Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_570.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/kcD:XmG00WBwIJEE5b>;
          Fri, 24 May 91 01:47:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 24 May 91 01:47:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #570

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 570

Today's Topics:
       POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING CANCELLATION
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
        SPACE STATION FREEDOM? IS IT REALLY!!
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #551
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
       Re: Laser launchers (really microwave launchers)
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

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: Thu, 16 May 91 01:45:34 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]> (CARY OLER)
Subject: POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING CANCELLATION
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                        SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN

                              16 May, 1991
                                 07:00 UT

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING CANCELLATION

     The Potential Major Solar Flare Warning has been cancelled.  Region 6619
(N30W56) has been rather dormant over the last several days.  No significant
flaring has been observed since Region 6615 disappeared behind the west limb
earlier this week.  The majority of the flare activity has been C-class
events and low-level subflares.  Unless new flux emerges in the regions
presently visible, no major flaring will likely be observed.  Of the regions
presently on the disk, Region 6619 has the greatest potential for producing a
major flare.  This region remains large and is maintaining a delta
configuration. However, it does not appear particularly threatening, despite
the impressive size of the spots within this region.  The present size of
Region 6619 is 3090 million square kilometers.  A significant amount of
penumbral material continues to encompass the large spots.

     The other regions on the disk remain relatively simple.  Region 6624 is
the most complex of the remaining regions, maintaining a beta-gamma magnetic
configuration in an EKO-type optical group.  It is of low to moderate size
and contains approximately 15-20 spots within the region.  No significant
growth has been observed in any of the regions visible.

     There will remain a very slight risk for a major flare from Region 6619
before it departs from view behind the west limb on 17/18 May.  However, the
risk is small and rather insignificant.  The other regions on the disk are
not capable of producing major flares at the present time.

     Low-level M-class flaring is possible from Region 6619, 6624 (S17W26)
and 6633 (S12E61).

     The satellite proton event has terminated.  So have the polar latitude
ionospheric effects from the proton activity.  The proton event did not
produce any serious ionospheric blackouts over the polar latitudes, although
absorption did increase.  Navigational systems were also subject to minor
errors during the period.  Conditions over polar latitudes have returned to
normal.

     Proton activity is no longer a threat.  The only region which poses a
very slight risk for a proton flare is Region 6619, but this risk is
practically negligable.  Proton flaring is not expected from any of the
regions currently visible.

     Geomagnetic activity became enhanced over the past 48 hours.  The exact
cause of the activity can not be determined due to the number of events which
transpired over the past week which were capable of producing the observed
effects.

     Auroral activity was moderate over the middle and high latitude regions
during this most recent period of geomagnetic activity.  Some high latitude
regions experienced periods of auroral storming and high auroral activity.
The activity was not extensive enough to be observed over the southerly
middle and low latitudes.

     Geomagnetic activity could become enhanced yet again over the next 24 to
72 hours.  A coronal hole will be well placed during that period and may
produce unsettled to active geomagnetic conditions.  No significant storm
periods are anticipated, although some activity over the high latitude
regions may reach brief minor storm levels if the coronal effects
materialize.  A return to more quiet conditions is expected for 19 or 20 May.

     A stronger geomagnetic impact is anticipated next week.  More details on
this event will be presented in the next STFR report, which will be issued
within the next 24 hours.


**  End of Bulletin  **

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 09:23:39 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In SPACE Digest V13 #561,
agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!
widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>>... They zeroed out ALL station funding...
>>>
>>>looks like the space science people who lobbied had an effect.
>
>>Sigh, the politics of envy...  They're dreaming if they think it will have
>>more than a momentary effect on their own financial problems.
>
>But they will get the short term monetary benifit. I agree however, that
>its a pity the space science people don't support the creation of a better
>infrastructure. I can't think of anything which do more to promote science
>that the reduced costs we would see.

Huh?  Please explain what you mean by all this.  In the first place, it
isn't possible to do good space science from a manned space station.
In the second place, exactly what do you mean by reduced costs, especially
as relates to space science?

>The next step however, is to turn this into an advantage. If Freedom
>is killed we need to push for a real station. This would be a good time
>to tell your Congresscritters about projects like the Commercially
>Developed Space Facility or ideas from the SSI External Tank Study.
>Push to get them funded.

I'll agree with that.  Also, the report I saw says the committee is
recommending $100 million for two small orbiting laboratories for
life sciences and zero-g manufacturing.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same
 distance from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures
 where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water,
 there is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
 -- J. Danforth Quayle, 18 November, 1989

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

Date: 16 May 91 23:49:27 GMT
From: mintaka!olivea!samsung!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:

>ET and ISF type stations are nothing.
>The taxpayer will end up funding them anyway,
>certainly not venture capitalists, who only funded ventures
>underwritten by the government.

Just like Apple Computer was underwritten by the gubbimint, right?

>Pity the manned space program is being dessimated.

Yes. It is being decimated right as we speak by a vehicle
called the shuttle, which has put the price of a decent space
station somewhere out past Pluto.

>A persoanl disaster for me I might add, and thousands of
>skilled aerospace workers who will become hamburger flippers.

Personally I hope you find a good paying job somewhere. So
far, to everyone out here it looks like we've paid billions
already just for paper.

>Thanks a lot.
>Let me know when you succeed in selling the Brooklyn bridge
>to pay for your ideas.

I'll try it just after I try selling 5 tons of useless Space Station
blueprints on hard disk for a couple billion. It seems to be a much
better proposition.

