Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_631.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-12 | 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/4cJQSiO00WBwMDp04H>;
          Wed, 12 Jun 91 03:05:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 03:05:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #631

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 631

Today's Topics:
           Re: Rational next station design process
             Re: Babies in Space
            Re: Asteroid Hazard Avoidance
    Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?)
           Re: The value of infrastructure
               * SpaceNews  20-May-91 *

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: 24 May 91 05:51:21 GMT
From: agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Then calculate the value of these missions.
>Now _there's_ a good idea.
>Note that value is relative.  To calculate the value of the missions,
>we need to compare the value to _alternate_ designs and the importance
>of _other_ needs.  In other words, the opportunity costs.
>This requires looking at alternate needs and designs, rather than
>remaining glued on the narrow concept of a "space station" and the
>narrow set of needs it might meet.

    Value is also highly dependent on goal...
    There are some who see the ultimate goal of going into space being
to gather information about the universe.  They feel that science is the
goal.
    There are some who feel that expansion of humanity is the goal, and
some of them (not all) feel science ought just ride the coattails.
    There are a number of us centerists who want both.

    You can say that manned programs detract from doing space science in
general.  But there are a number of people, including a whole lot of
scientists, who feel that there is some science that can only be done by
sending people.  One such group (that I happen to be tangentally involved
with) are the Mars Underground people... they think that there is a very
large amount of science to be done that can only be done by putting people
on Mars.  If there was life there once, it's likely that no unmanned probe we
can design in the next 25 years can go looking for it.  Humans can look in the
right geological layers in the right place, make the command decisions of
which rocks to turn over... etc.
    And we can't send people to mars if we don't know how they'll stand up
under 2+ years of zero-G.  So, to me, there is significant value in doing
biological science in orbit.

    This does not mean that I don't find other space science valuable.
Nor that I would suggest single-mindedly driving to mars... we may well
not be able to afford to start thinking about it for another decade.  I also
think that earth science, astronomy, and astrophysics are wonderful things to
do in space.  I've been taking a real close look at some of the lightsat
science satellites.  Were that more medium-sized astronomy/astrophysics
platforms were budgeted too... sigh.  I digress...

    How much do I personally value the biological science?  About a
billion dollars a year.  That's how much I figure it will cost to fly
a station if we do it right.  (Note that this was based on previous but
similar iterations of my 'rational design process' with similar goals).
i'd be willing to go to two or three billion depending on accounting methods
and secondary research to be accomplished while we're there.  Is that too
much for you, Nick?  About 2-5 B-2's/yr for Mars? 8-)

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

Date: 24 May 91 06:08:14 GMT
From: agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (brook mantia) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lloyd E Vancil) writes:
>>Yes reduced gravity should cause problems for pregnancies and growing
>>children
>Why?  Esp. for pregnancies.  I'd imagine reduced gravity might make pregnancy
>easier.  Just wondering...
>
>PS:  If anyone knows of any good reference material regarding this subject
>I'd be very appreciative. Thanks.

    Developing tissues seem to behave wierdly (from bird egg studies)
in zero-G.  It wouldn't be the pregnancy per se that was the problem, but the
embryo's development.  Especially what would happen to its bone strucutre...

    Growing children would probably be seriously damaged by improper
bone formation due to the zero-G effects.

    References...if you have a list of NASA publications, they have some
good summaries of biological studies that we've done.  Other people on the
net may be able to help w/references.

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

Date: 24 May 91 14:37:20 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi![e-mail]  (James C Krok)
Subject: Re: Asteroid Hazard Avoidance

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Asteroid Hazard Avoidance
Summary: Move the Earth instead
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: J. Chris Krok
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Keywords:


An interesting point to note:
     I recently wrote a paper on large-scale meteorite (planetesimal)
impact, dealing with the compressible flow of solids under such conditions.
This also related to the K-T boundary interval extinction theory.  Anyway,
I recall reading somewhere that if such a large asteroid were again found to
be on a collision course with the Earth, it would be easier to move the Earth
out of the way with nuclear charges (at the poles?) than to intercept the
asteroid with said charges and deflect it.  I believe the article was in
Scientific American, September or November of 1990.  If anyone is interested,
please e-mail me and I'll try to find the actual reference.
     Also, in the late 1960's at MIT, a student-level systems engineering
project was undertaken to design a device to deflect such an asteroid.
I believe it was called Project Icarus, and it should be available in any
college library.
     Watch the skies...

