.  How can I get more information on this program?

|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bob Rehak, DBA At Large, BITNET: A20RFR1@NIU                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Date: 6 May 91 22:34:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Ulysses Status for 05/03/91 (Forwarded)


                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                           May 3, 1991


     Routine spacecraft operations and data collection remain the
primary activities as Ulysses heads for Jupiter.  Today the
spacecraft is approximately 456 million kilometers (283 million
miles) from Earth, cruising at a heliocentric velocity of 79,200
kilometers per hour (50,500 miles per hour).

     Standard precession maneuvers to re-point the high-gain
antenna toward Earth are being conducted about every five days.
One such maneuver was performed today.  Real-time operations and
recovery of tape recorder data during each daily eight-to-ten
hour pass over the Goldstone Deep Space Network facility are
being conducted from the mission control center at JPL.

     A command sequence to return various components of the
spacecraft to their normal thermal environment (prior to
occurrence of the wobble) was successfully carried out April 17.
The sequence involved switching off the spacecraft's thruster
heaters and switching on other heaters to maintain specific
temperatures for various onboard electronics components.

     Ulysses is a five-year mission to study the sun's poles and
interstellar space beyond the poles.  The spacecraft, launched
Oct. 6, 1990, is managed jointly by the European Space Agency and
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

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

X-Ns-Transport-Id: 0000AA00047A34D82BD0
Date:     Tue, 7 May 1991 14:47:35 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PLEASE REMOVE ME
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TO THE OWNER,

I can't seem to be albe to remove myself from this DL.  Could you please help me out.

Thanx in advance,

Lisa

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

Date: 7 May 91 01:52:31 GMT
From: stanford.edu!agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Exactly the same is true on Mars.  The surface of Mars is in vacuum for all
>biological purposes.  Also all mechanical purposes; a pressure hull for the
>Martian surface has to be just as strong as one for space.

Mars' atmosphere IS important for some mechanical purposes: Heat Transfer.
It is MUCH easier to dump excess heat into the Martian environment than
into a deep space. This is especially usefull for a spacesuit, where
the cooling systems account for a BIG chunk  of the suit mass.

                    Frank Crary
                    UC Berkeley

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

Date: 7 May 91 06:48:28 GMT
From: wuarchive!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: why _I_ think we need a space station

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>On that subject, here is a step that _would_ contribute significantly
>to space colonization -- the development of extraterrestrial resources
>and industries.
>

    On this one, I have a question.  I read about 15 years ago, in one of
    those children science mags.  Because, at that time I was around 16 yrs.

    So, I read that there was an astroid about 15KM long orbiting very close
    to the earth, and in an orbit that perhaps we could get to it and use
    it as a base or what-ever.  Have any of you heard of this astroid.


                            Will....

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

Date: 7 May 91 14:59:54 GMT
From: infonode![e-mail]  (Jeff W. Hyche)
Subject: Re: Want info. on SETI project???

[e-mail] writes:

>George Gallup Jr says fifty per cent of Americans share the belief that there
>are 'people somewhat like ourselves living on other planets in the
>universe'.

    I am currently reading a big fat fuzy(329 pgs) called First
Contact, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.  It a hard bound
book from Ben Bova and Byron Preiss, Editors that deals with the
subject.  Also you might check out a rather old book from Pengin Press
entitiled On Civilized Stars, by Jospoh Bosher(sp). (Yes I'm a SETI nut,
no UFO or little green men, just radio astronomy.)
--
                                  // Jeff Hyche
    There can be only one!    \\ //  Usenet: [e-mail]
                               \X/   Freenet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 May 91 16:59:32 GMT
From: wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #494


Keep in mind, Saturn >whatever< may be cheaper today than back then.
After all, back then it was a risky research project to beat those
darn Russkies to the moon.

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology
battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr.
Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_.

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

Date: 7 May 91 01:42:24 GMT
From: stanford.edu!agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Galileo Update On CNN  atmosphere probe question

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>...I bet the designers of the probe have thought very
>hard about what it might look like inside or inbetween Jupiter's clouds - and
>decided *then* that a camera would be a waste of weight and money. Sure, in

I have spoken with some of the NASA/Ames people who designed the atmospheric
probe. They didn't have to think about what the camera might see. They
had NO choice. They wanted a camera, but it was just not possible.
The camera did not fit, since video is so hard to transmit back to the
orbiter. To add the camera would not only require more mass and power
for the camera, but also LOTS more power and mass to transmit back at
the images. The probe, as it was actually built, transmites at only
128 bits/sec. A low resolution, black and white image is, ~16 kilobits.
(the probe lacks computers to do data compression). This image would
take to probe 2 min. to transmit...

                    Frank Crary
                    UC Berkeley

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

Date: 7 May 91 12:15:03 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!caen![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

[e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:

>You are not going to be building moon ships in orbit (Fred
>is not going to be an assembly hanger), and I doubt that you are going to
>see Fred used as a gas station....

  Actually, we are indeed planning on building (or at least servicing)
  'moon ships' in orbit on SSF. (I say 'we' because I work in the office
  that makes plans for such things.)

  You may be right about refueling, although we've yet to completed a
  thorough risk assesment to determine whether or not we can keep
  _tanked_ LTV's (Lunar Transfer Vehicles) on station.

  Of course to accommodate LTV processing or any other type of vehicle
  servicing, you need to grow beyond the not yet funded 'follow on phase'
  (EMCC)

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

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <Added.4c9oHwS00UkTEI=[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 07 May 91 20:18:12 EDT
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Tue, 7 May 91 02:14:11 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #499
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Bone-head play

>>The computer that was used on the original Apollo Landings had only 64K of
>>core memory.
>>
>>It's teeny sure, but they did it with tubes back then.