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 16 May 91 22:24:05 GMT
From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu![e-mail]
Subject: SPACE STATION FREEDOM? IS IT REALLY!!



   If those of you out there who want to see international projects like
Freedom become real international projects, an independent international
administration will be needed.  What happens when the US puts up this
large space complex Freedom and after a year or so another country launchs
a payload into space with out telling anyone, because they have no one to
trust, and something goes wrong and the pay load slams into Freedom?  Or
more importantly, what the #@$* happens when one of the partners on the
station decides they no longer what to be a part of it or becomes imbroiled
in a conflict with one of the other partners involved in Freedom?, What
are they going to do!, barricade them selves into thier modules and threaten
war if anyone comes near it?  Or do the other partners just simply cut off
the module from the main complex or just simply take it over by force.

    This is the very reason why projects like Freedom will never really be
totally successful unless an independent international space administration
is formed to over see these types of projects in the future.  Don't get
me wrong I think Freedom is a good IDEA, but the way it is set up leaves
far to many pitfalls for its future should it become a operational station.

    Other COOPERTIVE projects like Moon Facilities, Manned Missions to Mars,
and future Manned Facilities on Mars will all be likewise affected by these
same problems, UNLESS an independent international space administration is
formed to oversee and undertake these projects!

For what its worth, this probly wont do any good any way as I think good
old plan comminsense has been replaced by computer outputs and endless
data streams.

                                           These comments are my own.
                                                 Truely,
                                                 Rick R. Dobson

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

Date: 17 May 91 01:08:36 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #551

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> [ Galileo could be retargeted to view "thousands" of astroids.]
In fact, it could not be. It could only reasonably do one or two
flyby's an orbit. Each orbit would be ~ 1 or 2 years long. With a
design life of about ten years, Galileo could only flyby at most
a dozen.
>If galieo is broke, then it already has been diverted from the mission it was
>designed to do.  Why not change the mission?
>
No, even if Galileo IS broken (the people at JPL are taking thier time, so
we don't KNOW that its broken) it CAN still complete its mission:

   The Jovian Atmospheric Probe is NOT EFFECTED by the high gain antenna
   failure

   Data can still be transmitted on the moons and the jovian atmosphere.
   We would get far fewer pictures. But we would get some.

While, with out the high gain antenna, Galileo cannot be a complete success
but it is NOT a total failure.

>MY conclusion;  Blow Jupiter 'till we know what's at the 'stroids;  I think
>at this point in time, science for it's own sake should take a back seat to
>science for maximization of resources.
>
Even if the resources of the astroids are EVERYTHING you claim they could be,
the US will not even be going back to the Moon for over 10 years. We will
not be mining the astroids for several years more. This has nothing to do
with the resources there, but rather the pace of our current space planning
and funding process. Galileo would not change this. Since we will not be
using them for years, why scrub Galileo to rush back asteroid data?

                                             Frank Crary
                         UC Berkeley

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

Date: 16 May 91 09:21:35 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>But they will get the short term monetary benifit. I agree however, that
>its a pity the space science people don't support the creation of a better
>infrastructure. I can't think of anything which do more to promote science
>that the reduced costs we would see.

NEWS FLASH!  NEWS FLASH!  Spending $120,000,000,000 will
REDUCE COSTS!!!  Pictures at 11!

:-) :-) :-)

I'm only laughing because of this recent good news, actually.
The astronaut groupies have ignored science to such an extreme
degree, I'd half expect them to hire Jeane Dixon for advice before
consulting James Van Allen.  God knows they have ignored James Van
Allen.  Given what the astronaut groupies did to space explorers in
the 1980's,  why should explorers give a flying f*ck about astronaut
groupies and their toys in the 1990's?

The sooner the space program is rid of this awful burden, the
better.



--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 16 May 91 08:08:58 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Laser launchers (really microwave launchers)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>If you want to deliver it as electrical energy, microwaves are superior.
>But the longer wavelength makes them much harder to beam tightly, and also
>makes it awkward to arrange for them to be absorbed in a thin layer of
>reaction mass (which is what laser launchers do).  Beaming power to run
>electric rockets of one kind or another (e.g. ion rockets) has potential,
>but the low thrust limits its usefulness for Earth-to-orbit launch.  The
>laser launcher looks better for that.
>

    According to an article in (I have to check this) Mechanical Eng.  a
    team at the Univ. of Chicago has produced a new solar collector that
    is equal to 56,000 suns (the world record now) and believe that up
    to 100,000 suns are obtainable.  If the 100,000 suns work, the say that
    solar pumping for lasers will become a practicle solution for high
    powered lasers.  If there is interests in this I will post parts of
    the article.  Do you think this is useful as a replacement of the
    power requirements for laser launched vehicles.

    Also, these solar collectors are small for their size and do not
    require to be aimed at the sun at all times.

                                Will...

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

Date: 16 May 91 12:52:26 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

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

>>...  They're dreaming if they think it will have
>>more than a momentary effect on their own financial problems.

>Even a _momentary_ effect is enough to pay for SIRTF, AXAF,
>a greatly expanded ground-based visual search, a greatly expanded
>Antartic asteroid sample return mission, _and_ a gaggle
>of small infrared probes launched into the meteor showers.

I don't think you understand the situation Nick. First of all, Freedom
is by no means dead. If I where to place bets I would say that it will
limp along.

But look at the big picture. The House subcommittee zeroed Freedom
so more money could go to HUD. Next year they will want to put more
money into HUD and of course, it will come from NASA. What part of
NASA will they cut then? What will they cut the year after that?


   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #570
*******************