Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_681.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-22 | 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/kcMkSFK00WBw43:k5P>;
          Sat, 22 Jun 91 04:17:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <IcMkS=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 04:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #681

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 681

Today's Topics:
              Robotics != teleoperation
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
            Re: Robotics != teleoperation
                Re: USF, Inc.
          Re: space news from April 8 AW&ST
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
          MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 02 JUNE
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
          Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
              Fred Vote Thursday

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: 2 Jun 91 15:30:21 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Robotics != teleoperation

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

> > The problem of course is that even if there where that many satellites to
> > repair we won't see standard busses and refueling facilities. That's because
> > without the station discussed above there's no point. On the other hand,
> > without that station there is no poing in making satellites repairable.

> You're making the (IMO mistaken) assumption that humans are needed for
> repair/refueling/refitting of satellites.  You are ignoring the possibility of
> improved robotics.  A human may be more versatile than a robot, but a robotics
> service can be more economically versatile than humans.  The technology that
> can repair a commsat in low Earth orbit can also repair a Neptune Imaging
> satellite (with a solar sail towing it out there).  Humans can't just hop into

> Robotics/teleoperation/AI could be so valuable, in so many situations (from
> Neptune orbit to the ocean depths to blood vessels in a brain) that it should
> definitely be developed.    ...............

Many things could be valuable in many situations, but that does not make them
practical, or even reasonably attainable.  In some case, probably not even
possible.  Practical antigravity would solve much of the space problem.
Electric cars refuelable in 15 minutes and capable of going for 300 miles
would solve much of the pollution problem.

Teleoperation is difficult even at the distance of a space station, but
presumably could be used even at the distance of the moon.  Only very
restricted teleoperation can be used at the distance of Venus or Mars.
A robot would have to be self-directing to a considerable extent if the
delays are in the order of minutes.  A teleoperated ship would not be
able to land on Mars or an asteroid or to attach to an ice rock in the
rings of Saturn.  Even on the moon, at 10 mph, 35 feet are covered before
the earth operator's response to that unforeseen terrain is received!
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 20:33:08 GMT
From: spool.mu.edu!agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>You're making the (IMO mistaken) assumption that humans are needed for
>repair/refueling/refitting of satellites.  You are ignoring the possibility of
>improved robotics.  A human may be more versatile than a robot, but a robotics
>service can be more economically versatile than humans.
>...A manned space repair service might be more
>glamourous, but IMO, much more limited in potential.

I should make it clear that my suggestion for a repair/maintnance space station
is a near-term concept. It requires no real technology development. Therefore,
I am looking ONLY at what can be done today, as far as telerobotics are
concerned. That is, they can be used to assist but not replace humans in
complex, not repetive tasks. In the long run, you are no doubt correct,
however.

                          Frank Crary

P.S.: My appologies for the text-editor errors in my last post.

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 00:52:57 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Robotics != teleoperation

[e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:

> Teleoperation is difficult even at the distance of a space station, but
> presumably could be used even at the distance of the moon. ... A robot would
> have to be self-directing to a considerable extent if the delays are in the
> order of minutes.

True.  One of the big challenges in teleoperation is improving the
self-directed portion of it.  For long delays, such as for repairing a
satellite around Neptune, the operator will have to give complex instructions
and the on-board computer will have to be able to carry them out and know when
to stop and ask for further instructions.

For short delays, (including Earth orbit), teleoperation has a lot of potential
for reducing the cost of construction and repair.  It also has a lot of
potential here on Earth.

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 04:37:27 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy![e-mail]
Subject: Re: USF, Inc.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James T. Green) writes:
> I would be interested in seeing a listing of the major
> members (not honorary types, such as the UN sec. general
> seems to be).  I admit that I've not read throughly all
> the loooooong postings about this organization and such info
> might be there, but I think a posting of only the major
> movers and their credentials is in order.

I second. The USF postings have also appeared in a variety
of soc.culture.* newsgroups (no cross-posting was done, which
is a considerable waste).

Pedro Saizar
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet:   pedro@ohstpy

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 16:18:44 GMT
From: wuarchive!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from April 8 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Jarvis) writes:
>>.... NASA currently has far too many studies
>>and far too little hardware development.  It's time to pick the half-dozen
>>most promising ideas and put some real development money into them...
>
>And how do you propose to get NASA the money to "drill lots of wells"?
>Congress can't even decide on how much to appropriate for a minimal Space
>Station.........

This may have more than a little to do with the fact that the Space Station
has spent roughly a decade and $5G+ on studies to date, with no hardware
to show for it...
--
"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: 3 Jun 91 21:18:40 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

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

>>>If the full house voted today, Freedom would receive full funding.

>>And you are so naieve as to think that you can get Congress to kill the
>>Shuttle, which is already operational, to go to tin cans....

>I never said it would be easy, I just said it could be done. In fact, it
>is happening even as we speak.

Congress is working on killing the shuttle and going to cans?  Could you
elaborate?
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 12:10:09 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]> (CARY OLER)
Subject: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 02 JUNE
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                        --  MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT  --

                                 JUNE 02, 1991

                              Flare Event Summary
                          Potential Impact Assessment


                                    --------



MAJOR ENERGETIC EVENT SUMMARY

     Another major flare of lower intensity erupted from Region 6659 (this is
the region which spawned yesterdays spectacular > X12 flare).  Todays major
event was rated a class M5.2 and was not optically correlated due to the
continuing poor position of Region 6659.  No significant sweeps were observed
from this event.  The event peaked at 07:41 UT on 02 June.

