Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_649.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-15 | 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/ocKPojy00WBwQMPk49>;
          Sat, 15 Jun 91 03:09:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 03:09:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #649

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 649

Today's Topics:
               Help for science writer
           Re: Rational next station design process
          Repurcussions of Fred Cancellation
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
              Re: Good for the Japanese
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
            3D views from 2d data
     Communist L-5 opposed the Moon Treaty? (was RE:USF, Inc...)
              Re: Privatization
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
              Re: Privatization
              Re: Good for the Japanese

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: 29 May 91 05:42:20 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Kenneth Holden Chang)
Subject: Help for science writer

This summer I'm taking leave of my regular persona of physics graduate
student to be a science writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. I'd like
some help from net people about possible article ideas as well as general
comments about the state of science journalism. More specifically:

1) Do you know of neato-keen areas of research that haven't been
reported widely? If so, please a) tell me what it is, b) tell me who
to talk with and and c) tell me the relevant journal articles.

2) If they let me, I want to do a science column about simple things
that 99% of the people on this planet never think about, such as
how do you convince yourself that the Earth is indeed round and that
it's not actually one big practical joke? Any ideas for such columns
gratefully welcomed.

3) What do you think about the media's coverage of science? Most
people I know regard as pretty mediocre (I've generally heard
favorable things about only Science News and Scientific American.)
Science people complain journalists don't really understand what's going
on and report something only if it is a "possible cure for cancer" or
promises "to revolutionize our lives." I'd appreciate it if people
could cite examples of good and bad science journalism. (Citations
are sufficient; you don't have to send me the article.)

Please reply through e-mail. If you do post, be sure to edit the
header down to the relevant groups. (Sorry about the mass crossposting,
but I did want to cover all of the fields.)

And thank you for your help.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Kenneth Chang                         ~   [e-mail]
  Center for Complex Systems Research   ~             or
  University of Illinois                ~   [e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: 29 May 91 06:35:47 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>Hmmm, are you saying that it's possible to build a space station that will be
>inexpensive and provide a reasonable value for the investment, yet won't affect
>(compete with) unmanned services?  If you're saying it may be unlikely, but is
>worth a minor amount of study, I can agree.

That is almost what I mean. I do not, in fact, think such a station is possible
(and not unlikely.) However, I do not believe that such a station would be
as versitile as Freedom (or what Freedom claimed to be...) To build a cheap
station would, in my opinion, require a focused and/or specialized design.
But I do not KNOW any of this. As far as I can tell, there were no alternate
designs studied as part of the Freedom desing. This makes the US database
on space stations very small. We need to look at MANY different concepts
before we can comare costs or advantages.

                        Frank Crary

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

Date: 29 May 91 17:27:31 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Douglas Creel)
Subject: Repurcussions of Fred Cancellation

I read something very interesting in yesterdays New York Times (on its front
page, as a matter of fact.) This article went on to describe the astonishment of
the Japanese government to the cancellation of Fred. They have supposedly
drafted a letter which although officially hasn't been sent, it has been seen,
which states that cancellation of Fred and the abrogration of the United States'
responsibilities detailed in the MoU's signed with Japan (and ESA and Canada)
would result in serious repurcussions to the future ability of Japan to
participate in big science projects with the U.S. Namely, they mentioned the
Super Conducting Super Collider which Japan is considering possibly participating in.

So, less than a couple of weeks after Fred's cancellation, amid all of the
rejoicing among Fred's opponents, we are already seeing a potential one
billion dollars plus in shortfall for U.S. science. There is also considerable
consternation among European allies at the potential cancellation of Space
Station Freedom. If this happens, then I think we can kiss any hope of
future cooperation with international partners in large scientific projects
goodbye.

All supporters of Fred's cancellation should consider the implications of this
cut with respect to our relations with our international partners. Canceling
Fred may have a beneficial short term benefit with respect to space science
projects, but it may very well have a long term negative impact on the ability
of foreign countries to ever trust the U.S. again. One of the space science
projects supposedly saved by cancelling Fred in fact is international, Cassini.
One can only wonder if the Europeans will decide to continue pumping money
into this project if they can only wonder if the U.S. just intends to cancel
it a few years down the road without notifying its partners about it. If I
were them, I sure wouldn't.

Douglas D. Creel
Mars Observer Navigation Team
Jet Propulsion Laboratory

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

Date: 29 May 91 18:45:56 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>On this note, I would like to mention that the lifetime of a satellite in
>Low Earth orbit is limited by its fuel supply...
>.. As such, being able to refuel a satellite in Low Earth orbit could
>as much as triple its lifetime.

This doesn't make sense.  If we want to increase the lifetime, assuming
your comment about it being fuel-limited is correct, the best way is
to launch more fuel in the first place, rather than adding heavy, complex,
and error-prone refueling equipment.  It costs more in complexity and energy
to refuel than to launch sufficient fuel in the first place.


--
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: 29 May 91 19:43:42 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese

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

>Today's (May 26) contains a story headlined
>
>     Tokyo, May 27 - The Japanese Government, angered that its
>     participation in the American space station is threatened by
>     Congressional budget cuts, as issued an unusually blunt and
>     direct warning that it may refuse to contribute bilions of
>     dollars to American-led "big science" projects in coming
>     years unless plans to build a vast outpost in space remain
>     intact.

Last I heard, the Japanese were contributing less than $3 billion -- 2.5%
of the GAO estimate $120 billion cost -- to the Space Station, and less
than $1 billion to the SSC.

