Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_534.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/8c=WAL200WBw86Zk41>;
          Mon, 13 May 91 01:24:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <oc=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 01:24:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #534

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 534

Today's Topics:
       Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)
        An International Civil Space Agency 93
    Re: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494)
    Re: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494)
               Re: mars orbiter
          NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
     Re: Holding Down an Atmosphere (was Re: Teraforming Venus?)
       Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)
        Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?
            World's Smallest GPS Receiver?
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #499
  NASA commercial use of space symposium set for May 14 (Forwarded)
                   Re: NASP

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: 7 May 91 20:46:30 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>I myself note that it took us over 3 million years to climb out of our
>gravity well. I wonder why anybody would want to climb back down another
>one? For this reason I don't think teraforming is a good idea.
>

    Perhaps some people *like* living at the bottom of a gravity well.

    A possible example from Canadian history: It's amazing how
the Canadian Scots immigrants often chose to farm areas which resembled
their homeland, which is to say, rocky beyond belief. One might think
they'd prefer to look for farms that had less stoney soil, given the
choice.

    There are perceived advantages to planet sized habitats. We
know, for example, that at least one such life support system has
continued to provide LSU service for over three billion years with
minimal maintainance (Although the turnover in resident species has been
fairly high); we *don't* know that the tin-can habitats can match that
record. Is it more efficient to creat a life support system that, while
using most of the mass involved to merely generate gravity to contain
the biosphere, persists for billions of years, or is it better to build
myriads of small habitats, whose peak population might be higher, but
whose lifespans might be much lower?

                            James Nicoll,
            who doesn't miss springtime rock-picking *at all*

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

Date: 8 May 91 01:06:35 GMT
From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu![e-mail]
Subject: An International Civil Space Agency 93

An International Civil Space Agency by 1993!

For more inforemation: BITNET: USF@CRNLVAX5
                       BITNET: USF@CORNELLA
                       INTERNET: [e-mail]
                         VAX:  [e-mail]

   US Mail Address: United Space Federation, Inc.
                     International  Headquarters
                           P.O. Box 4722
                    Ithaca, New York  14852-4722
                    In the United States of America

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

Date: 7 May 91 23:31:39 GMT
From: att!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> >If anyone does know of more solid figures, please, post them. (Mary?)
>
> According to a NASA presentation to the House Science Committee we spent
> $13.81 billion on the stages, engines, and vehicle integration. An
> additional 2.37 was spent for facilities for a total of $16.19B. This
> estimate is in 1991 dollars.
>
This thought just occured to me:  In order to calculate the cost of the Saturn V
we have to include the development costs of the (defunct) ALS development
!  Maybe we've crossed the fiscal 'point of no return.'

Point of no return (def):  The point at which the costs of NOT doing
something in lieu of something else exceeds the cost of doing that
something.


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Society of Philosophers, Luminaries,           | Brent L. Irvine       |
| and Other Professional Thinking People.....   | Only my own ramblings |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 8 May 91 04:27:13 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494)

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

>If anyone does know of more solid figures, please, post them. (Mary?)

Mary is much too smart to get involved in costing disputes, thank you
very much.  Mary is running around trying to raise some real money,
so the Air Force Flight Test Center will let her use a little electricity,
and finds this sufficiently difficult to ensure that she'll never get
involved in figuring out the cost of anything more complex.

Actually, being an engineer and being accustomed to _one_ answer, plus
and minus some delta, I find the determination of costs to be irrational
at best and downright silly at worse.  I suspect that the real cost is
quite different from the apparent cost, by the time you add in the tax
break for IR&D, the interest the gov't makes by paying late, the cost
of money, etc.

Now then, back to the 220V stuff ....
--
Mary Shafer  [e-mail]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 22:12:09 GMT
From: psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: mars orbiter

Yes there is a plan for a followup visit to Mars.  The Mars Observer is planned
 for launch on a Titan sometime in 1992.  I became familiar with Mars Oberver (
MO) while I was co-oping at GE-Astro Space, the primary contractor for it.  I w
orked on the preliminary propsal for a follow on to the MO design, the Lunar Ob
server, but that is in limbo right now.

                                                     Glenn Szydlowski
                                              Penn State Aerospace Engineeing
                                                   [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 23:04:27 GMT
From: udecc.engr.udayton.edu!blackbird.afit.af.mil![e-mail]  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated several times
weekly.  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS 39
1 21242U 91 31  A 91119.84787458  .00482360  12232-3  60674-3 0    57
2 21242  56.9948 282.9710 0010041 257.9861 102.1525 16.07002851   227
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]          Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 9 May 91 11:24:48 GMT
From: mcsun!inesc!unl!unl![e-mail]  (Vitor Duarte & Sergio Duarte)
Subject: Re: Holding Down an Atmosphere (was Re: Teraforming Venus?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Luce) writes:


>   How much gravity does a body need to have an atmosphere anyway?

>      > Ganymede is evidently large enough to have an atmosphere, since Titan
>      > has about the same surface gravity and has an atmosphere about half
>      > again as dense as Earth's. My question would be, why does Titan have
>      > such a thick atmosphere while Ganymede does not?

>   And if it were a satellite (Ganymede), would its focus (Jupiter) steal
>   the atmosphere away anyway?