J. Chris Krok
grad student, RPI, Troy, NY
Explosion Dynamics Laboratory

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

Date: 24 May 91 14:03:10 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars?  Why not Venus?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (brook mantia) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lloyd E Vancil) writes:
>
>>Yes reduced gravity should cause problems for pregnancies and growing
>>children
>>
>
>Why?  Esp. for pregnancies.  I'd imagine reduced gravity might make pregnancy
>easier.  Just wondering...

    Well, perhaps (to pick a possibly silly problem) the redistribution
of bodily fluids in free fall could have negative effects on the chances
of a pregnancy going to full term. I dimly remember being told as a kid in
South America that the Spanish had real problems colonising the Andes
because women used to sea-level pressures couldn't take a pregnancy full
term in low pressure conditions. We don't know (at this point as far as I
know) whether or not women acclimatised to 1 g, 1 atm conditions can
successfully bear children in low g or free fall. Have either the USA or
the Soviets done research on animals breeding in orbit?

                                James Nicoll

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 10:12:56 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Re: The value of infrastructure


In SPACE Digest V13 #574,
emory!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

:In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
:
:>>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.
:...
:>In the second place, exactly what do you mean by reduced costs, especially
:>as relates to space science?
:
:Let's assume that we have a real infrastructure in LEO and on the moon.
:This includes fuel depots, orbital drydocks, and light manufacturing.

Whoa!  That sounds like a lo-o-o-o-o-ong time from now.  Meanwhile, I don't
think it would be a good idea to forgo all space science activities until
we have this immense infrastructure.

:Let's also assume that we where going to send a orbiter with an entry
:probe to, oh, let's say Jupiter. We'll name this probe after a well
:known early astonomer: Kepler.
:
:Because of our drydock we can...

To summarize:
  1) Probe size and shape unconstrained by Earth launch considerations.
  2) Launch to Jupiter requires orders of magnitude less fuel.
  3) Both of these factors will:
     3a) reduce weight and complexity and hence cost of a given mission,
     3b) or for a given cost will allow greater weight and/or complexity.

Okay, this is fine for sometime in the distant future, but it doesn't
really have anything to do with Fred.  Fred would be none of the things
you mentioned, and I think it's a good thing for everybody that Fred's
funding is in jeopardy.  If we need a space station at all, we need one
with a definite purpose, and while we're at it, maybe we should drop the
"one" and start thinking in the plural.

Do we really need "one" station that tries to do everything?  Wouldn't it
be cheaper to make a few or several "RISC" space stations, each of which
would be optimized for one or two specific tasks?

:The bottom line to all this is that the incrimental cost of new
:space science missions goes way down if there is a proper infrastructure
:to support it.

Granted, but the current battle is between Fred and AXAF, CRAF/Cassini,
and EOS.  In my book these latter three are worth far more at present
than the former, though I should qualify that by admiting that my
paycheck depends in part on CRAF and EOS.  Also, the subcommittee that
axed Fred did use some of that formerly Fred money to boost the funding
on space science.  No doubt they were thinking of the Augustine Report
when they did that.

Finally, I put the next paragraph in a previous posting but the net was
being flaky at the time so I'm not sure if it got through, but if it
did, I think it bears repeating.

To put things in perspective, consider this: the amount of money they're
talking about cutting from NASA, a little over $2e9, amounts to about
$1.50/month for every taxpayer* in the country, and comes to about
0.6% of the projected budget deficit.  In fact the entire budget of NASA
only costs $13/month per taxpayer and accounts for about 4.5% of the
budget deficit, 1.1% of the total budget, 0.3% of US GNP.  The military
space budget is about double this.

* (There are about 100e6 taxpayers in the US if you count couples filing
   jointly as a single taxpayer.)

