Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_728.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-27 | 20KB

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/YcOPQNu00WBwI5I05G>;
          Thu, 27 Jun 91 05:59:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 05:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #728

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 728

Today's Topics:
            satellites over toron
             Escape systems from shuttle
      Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.
          Re: HST vs Ground based telescopes
               Re: Pet Projects
     POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING
            A Space Science letter
               Re: What's HUD?
              Re: Fermi Paradox

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: 10 Jun 91 11:23:52 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lsuc!canrem![tom.neumann%canrem.uucp]@uunet.uu.net  (tom neumann)
Subject: satellites over toron


Hi Henry!

On Friday, June 7th, at around 10:30 PM I was (with a friend)
eagferly awaiting the return of the Northern lights (got a very good
viewing of them Tuesday night after 11:30 pm).

I know what satelites look like when they go over and saw one in an
apparently polar orbit (or at least, with a very high inclination),
heading from south to north. A minute or less later, I saw a SECOND
satelite in what seemd to be the same orbit. A couple of minutes
after that, I saw another satelite in a similar orbit but heading
from north to south. Within five minutes or so, I spotted another
satellite heading in a west to east orbit.

I know tat there is nothing weird in seeing the odd satelite, but
this seemed like quite a few in a very short period of time. My first
thoughts at seeing the two were that they might be MIR and a supply
ship, but the orbits might have been to high for MIR.

Do you have any ideas as to waht these satelites were?

Tom Neumann
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.12 #350 ~ I'm SO confused...
--
Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario
NorthAmeriNet Host

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 07:48:48 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com![e-mail]  (Tarl Neustaedter)
Subject: Escape systems from shuttle

In reply to Allan's comment about a properly equipped shuttle escape system
making shuttles safe; There is an article in this week's aviation week about
the russian escape system being installed in the second buran shuttle. It's
a modification of the one we saw so spectacularly deployed in the Mig-29
crash at an airshow a few months ago.

In any case, the escape system is limited to mach 4.1; Even at those speeds
they had to do some significant work to reduce wear and tear on the ejected
dummys, including worrying about burns when multi-mach air hits the dummy.
It will probably allow the astronauts to escape from a challenger-type
accident, but not much beyond it; In other words, you can solve the problem
for the very beginning and very end of the flight, for non-catastrophic
failures, but you still have a large amount of powered flight where you
can't escape.

The basic danger of solids, that you can't turn them off, can't be solved
short of using something else.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 22:22:21 GMT
From: att!cbfsb!cbnewsf.cb.att.com![e-mail]  (anthony.r.rizzo)
Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sehari Babak) writes:
>
 [ Article about mining gobs of gold in space deleted.]
>
>This might be one of the first real applications of Space technology. I say
>NASA should issue stocks to built a space craft to go and bring that thing
>down.  This could open up another very lucrative investment, a side from
>satellites.  The technology we gain could help us mine other things in the
>space too.  Then, boldly going were no man has gone before makes business
>sense to.
>
>I assume this could be possible if the price of gold goes much higher. Let us
>forget about mars and concentrate on this, for now. After all, who needs cheap
>marsian dart.
>

What a great idea.  Then, were we to succeed, the price of gold
would be so low that we might actually be able to replace
aluminum siding with it.  Imagine how long gold siding would last.
And we wouldn't have to worry about anyone stealing it, since
no one would want it.

Tony

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 02:34:26 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: HST vs Ground based telescopes

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]:
> In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Todd L. Masco):
> > The "Hubble fiasco," as you call it, was not as bad a situation as the
> > muck-raking US press made it out to be.

> While it is true that HST does make *some* improvements on the resolution
> achievable by normal ground based telescopes, I would expect that we could do
> a *lot* better by putting the 1.5 billion dollars HST cost into adaptive and
> active optics.

But keep in mind the original projected HST flight date, the orginal cost,
and the cost-to-orbit originally promised by the Shuttle.

> As for NASA not doing good enough PR, this is probably the case, but that may
> be because the space scientist lobby there is in disfavour as they won't toe
> the line on the Space Station.

NASA is very PR driven, but I find most of the PR is very close to being BS.
At the last two NASA sites I visited, the tour guides and receptionists
talked mostly about space ice cream and 0g bathrooms.  I was looking at
the stains in the concrete made by Apollo 2nd stage engine firings at the
remains of the test stand, and the NASA tour guide was explaining that the
shuttle crew uses a vacume cleaner in the shuttle shower.  Now if they
would have explained how the astronauts showered in the 14 day Gemanii
flight, I would have been interested.  8-)

> [...] then its time to do something *serious* to NASA management. Like
> breaking up the organisation and starting from scratch again.