    I think that Gravity isn't the only factor to consider. Surface
temperature is also very important because the speed of gas molecules is
determined by its temperature. The increase of temperature may cause
the atmosphere molecules of a planet reach the escape velocity and
after a while they'll all be gone...
That probably happened to the moon, Mercury and several other minor
planets closer to the sun, including Ganymede. Mars too.
Titan being further from the sun retained most of its atmosphere,
however the lighter gases like hidrogen escaped because of their
higher molecular speed even at such low temperatures.

 If anyone would like to make further comments or corrections, please
do so...

   Sergio Duarte


--
 +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
 |    Departamento de Informatica     |     [e-mail]                |
 | Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia |                                   |
 |    Universidade Nova de Lisboa     |                                   |
 |              PORTUGAL          |                      |
 +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

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

Date: 9 May 91 04:23:01 GMT
From: sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus)


    Well, I really think that we are going to have to take a much better
    look at MARS before we do a transforming.  It is strange that humanity
    thinks that in order for intelligent life to exist somewhere there must
    be citys and space shuttles at least before it is considered intelligent

    Also, if there was life before, and it was lost, it should be discovered
    and studied.  A lot must be done before we go and wipe out a planet just
    for our own use.  Seems very selfish to me.  After all, man has been on
    this planet for millions of years and still don't even understand all of
    it.  We continue to find life that was thought to be extinct millions of
    years ago.


                                Will...

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

Date: 3 May 91 00:21:54 GMT
From: hpfcso![e-mail]  (Mark Luce)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?

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

>    ... Is there anyway a catalyst could
>    be dropped onto venus that would convert some atmospheric gases
>    into something else?

And Henry Spencer responds:

No; Venus's atmosphere is disgustingly stable.  Some early proposals
suggested using airborne algae as a sort of self-reproducing catalyst,
but closer analysis suggests it won't work.  Terraforming Venus is going
to take fairly drastic measures.

Question: What would happen if we were to seed the upper atmosphere of
          Venus with sulfur-chomping bacteria? You say that analysis of
          the idea of using airborne algae as a self-reproducing catalyst
          suggests that it wouldn't work. Can you elaborate on this? Do
          you have any details? Sources? I'm quite curious...

                                                   Mark Luce
                                                   Hewlett-Packard
                                                   Fort Collins, Colorado

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

Date:        Fri, 10 May 91 13:31:42 ADT
From: Richard Langley <[e-mail]>
Subject:     World's Smallest GPS Receiver?

Rockwell International claims to have developed the world's smallest
Global Positioning System receiver.  The NavCore V receiver module
consists of about half a dozen integrated circuits and a handful of
other components on a 2-1/2 inch by 4 inch printed circuit board.  This
five channel receiver is based on Rockwell's Miniaturized Airborne GPS
Receiver which it developed for the military.  The receiver is designed
for integration into OEM products for commercial aerospace applications.
The price?  $450, dropping to as low as $225 for bulk orders!

(Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, 15 April 1991)

==============================================================================
 Richard B. Langley                          BITnet: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
 Geodetic Research Laboratory                Phone:  [phone]
 Dept. of Surveying Engineering              Telex:  014-46202
 University of New Brunswick                 FAX:    [phone]
 Fredericton, N.B., Canada  E3B 5A3
==============================================================================

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

Date: 8 May 91 18:33:32 GMT
From: psuvm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #499

OOPS!  I meant not to post that.  I tried to quit that article to reply
privately.

Dan

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

Date: 9 May 91 22:44:30 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA commercial use of space symposium set for May 14 (Forwarded)

Barbara Selby
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                            May 9, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])

N91-34
NOTE TO EDITORS/NEWS DIRECTORS:

NASA COMMERCIAL USE OF SPACE SYMPOSIUM SET FOR MAY 14


      The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's second annual
Symposium on Industrial Involvement and Successes in Commercial Space will
take place at the Hotel Washington, Pennsylvania Avenue at 15th Street,
Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, May 14, from 8:15 a.m. to 6 p.m. EDT.

      The 1-day conference, sponsored by NASA's Office of Commercial Programs
and Centers for the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS), will provide an
overview of the agency's Commercial Use of Space Program with a strong focus
on the high level of industry involvement and investment in the program.

      The morning session will feature speakers Dr. Mark J. Albrecht,
Executive Secretary, National Space Council, and James R. Thompson Jr., NASA
Deputy Administrator, followed by a discussion on balanced access to space.
Afternoon speakers will consist of CCDS industrial affiliates who will provide
insight from a user's perspective.

-end-


      NOTE:  News media planning to attend the symposium should complete the
attached registration form and FAX it to 703/521-3205.  Further inquiries on
the conference should be directed to Rebecca Gray, 703/521-3125.  The
symposium agenda is available by calling the NASA Headquarters newsroom at
202/453-8400.

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 15:27:32 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: NASP

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig L Cole) writes:

   Any chance anyone out there working on the NASP can post regular updates
   on progress with the NASP?

No.  A great deal of what you're asking for is restricted--ITAR, FEDD, and
just plain classified.

   Scientific/Engineering hurdles & successes, budget concerns, progress
   on the prototype when its construction is started...

You are highly unlikely to ever find anything about the scientific and
engineering information or the construction of the prototype in the open
literature.  Even our unclassified briefing last year was embedded in a
classified document.

Budget concerns, etc, are probably easier to come by.

   I for one am very interested, and can't seem to find enough about
   it in magazines, etc. I bet a lot of others are interested too.

I don't want to discourage your interest, but you should be prepared
for a lack of real information.
--
Mary Shafer  [e-mail]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #534
*******************