Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_685.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-22 | 19KB

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/IcN35CK00WBw048k4w>;
          Sun, 23 Jun 91 01:27:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 01:27:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #685

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 685

Today's Topics:
              SHUTTLE 40 delayed
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
        Re: USA Environment Protection Agency
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
     Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist (vol 2 no 6)
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??
         Re: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 30 MAY
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
         Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

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: 3 Jun 91 06:33:00 GMT
From: comp.vuw.ac.nz!am.dsir.govt.nz!marcamd!mercury!kcbbs![e-mail]  (George Muzyka)
Subject: SHUTTLE 40 delayed

SHUTTLE 40, the Spacelab Life Sciences mission, has been postponed till
next Wednesday (the 5th) because of a guidance computer problem. The
countdown came within about an hour of liftoff when technicians
discovred the faulty Inertial Measurement System (IMS), one of three IMS
computers on the Shuttle. Special equipment will be required to get at
the faulty IMS because of the difficult location and mounting (?), and
the Spacelab experiments will need reservicing including replacement
rats and jellyfish (presumably due to the need for newly prepared
control animal specimens). All this servicing is part of the 4 day
postponement.

George Y. Muzyka

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

Date: 2 Jun 91 00:54:26 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

[e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

> 'And who fixes the fixers?'

The same problem holds true for humans, and humans are probably less reliable
over long trips.  They'd certainly be a lot more expensive.  Furthermore, you
don't have to bring the robot back.  :)

> 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.

I don't know what the timetable would be for developing useful robots, but it
would be shortened by having an actual R&D program for it.  As I've pointed out
before, robotics and related technologies could be applied to many aspects of
human activities and can go and do things that humans can't (repairing a
satellite around Neptune or close Solar orbit).  They are multipliers of human
capabilities, just as computers are.  These technologies are worth developing
even without the space applications.  However, they compete for resources with
other projects, such as the more politically attractive manned space projects.

> 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.

No, I haven't been assuming a major breakthrough in AI.  We can do quite a lot
with low level AI: the types we have available now or evolutionary improvements
on them.  Basic robotic control, with human intervention when required, should
be able to handle a fairly wide variety of tasks.  The Voyager team managed
great improvements by reprogramming a fairly aged robot.  Modern robots should
be much more capable, especially if designed for versatility.

I'm also not expecting to have versatile satellite repair robots within five
years; we might not have economical ones for ten years.  As much as I'd like to
see a busy orbital or lunar colony in the next few years, I feel that it would
be better in the long term to put the resources into robotics R&D today.

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

Date: 1 Jun 91 02:16:17 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

[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
their repair van and head out to Neptune.  :)

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.  A manned space repair service might be more
glamourous, but IMO, much more limited in potential.

Note that I'm not proposing satellite refurbishment as a goal for the robotics
R&D.  The R&D should be funded by the government (not NASA) as basic research
as an investment in future economic activity. Organizations, private or public,
can then apply the research to solve problems (like how to build things in
space).

[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 14:13:02 GMT
From: iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu![e-mail]  (Patricia P Wilcox)
Subject: Re: USA Environment Protection Agency

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee Askew) writes:
>
>Hello,
>    I'm not sure if this is the correct group to ask for the
>information below, but here goes.
>
>I would like to know if anyone in the USA has any information on the
>US Environment Protection Agency specifically information on Priority
>Pollutents, and their level in syrum if possible.
>
>I believe from my research here that there are between 20 to 30 of them.
>
>If anyone has ANY information on the priority pollutents, I would be
>very much grateful for the information..
>
>Thanks Alot..
>Lee.

It sounds like you're talking about the EPA's Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA).  I wrote for information and received a document entitled
"Industrial Toxics Project: 17 Target Chemicals" along with a letter
that said:

  "Please feel free to contact us at 202-554-1404 between 8:30 am and
  5:00 pm (EST) if you have any further questions or requests for
  documents pertaining to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

  "In addition, requests for documents only can be sent to:

    Environmental Assistance Division (TS-799)
    USEPA
    TSCA Assistance Information Service
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC  20460

  or faxed to...