By cancelling Fred, we are saving far more money than the Japanese
are contributing to Fred, SSC, and dozens of other "international"
projects (primarily funded by the U.S.) combined.

It is not as if Japan lacks money.  If they want to do Big Science, they
should pay for it, not lend us money so that we can pay for it (and pay
them interest into perpetuity).  IMHO.

BTW, where were all the astronaut supporters screaming about
"international agreements" when Solar-Polar got cut to feed the overgrown
Shuttle budget?  What a bunch of hypocrites.





--
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: 30 May 91 00:15:25 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>This doesn't make sense.  If we want to increase the lifetime, assuming
>your comment about it being fuel-limited is correct, the best way is
>to launch more fuel in the first place, rather than adding heavy, complex,
>and error-prone refueling equipment.  It costs more in complexity and energy
>to refuel than to launch sufficient fuel in the first place.
>
You seem to assume that adding mass to most satellites is possible. In fact,
most of the time this would require launching on a larger launch vehicle.
Since there are so few LV's, the "next size up" is often TWICE as big (as
well as twice as expensive.) You would either have to launch at well under
the new launcher's capacity (which does not help your launch costs...) or
double the size of your craft. Neither is a practicle alternative. If the
satellite in question were Shuttle or Titan launched. Your suggestion would
be impossible, since there is no larger launcher available.

                           Frank Crary

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

Date: 30 May 91 01:31:24 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Blake Freeburg)
Subject: 3D views from 2d data

Does anyone know the people that make the movies of flyovers from the data
from voyager, magellan, etc?

I am interested in builing a 3D model of the starship enterprise out of
Star Trek: The Next Generation.  I have good sequences of the ship passing
overhead, several side views, and it moving away, looking at the back of the
ship.  I figure there is enough information in these to calculate 1/2 the
model, and since it is symmetric, I could then build the other half.

I just need some pointers to people, papaers, and possible PD software.

Thanks to anyone who can help
Blake Freeburg

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

Date: 30 May 91 01:26:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Communist L-5 opposed the Moon Treaty? (was RE:USF, Inc...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> It sounds like to me Mr. Fraering Philip is either a Dictator type
>a Communist, or a Nazi.  He takes pride in the fact that the effort
>to make the Moon and Mars the domain of all mankind (All the peoples
>of the world) which no single nation could hold claim too was
>undermined by this L-5 group.

    Pretty amazing free association there, since the Soviets were one
of the major backers of the Moon Treaty.

    Does anyone else remember back when LaRouche put L-5 on his hit
list?  Ah, the good old days.

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

Date: 30 May 91 15:15:41 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>
>  I like the idea of a public government agency habndling sums of
>money this big.   They are completely open to public scrutiny and
>we know exactly where every penny gets spent.

Ha ha!  That's a good one.

Just ask NASA how much a Space Shuttle flight costs.

Just ask NASA how much Fred is going to cost.

The answers will amaze your typical accountant.  They sure amazed the
GAO, who raised NASA's Fred estimate by nearly a factor of 4.



--
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: 30 May 91 15:11:47 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>If we want to increase the lifetime, assuming
>>your comment about it being fuel-limited is correct, the best way is
>>to launch more fuel in the first place, rather than adding heavy, complex,
>>and error-prone refueling equipment.  It costs more in complexity and energy
>>to refuel than to launch sufficient fuel in the first place.
>>
>You seem to assume that adding mass to most satellites is possible...

Not at all.  I am assuming that we can decrease payload mass if a
larger launch vehicle is not available and longer lifetime is desired
(it often isn't, BTW).  This is a common engineering tradeoff.

BTW, what are the cost proposals for developing refueling infrastructure?
I think it would blow the cost of doing the payload mass/lifetime tradeoff
out of the water.  I suspect we are talking $billions for a problem that
costs, at most, a few $million per satellite.


--
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: 30 May 91 15:32:24 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Privatization

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>How will you ensure that the billions simply do not get embezzled if
>a private concenr gets it ?

The simple way is:  pay for results, not for promises.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 May 91 16:31:06 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!isi.edu!wlf.isi.edu![e-mail]  (Craig Milo Rogers)
Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>
>>BTW, where were all the astronaut supporters screaming about
>>"international agreements" when Solar-Polar got cut to feed the overgrown
>>Shuttle budget?  What a bunch of hypocrites.
>
>Solar-Polar.  What was once known as the International Solar-Polar Mission
>(ISPM), and is now known as Ulysses, was not cut.  I figured you woulda
>known that, though.  Ulysses had to find a new ride to space after the
>demise of the Shuttle/Centaur program.  Which was based here at Lewis.  And
>which was killed because of the concerns *of the astronauts* in the wake of
>the Challenger tragedy.  So the astronaut supporters were right there.  And
>Ulysses never died, just got delayed.

    The ISPM originally had *two* probes, so the Sun's two poles
could be studied simultaneously.  The US was responsible for one
probe, and the Europeans the other.  The US was to launch both probes.

    The US probe suffered a miserable death one day in Congress.
Our European "partners" gritted their teeth, tightened their belts,
loosened their pocketbooks, and proceeded with their half of the
mission.  This was long before Challenger made it difficult for NASA
to launch even one probe.

>One hypocrite who knows the skinny.

    It is sometimes difficult to keep >40 yrs of false starts and
unfulfilled promises in mind.  When someone says, "so-and-so reneged
on their commitment to do x", it is sometimes necessary before
replying to determine which instance is under discussion, of the
several instances that so-and-so reneged on their commitment to do x.
I am sure that there will be other followup messages on this topic,
which are more precise than this one.

                    Craig Milo Rogers

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #649
*******************