I have given this some thought.  I don't think that it will accomplish.
The risk is in creating a number of smaller NASAites that act much the
same way.  An additional risk is that congress might be tempted to kill
some of them wholesale.  And each smaller NASA might duplicate the required
organizational bearucrats.  Like the Bell System breakup, we might have
fixed a few problems, but in the process, we created problems that we didn't
even know we had.

Is there really anything wrong with NASA that isn't wrong with almost every
other US government agency?

-john-

--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 17:47:15 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Pet Projects

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>...your pet projects are toast anyway.
>
>Amazing that after hundreds of postings from dozens of people in
>support of advanced launch technology, earth-crossing materials exploration,
>etc. etc. Allen can reduce them all to an easily expendable set
>called "Nick's pet projects."  Of course he doesn't call his
>regurgitated Gemini "my pet project".  :-) :-)
>

If all else fails, try a non sequitur, right?
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 12:20:26 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]> (CARY OLER)
Subject: POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

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

                    LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING

                        UPDATED: 17:30 - 11 JUNE, 1991
                             VALID: 12 - 13 JUNE

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


ATTENTION:

     A major interplanetary shockwave is in transit at the present time and
should arrive here at the Earth anytime near or after 06:00 UT on 12 June.
The major class X12+/3B flare which produced this shock was in a very
sensitive and well-placed position for producing high to very high
terrestrial impacts.  The energy released from the flare was also easily
sufficient to produce very high terrestrial impacts.

     A major to severe geomagnetic storm is expected to begin with the
arrival of this shockwave.  The accompanying auroral storm is also expected
to be rated as major to severe.

     Widespread and very active low latitude auroral activity is expected to
occur with this event.  There is a chance that auroral activity could become
visible as far (or further) south as Florida, central Texas, New Mexico and
California.  Australia and New Zealand are also expected to be treated to an
impressive "light show."

     This event could become the largest event since 1989 and may actually be
observed as the largest terrestrial disturbance so far this solar cycle.  The
most active day of this period should be 13 June.  At that time, geomagnetic
and auroral storming should be in the main phase.

     Some residual activity may be observed on 14 June, although the
probability for observing low-latitude auroral activity on 14 June is not
particularly high.  By that time, conditions should be decaying back toward
more quiet levels.

     It would be appreciated if observations of auroral activity could be
sent to: [e-mail] (particularly the lower latitudes).  If any of you
have access to the weather reports with AURBO, it would be very much
appreciated if the AURBO reports could be extracted (as-is, verbatim) and
sent to either [e-mail] or preferably to [e-mail].  Thanks
to all those who take the time to send in reports.

     This is a significant auroral storm warning.  Serious observers should
take the time to plan a trip to a dark-sky location for this event.


**  End of Watch  **

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 20:07:42 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic.csu.net!csun.edu!corona![e-mail]  (Stephen Walton)
Subject: A Space Science letter

[A Dear Colleague: letter I recently got, posted without comment.]

Dear Colleague:

On June 6th, the U.S. House of Representatives took a step that could be
disastrous for planetary science, and for space science in general. As you may
know, the House appropriations subcommittee for Veterans, HUD, and independent
agencies voted several weeks ago to cancel funding for the Space Station. In
response to this action, an amendment was offered on the House floor that
would restore the Station by freezing FY 1992 funding for all of NASA's
programs at FY 1991 levels. After a debate of more than eight hours, this
amendment passed by a margin of about three to two.

For several key NASA space science programs, the effects of such a freeze
would be devastating. The amendment passed by the House would provide only 44
percent of the funding needed for in FY '92 by CRAF/Cassini (a $183 million
reduction), effectively cancelling at least one and perhaps both of these
missions. Other projects cut severely include the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics
Facility (AXAF) (a cut of $110 million, or 48 percent), and the Earth
Observing System (EOS) (a cut of $145 million, or 57 percent). In such an
environment, it is clear that other flight projects like Mars Observer,
Galileo, and Magellan are in jeopardy as well, and that any growth in R&A
funding is probably out of the question.