_____________
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, 11 August, 1989

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

Date: 17 May 91 14:11:43 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!masscomp!ocpt!tsdiag!ka2qhd![e-mail]  (John Magliacane)
Subject: * SpaceNews  20-May-91 *


SB NEWS @ AMSAT < KD2BD $SPC0520
* SpaceNews  20-May-91 *



Bulletin ID: $SPC0520


                              =========
                              SpaceNews
                              =========

                          MONDAY MAY 20, 1991


SpaceNews originates at KD2BD in Wall Township, New Jersey, USA.  It
is published every week and is made available for unlimited distribution.



* NOAA-12 LAUNCHED *
====================
NOAA-12 was successfully launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base on
14-May-91 at 15:52:00.357 UTC.  After the "text book" launch, the
spacecraft was given an official launch designator of 1991-032A and
a NORAD catalog number of 21263.  The spacecraft is in a circular
orbit having an apogee of 828 km and perigee of 811 km.  Its beacon
transmits on 136.770 MHz.

[Information via ZL4HG]


* STS-40 LAUNCH ADVISORY *
==========================
NASA managers set May 22, 1991, as the launch date for orbiter Columbia
on Shuttle Mission STS-40/Spacelab Life Sciences-1.  Columbia will be
placed in a 42 degree inclination, 129 nautical mile high circular orbit.

The launch window on May 22 extends from 8:00 AM (1200 UTC) until 10:00 AM
EDT (1400 UTC), with the mission projected to last just over 9 days.  A
launch on May 22 at the opening of the window would put landing at Edwards
Air Force Base, Calif. on May 31 at approximately 11:51 AM EDT (1551 UTC).

The crew for STS-40 is Commander Bryan D. O'Connor, Pilot Sidney M.
Gutierrez, Mission Specialists James P. Bagian, Tamara E. Jernigan
and Margaret Rhea Seddon and Payload Specialists F. Drew Gaffney
and Millie Hughes-Fulford.

[Information via NASA]


* MIR NEWS *
============
According to reliable sources, a British YL, Helen, will be joining the
cosmonauts aboard the Soviet space station Mir on May 21, 1991.  She has
been assigned the call sign GB1MIR/U and will be conducting a mission
similar to the recent Shuttle Amateur Radio EXperiment (SAREX) on STS-37.
Helen will be talking almost exclusively with school children in Great
Britian using Amateur Radio.  To commemorate this Soviet/Anglo space
mission, special event stations have been set up around Great Britian with
the call signs GB0JUNO, GB1JUNO,...GB8JUNO (GB0JUNO has been heard on
AO-13).  At the present time Helen is in the Soviet Union receiving last
minute training along with instruction from Boris Stepanov, UW3AX, on
the operation of the amateur radio station aboard MIR.  It is not known
at this time if GB1MIR/U will only operate special event stations or if
there will be general QSOs.  Also, no operating schedule has be announced.

In other news concerning MIR and U2MIR, a 70cm transceiver has been donated
by ICOM and it is expected that Musa will soon be heard on a downlink of
432.675 MHz FM.  It is not known whether this new addition will be for
packet or voice.  Once GB1MIR/U arrives, more information will be
forthcoming.

[Story via ANS]


* SPACENEWS SURVEY *
====================
Are you reading SpaceNews on a dial-up bulletin board system (BBS)?  If so,
then please send a note giving the BBS name, telephone number and location
to any one of the addresses listed below.  The results of this survey will
be published in a future edition of SpaceNews.  Thanks!


* FEEDBACK WELCOMED *
=====================
Feedback regarding SpaceNews may be directed to the editor using any one
of the following paths:

UUCP     : ...!rutgers.edu!ka2qhd!kd2bd
PACKET   : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA
INTERNET : [e-mail] -OR- [e-mail]

MAIL     : John A. Magliacane, KD2BD
           Department of Electronics Technology
           Advanced Technology Center
           Brookdale Community College
           Lincroft, New Jersey  07738
           U.S.A.


/EX
--
John A. Magliacane                 FAX  : [phone]
Electronics Technology Department  AMPR : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA
Brookdale Community College        UUCP : ...!rutgers!ka2qhd!kd2bd
Lincroft, NJ  07738  USA           VOICE: [phone] ext 607

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #631
*******************