    [phone] (fax line open 24 hours per day)."

You may also want to get a copy of the book _Chemical Exposures: Low
Levels and High Stakes_ by Ashford and Miller, Van Nostrand Reinhold
1991.

Hope this helps.

--Pat Wilcox   ([e-mail])
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Four stages of acceptance: (J.B.S. Haldane, Journal of Genetics #58, 1963)
i)this is worthless nonsense; ii)this is an interesting, but perverse, point
of view;  iii) this is true, but quite unimportant;  iv) I always said so.

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 20:23:33 GMT
From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

n article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>$5 billion amortized over thirty years at 10%/year comes to $87.2 billion
>dollars. Spread over 50 satellite service calls a year for thirty years,
>that comes to $58.1 million per service call...
>...If we take Frank's higher
>$1.5 billion a year support number, we get $30 million per satellite,
>so the total cost is now $88.1 million to service a satellite.
>
My higher number for support includes the fuel for the OMV. This is
assumed to be 750 kg/satellite on average. The nice part is that the
per satellite costs are somewhat insensitive to the NUMBER of satellites
repaired each year. To keep the station up, manned and pay off the
investment comes to $3340 million/year (your amortized costs plus my
numbers for operations). OMV fuel for each repair adds $22 million
per satellite. At 50 satellites/per year, this is $88 million. At only
10 satellites/per year, the figure rises only to $356 million.
While this is ALOT of money, there are a number of repairs that justify
it (HST comes to mind...)

>If the station can be justified on other grounds, the amortized cost
>can be discarded and servicing costs reduce to less than $16 to $30 million
>per satellite. *That* figure is justified even with current style
>satellites.

Droping the amortized cost makes the above numbers even better. $32
million for 50 satellites/year, $66 million for 10 satellites/year.
At only 10 satellites/year, the two-man crew will have about 80% of
their time free for other work (e.g. things that justify station on
other grounds...) Also, short 4-man missions during crew rotation,
(similar to the Soviet visiting missions) are part of my baseline
concept.

                     Frank Crary

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 22:09:16 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist (vol 2 no 6)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>We must take steps to insure that we aren't placed in this difficult position
>again. We must agitate for a more cost effective program. William Lenoir, in
>charge of Freedom, should resign due to its history of mismanagement. Richard
>Truly should also resign to pave the way for a leader with more vision.

Allen and I have our differences, but we are in 100% agreement on this
one.    The current NASA leadership is ruining things for _everybody_,
manned activists and scientists alike.



--
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: 4 Jun 91 01:36:43 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gene Gross) writes:
>It was thought for a long time that the anomaly seen on Cydonia was
>only seen in that one photo -- not so.  There was at least one more
>photo of that same region which also showed the same "Face."  Both of
>the photos where taken when the sun was in a different position -- but
>both photos reveal the same structure.
>
Both photos were taken when the sun was in a SLIGHTLY different position,
however there are also photos with the sun in RADICALLY different positions,
such as illuminating the opposite side. These photos, although a lower
resolution, clearly show a plateau that looks NOTHING like a face. Farther,
in the photos that DO look like a face, the shadows cast by the plateau
imply a shape very different from that of a face.

> [Hoagland did not discover either photo of the "face"]
No, he did not. But if you look at his book, he has discovered MANY examples
of random features NEAR the plateau. He suggests that the shape and
position of these features also imply construction by intelligent beings.
For example, there is a feature which has some apparent geometric pattern,
which (if I recall correctly) he refers to as "city-like". He farther notes
that there is a cliff face arranged so that, from the "city-like" feature,
the "face" is seen in profile, framed by the cliff. He emphasizes that this
arrangement is significant. However, if you work out the details carefully,
this cliff is BELOW THE HORIZON when viewed from the city-like feature.
Even if you believe that such a convienent arrangement MUST be the result
of intelligence, this case CAN NOT be such a case (since the ACTUAL
arrangement is NOT as significant as it looks at first glance.)