The next step in the budget process will be the markup by the Senate
appropriations subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Mikulski. This
committee's total funding allocation is essentially the same as that for the
House, so no easy solution can be expected. If the Senate markup is similar to
the budget that was passed by the House, then there is no hope that funding
for these programs will be reinstated. Our only chance is for the Senate
markup to restore substantial space science funding, and then for the Senate
to prevail in the House/Senate conference that will follow. It is therefore
IMPERATIVE that the members of this subcommittee hear from you. Two key points
need to be made:

1) It is incorrect to conclude that funding frozen at last year's levels would
not severely hurt these programs. The funding profile of any space flight
project is not flat -- instead it grows sharply in the early years, and then
decreases as hardware problems have been solved and the project moves toward
launch and mission operations. CRAF/Cassini, AXAF, and EOS all required large
increases in FY '92, and the House action would deny these increases. The
situation is particularly severe for CRAF and Cassini, both of which have
perishable launch windows.

2) While the cancellation of the Space Station by the House appropriations
subcommittee would certainly have resulted in an unbalanced space program, the
amendment passed by the full House is at least as deficient in this regard.
Funding must be restored to CRAF/Cassini and other key space science programs
in order for a programmatic balance to be restored. In your communications
with the Senate, keep in mind that the House vote probably means that any
direct attack on the Space Station would be counter-productive at this point.

Once again: if the Senate appropriations subcommittee does not reverse the
House's action, planetary science in this country will be devastated for
years to come. Their markup is expected in the next few weeks, so you must act
NOW. A list of the addresses of the subcommittee members is given at the end
of this letter.

Please feel free to pass this message along to your colleagues, and thank you
for your help.

                                        Sincerely,


                                        Jonathan I. Lunine

                                        Steven W. Squyres

--
Stephen Walton, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Cal State Univ. Northridge
    "Lately it occurs to me/What a long, strange trip it's been"

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 23:04:35 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!harbor.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Phil Moyer)
Subject: Re: What's HUD?

[e-mail] (F026) writes:
>Not being a US citizen, I have no idea what HUD stands for. Could someone
>please enlighten me?

Heads Up Display.  It's a mechanism by which a pilot (or bus driver, trash
collector, motorist, train engineer, or other vehicle operator) can monitor
vital information about her vehicle without looking inside.  Information
is usually displayed on a glass plate on the "dashboard", but it can also
be displayed directly on the windscreen, or perhaps on the inside of a helmet
visor or goggles.

And yes, I'm just kidding.  :-)

Cheers,
Phil

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

Date: 10 Jun 91 18:52:51 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic![e-mail]  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>
>    While proposing what amounts to a Star Trek transporter may sound
>great for solving the Fermi paradox, it's questionable if it's feasable to
>manufacture such a device or if it's possible to make something like you
>described work.  This is essentially science fiction.

First of all, what's wrong with science fiction? I make my living from
it (if you think making plans for a Mars mission in the year 2020 is
not science fiction, you are mistaken).  Any concepts for any engineering
project that is beyond the current state of the art requires making
a projection of future technology progress.  The only difference
between making technology projections and writing science fiction of
the type in the bookstores is the latter usually has a plot.

Now, when projecting technology, you can do it in several ways:

(1) There will be no breakthroughs and only minor technical improvements.

This method is often used by NASA, for example in planning going to
Mars using a conventional Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (chemical rockets),
physical/chemical life support systems, no hibernation, no robot
assistants, etc.

(2) Technology will improve at a linear rate extrapolated from prior
trends

I.e. computers, structural materials, etc. will continue to improve
over time.

etc.

The point is that when talking about any future project, you have to
make SOME assumption about technology progress, whether you assume
fast,slow, or none.

Now, as for the feasibility of scanning a human being:

Assume that a person has been frozen solid and is stored at near
zero kelvin.  Run over the surface of the body with a scanning
tunneling microscope probe (use multiple needles to save time).
Then direct an electron beam over the body to evaporate a fraction
of an atomic layer (i.e. only a few percent of the atoms in the
top-most layer).  Re-scan.  Repeat ad-nauseum.  Each time you
re-scan, you measure the depth of the holes left behind by the
removal of atoms.  The STM is capable of measuring depth to a small
fraction of an angstrom, so you can determine the atom type by
the atomic diameter.

If you vary the beam energy, you can infer the bond strength between
that atom and it's neighbors by how much energy it took to dislodge
the atoms.  If you direct the evaporated atoms to a mass spectrometer,
you can determine the isotope.  If the electron beam is confined to
a small area at a time (think electron microscope), correlation with
arrival time in the mass spectrometer provides data to confirm the
identity of atoms removed from a particular spot.

The above process is not simple or easy, but neither is building
a starship.  my point in the original posting, which may not have
been clear enough, is that the factor of a million less energy to
send the description of a person rather than that person bodily is
a tremendous advantage, which will be exploited if at all possible.

Dani Eder

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #728
*******************