>Are you sure about this?  The IBM 360 series computers (all solid state)
>had existed for several years before the first Apollo landing in 1969.

No, not at all.  In fact, as many private E-mail messages have pointed out,
I was completely wrong.  Apollo used ferrite-ring type memory, much smaller
and lighter than tubes, a bit larger than IC's.

My only defense is this;  the point I was trying to share, that I found so
amazing, is that we put people on the moon with ONLY 64K ?!?

Jeez, Nintendos use more than that.

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

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

Date: 7 May 91 02:48:11 GMT
From: unmvax!uokmax![e-mail]  (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In a office of technology assessment document entitled "A civilian space
station"  or something like that dated circa 1986 there is a research
article on the history of the space station idea from 1900 to the 80's.
In it you can see the progression of the various incarnations the space
station idea has gone through.  One thing I got out of the article was
that basically the idea of a space station has more to do with science
fiction than any real need.  The plausibility argument goes something
like this "we're going on a long trip-we're going to have logistics
problems-we need an intermediate stepping stone base to foster longer
trips.  "  Actually my opinion is that this sounds good but doesn't
really reflect the reality of space technology.  Actually, there are
plenty of wonderful scientific missions that haven't been flown for
lack of one thing -the political will to pay for a 500 million+ mission
and booster for a purely scientific mission.  I see no signs that the
exploration of the solar system is really limited by the lack of an
orbital base.  There is an IMMENSE amount of science that can be done
with present technology.  Anybody who reads the astronomical literature
or the NASA solar system exploration documents will know this.

In fact, I think there is every evidence that the real reason for the
space station is political.  A lot of space scientists think its a joke
Who really wants it?  The aerospace companies that will get paid public
money to build it.  Who doesn't want it?  The space scientists whose
missions got canceled or delayed by the space shuttle in the 80's.

In summmary, the plausibility of the sequence "first you build reliable
space transportation, then you build a orbital space base, then you go
to the planets" is seriously in question.  All you really need to do
important space science is a big booster -a titan IV.  The head of the
space telescope institute-Giaconni has said that he would much rather
launch the space telescope into high eliptical orbit and then replace it
with a new copy than low orbit with manned servicing.  The real reason
for the space station is an ignorant past president who probably consulted
his wife's astrologer to determine which day to announce the space station.
The space station is pure pork.

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

Date: 7 May 91 14:02:10 GMT
From: wuarchive!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>Is it really less expensive to build an orbital microgravity + life
>sciences lab than an orbital assembly platform?

  Actually, it is -- if you can only build one station.

>Perhaps now that the scientists have said, in effect, that they don't
>want Freedom, the design could be moved back toward the initial goals
>of supporting lunar and planetary exploration.

  A dedicated assembly platform would probably be less expensive than a
  dedicated micro-g/life sciences platform. If you don't have both, however,
  and you're trying to support planetary missions, the price of the assembly
  platform starts to creep up as you start trying to accommodate the
  necessary science. Since the chances of congress funding a second station
  in the next half century are slim we should probably assume we're only
  going to have one, so what we need to look at is how the station would be
  different if we 'only' wanted to process vehicles and conduct only the
  essential science necessary to support exploration.

  If you look at pictures of the station as conceived in the mid 80's, you
  see a 'dual keel' design with keels and booms built off the transverse
  boom. The keels were covered with all sorts of attached payloads,
  satellite repair facilities, etc. As funding and budget got out of hand,
  it was decided that the station be built in two phases. Since you have to
  build the transverse boom before you can add keels, it was decided that
  the first phase would be to build the transverse boom and that the second
  would be to add keels. It seemed like a logical division at the time.
  This had the effect of phasing the operation capability of the station:
  first science, then vehicle processing (once you had the space). Plans for
  'Phase II' have faded from memory over the years, to the point where we have
  what we have today. A 'dedicated micro-g life sciences platform.'

  Given the station we have today, there's not a whole lot of extra
  capability that you could cut if you were to decide that SSF was going to
  be dedicated to the support of lunar and planetary exploration. You still
  need to habitation space, the power generation capability, and the limited
  lab space of the current design. I can't think of any system in the MTC/PMC
  design that could be eliminated or any system capability which could be
  reduced if all you planned to do was to support the Space Exploration
  Initiative (i.e. lunar/mars exploration) PMC is pretty much the minimum
  viable permanently manned station one can come up with given the constraints
  imposed by launch vehicle, the current program structure, contracts already
  awarded, consideration of sunk cost, and politics. To process vehicles,
  you need to add on.

  An orbital assembly platform is therefore more expensive than a micro-g
  life sciences lab, since it must be built (in this case) off of an
  already existing 'micro-g/life sciences lab'.

>It seems like the original truss + Spar's Mobile Servicing System (and
>possibly FTS) would have been a good start in the direction of a
>platform to facilitate on-orbit assembly of larger spacecraft.

  Indeed. One of the advantages of the old 'sticks and balls' erectable truss
  concept was the fact that there was all sorts of open space for the
  addition of growth structure to support vehicle processing facilities
  (hangars) and growth systems and utility lines. One big problem we're having
  right now is that the Pre-Integrated Truss is being designed to allow systems
  to be packed into the orbiter payload bay as tightly as possible and to be
  deployed on orbit with a minimum amount of EVA. Addition of growth structure
  and systems hasn't been a consideration. We're trying to identify locations
  to which we can attach growth structure and we're trying to come up with
  concepts for the addition of growth utilities and systems. One problem we're
  having is that there aren't any growth requirements in the PDRD (the level
  II requirements document) When there are no requirements for a capability,
  the level of that capability tends to decrease as the design progresses.

  At the moment we're working with Lenoir, Kohrs, Moorehead, et al to see
  what we can do before it's too late.

===============================================================================
 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 #513
*******************