                    Frank Crary

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

Date: 31 May 91 17:35:26 GMT
From: cs.dal.ca!husky1.stmarys.ca![e-mail]
Subject: Re: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 30 MAY

Could someone please explain the classification of flares and the like used in the Solar Flare Alerts?

Thanks.

--

"What is love? 'tis not hereafter; present mirth hath present laughter
                                                  - Shakespeare.

Phil Laird | E-mail:  [e-mail]
Dartmouth. |
Nova Scotia|
Canada     |

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 16:14:49 GMT
From: wuarchive!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>... Of course, the Sanyo
> pocket med unit might be on the market while space station Fred is going
>through its 500th redesign.  :-/

Of course, it won't be for sale in the US for liability reasons.

This actually isn't an entirely trivial issue:  who's responsible when a
robotic repair is bungled?
--
"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 13:20:11 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Reece) writes:
>
>All in all, I thought the science & effects were probably closer to
>reality than most sci-fi movies I've seen (Though the Space Oddessy movies
>were pretty good).  _Plymouth_ is certainly the most accurate MADE FOR
>TV space movie out there.
>
>As for acting, plot, and premise - well, um, nuff said.
>
>[e-mail]

The one thing that fasinated me was the way they attempted to get around
the "moonwalk" problem. In a TV show, especially one with a large cast,
the problem of simulating a walking gait other than Earth normal is
horrendous. So the writers usually are required to come up with some
gimmick to avoid the problem. This time they chose weighted boots.
Such a "solution" would actually exaggerate the unusual gait rather
than minimize it because foot inertia would be increased while the
person would still have to contend with the lower resistance of
a 1/6 G field. In the late unlamented _Space 1999_ they used an
Earth normal gait inside Moonbase Alpha and an exaggerated slow
motion gait when they went outside. That was one of the many
jarring technical flaws of that show. I wonder, does anyone have a
*real* solution to the writer's delemma short of an artifical gravity
generator?

Gary

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 19:30:48 GMT
From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>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 am not sure that such a station would have to pay for itself in a few
years. While there will be competition from robotic systems eventually,
this could take quite some time. Even in the hardware/software required
is developed in only 5 years (what I would guess is the minimum time), the
robotic system could take many MORE years to actually. The new computers
for the space shuttle are a good example: They are systems that COULD have
been built in about 1980, but their first ACTUAL flight will be next year.
Assuming a 10 year delay for new technology to turn into flight hardware,
I feel that robotic repair systems are at least 10 to 15 years away.

                       Frank Crary

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 02:39:39 GMT
From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>This is stupendously wrong.
>
>* The best cost estimate for a four-man station is $120,000 million
>  (GAO). It is unknown what Mir costs.  A two man station requires the same
>  life support, refuelling, etc. equipment R&D and would not, I think,
>  cost significantly less than a 4-man job.
>* You don't show how either your development or operational cost
>  figures are derived.

    He's using costing estimates from published NASA and industry
sources.  He's also holding costs way down by not trying to do
everything in the world in the sme station.  (personally, not a great
solution given the things that _I_ think need to be done from a station,
but it works...).

>* The number of satellites launched into any particular low earth orbit
>  reachable by an OMV is less than 5/year, not 50/year.  The number of
>  those actually benefiting from refueling is probably no more than one per
>  year; other satellites can be redesigned for optimum component/fuel
>  lifetime balance for less than $30 million.

Nick, _all_ of them can benefit from refueling.  All the ones launched
in the previous decade, the ones that aren't broken yet, just out of fuel.
Refuel them, the new ones, etc, and that starts to add up.

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #685
*******************