     Region 6659 is just barely becomming visible at this writing.  No
details can be discerned yet.  The region appears to be centered near N25,
although this could change once the region becomes more fully visible.  At
the present time, an area of plage is rotating into view, but no significant
spot detail can be seen.

     More will be known in the days to come.


POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

     There will not be any terrestrial impacts from todays major class M5.2
flare.  However, there will continue to be radio impacts (SIDs/SWFs) from the
major and minor flaring which is occurring in the various regions on the
solar disk.  There is a continuing potential for major HF signal degradation
and blackouts over the sunlit portions of the hemisphere.

     There is an increased risk for proton and possible PCA activity from
Regions 6652 and 6654, which are now within high-risk zones, if major flaring
should recur.

     There is a relatively high probability for several more X-class flares
from Region 6659 over the next week.

     Watch for future major flare alerts, and possible warnings.


**  End of Alert  **

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 17:50:26 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

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

>You're making the (IMO mistaken) assumption that humans are needed for
>repair/refueling/refitting of satellites.  You are ignoring the possibility of
>improved robotics.  A human may be more versatile than a robot, but a robotics
>service can be more economically versatile than humans.  The technology that
>can repair a commsat in low Earth orbit can also repair a Neptune Imaging
>satellite (with a solar sail towing it out there).  Humans can't just hop into
>their repair van and head out to Neptune.  :)

'And who fixes the fixers?'

Sure, if robot number one freezes you can send robot number two out to
fix it, but I can't see the advantage in waiting thirty or forty years
for the technology to do this to come along, when we have the technological
(if not political) capability of doing on-orbit repair/refueling/refitting
now.

Looking at it in another way, you are counting on what would be the greatest
revolution (artificial intelligence) since ENIAC was first plugged in to
give us a routine operational capability in space.  Considering that AI
belongs right next to nuclear fusion (we've almost got it, just another few
years) in the 'future revolution' bin, you'll pardon me if I remain
skeptical about the whole thing.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 04:14:09 GMT
From: stanford.edu!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu![e-mail]  (Anastasios Vergis)
Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Me) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anastasios Vergis) writes:
>>There is yet another possibility: Any sufficiently advanced civilization
>>will blow up, when experimenting with not well-understood physics
>> ...
>>This is necessarily the case if there is such a "catastrophic"
>>experiment in physics which any advanced civilization is bound to conduct.
>
>    I think the conclusions stated here are ridiculous.  If a civilization
>were capable of "creating" black holes (However unlikely) it would not likely
>have all its beans in the same basket.  In other words not all of its people
>would likely reside in the same solar system or planet.  I think it would be
>likely that they would not do a great deal of experimenting on their home
>planet.   If they were advanced enough to destroy them selves quickly and by
>accident, they would most probably do research in space. Space offers many
>advantages for research, the first of which would be limiting the damage
>you could cause.
>
>    Just an Opinion.

Well, it will take us maybe 100 years to have a self-sustaining colony on
the moon and maybe another 100 for Mars. Many more to get out of the solar
system. Of the order of centuries that is, to not have all our beans
in one basket. It is certainly conceivable that until then we will not
resist the temptation to conduct experiments in unknown realms of physics.
Hell, we are building the supercollider right know, which, as I
understand, will "experiment" in hitherto unachievable energies ...

-- Anastasios Vergis

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 00:55:00 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

> I should make it clear that my suggestion for a repair/maintnance space
> station is a near-term concept. It requires no real technology development.

I agree with your proposal for building a manned space station that is
economical and doesn't negatively effect other research and development.  The
problem I have with your proposals is the probability of their realization.

As I see it, you're imagining a manned space station that will be cheap enough
that it doesn't starve other projects and can pay for itself in a few years
(you seem to agree that it will have competition in relatively few years).  I
simply have trouble believing that this combination is likely enough to be
worth considering.  I'll be watching for such a proposal, but I'm not expecting
it.  <sigh>

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 20:54:06 GMT
From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>...Simply say that refueling
>sats is for reasons of "national security"...
>...this mobility
>eats up fuel right, and is the reason we don't move them around at whim
>(maybe to check out what's over yonder border just for the heck of it)?
>If we could refuel them easily, might not such a sat find some kind of
>useful niche?  Adding the "national security" moniker makes it easier to
>get funding...

I'm not sure how much additional mobility an observation satellite could
reasonably get. If you have to make a $10 million pit stop (a low guess
for the cost), every few months, then it's just not worth it. For real
manuvering of such a satellite, you would want to be able to change the
plane of the spacecraft's orbit. Plane changes use ALOT of fuel. I would
guess that for current systems, a re-fueling would be required for each
plane change of 5 to 10 degrees. And, of course, the craft would have to
be able to return to the fueling point, or the fuel station would have to
be as mobile as the satellite or there would have to be many such stations.

However, for more modest improvements in lifetime/mobility I think refueling
would be reasonable. In my previous suggestions for refueling infrastructure
and repair/maintance space stations, I have assumed that the military would
be a major client.

                     Frank Crary

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 18:29:27 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Fred Vote Thursday

The House floor fight over Fred will happen Thursday.

Turn on your tape machines.  There ought to be more blood letting
than a grade-B horror movie, providing entertainment for years to
come.

By the way, the current vote count puts it nip and tuck.  Fred has
just enough votes to tie if the House majority whip's stats are correct.
Fred has 140 Republicans and 77 Democrats.

The George and Bobbie show on the House floor today went on for hours.
I've never seen so much inspiring bullsh*t thrown around with wild abondon
in such a short period of time.

I have a tape of the whole thing.  It sort of reminded me of
a John Waters movie.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #681
*******************