Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_743.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-29 | 16KB

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/gcP47Zm00WBw01S044>;
          Sat, 29 Jun 91 04:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 04:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #743

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 743

Today's Topics:
               Re: NASA Budget
             Re: Lost satellites
            SPACE Digest V13 #620
            SPACE Digest V13 #628
    Re: VERY SIGNIFICANT MAJOR SOLAR FLARE - HIGH IMPACT EXPECTED
      Re: Microsat-EOS (Was:  Re: Fred's Operatic Death)
        Re: Government GEO Communications R&D (1 of 2)

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: 12 Jun 91 16:25:24 GMT
From: prism!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!geomag![e-mail]  (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig E. Ward) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Cain) writes:
>>
>>The American Geophysical Union recognizes that passage of this
>>amendment would do serious damage to future space science programs and
>>urge all to phone their congressional representatives and urge that
>>this amendment be defeated. Instead, they support the originally
>>passed budget of the Appropriations Committee.

Craig Ward's comment with much truncation includes:

>With all due respect, the AGU is wrong and is playing the role of a patsy for
>non-space special interests.  The remotely-manned space program will suffer
>greatly if the hands-on manned program suffers and, understand this clearly,
>if the current space station is killed, the manned program could be set back
>a generation.
>
>The budget agreement with the pro-space congressmen and the White House is
>that 20% of the NASA budget goes to remotely-manned programs.  Does the AGU
>want 20% $15 billion or $13 billion?  Be fully aware that, with a decline in
>the manned programs, the 20% slice will be remembered by the convenient memory
>of Bob Traxler and the programs the AGU seems to hold so dear will be next.
....

I am passing on the following from Les Meredith of AGU.
******************************************************************
1) Scientists should not support a bad project, like Space Station,
just because they might skim 20%

2) Science is not getting 20% of the NASA budget now (17%). If Space
Station is in the budget it will probably be cut $500 million to 14%.
Furthermore, at least 20% of the remaining space science budget until
1999 has already had to be committed to Space Station instruments
further eating into the funds for other space science.

3) Last year's budget agreement effectively gave NASA a cap. As a
result, NASA will not significantly expand in the future. It's now a
zero sum game. As the Space Station Budget grows, the Space Science
budget will not grow but shrink. NASA is at a crossroads and
scientists need to be heard.

*****************************************************************

    My own personal comment is to agonize over opposing anything
in the civilian space area when worse wastes of federal resources
occur in DOD at much higher funding levels.  However, with the budget
agreement that seems to be adhered to by both congress and the white
house, money saved in DOD cannot be used to fund civilian activities.
Now that the House has passed the budget authorizing the Space Station
and cutting into Space Science, the action reverts to the Senate and
the House/Senate conference committees. I heard recently that the
result may impact NSF even this year. Of course there is the future
when the Space Station will require even more funding than the mere
$1,930 million of this year! The Space Station is not the whole manned
space program as pointed out by Congressman Traxlor and others,
including the very succinct and intelligent comments of the Republican
congressman from New York, Bill Green. Indeed, my understanding is
that to fund the Space Station some $300 million had to be cut from
the operational budget for the Shuttle. The AGU of course is not
against manned space per se and does not agree that the loss of the
Space Station would signify an end to the manned program.

Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 20:22:02 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Lost satellites

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wolfgang Lieff) writes:
>- With Olympus one more satellite is more or less lost in orbit;
>  does anybody know how much 'dead money' belonging to the space
>  agencies or insurance companies is up there in the moment ?
>
>- If this sum is a considerable amount, what would be a competitive
>  price the Soviets could charge for stationing a technician and a
>  Soyuz modified as an 'Inter-orbit-toolshed' (maybe without re-entry
>  capabilities) onboard their space station ?

Olympus, like most satcoms, is in GEO.   Mir is limited to an
inclined low earth orbit, far away from GEO.


>  Most of a maintenance infrastructure is already there: regular supply
>  uplinks (Progress, Buran) can provide spare parts; continous service
>  (even on weekends) is possible thanks to long-term missions,...

Yes, too bad it is in a useless orbit.



--
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

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 12 Jun 91 17:59:37 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Sat, 8 Jun 91 03:22:21 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #620
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re: processing in space

>In the ice fragment
>business scenario, most of the money needs to be spent not on the
>capture itself, but on processing the comet material into various products
>after it has already been delivered into earth orbit,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is this the best way?  It's unsafe, for starters (Just becuase were off the
Earth, did you think environmental problems don't exist? :-)
And, presumably, you process this stuff because there are parts you don't
want.  Why move the stuff you don't want, when there's no reason not to
do the processing where you find it?

Tom McWilliams
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <Added.McJeVz_00UkTEA=[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 12 Jun 91 19:02:27 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Tue, 11 Jun 1991 11:50:59 TZONE
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #628
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

>>I'm inclined to leave it like it is.  In general, moderated groups
>>work best for factual issues and it's obvious that much of sci.space
>>would not qualify.  I think the group would wither and die.
>>

>You may be right. However, might a sci.space.news, for factual postings
>only (e.g. the flare warnings, shuttle and interplanetary probe status
>reports, etc.) be a good idea?

I think  the current sci.space could use flare warnings.

Oh, wait, you mean solar flares don't you?  :-)

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 22:43:16 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!dschub!neptune![e-mail]  (Shawn Smith)
Subject: Re: VERY SIGNIFICANT MAJOR SOLAR FLARE - HIGH IMPACT EXPECTED


COULD YOU POSSIBLY USE LOWER CASE FOR SOME OF THESE WARNINGS?

My terminal is not hard of hearing, and we seem to be getting the
"sky is falling" story about solar activity every few days.


Just a suggestion, don't get mad.  I'm 100% behind distributing good
solid information to the public.

        -Shawn

- These opinions are mine, and you can't have them.

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 17:20:28 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Microsat-EOS (Was:  Re: Fred's Operatic Death)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Note that Iridium includes a very powerful communications package
>which allows for small automobile radio antennas to pick up the signal.
>If we go to a much weaker signal we can use standard backyard satellite
>dishes equipped with automatic fast sky tracking gear, and open up a
>large amount (100 kg?) of payload for the environmental instruments.
>3 dishes in each of 7 planes gives 21 total ground stations.  I suspect
>that won't cost more than a few $million.  We get savings not only
>from a large production run of launchers and microsats, but also from
>retrofitting standard, $5,000 satellite dishes.  Can somebody comment
>on what it takes to get a standard TV satellite dish to track a
>low-earth-orbiting satellite?

Basically a new mount and more powerful motors and realtime tracking
software running on a personal computer. The polar mount used
on home dishes gives limited continous sky coverage in a tracking
application. Going to a strong alt-az mount simplifies the mechanics
of tracking other than equatorial orbit satellites. Typical passes
for low earth orbit satellites are around ten minutes horizon to horizon
so somewhat more powerful motors are helpful in acquiring and tracking
the satellite. The typical home dish is designed to operate in the 3 to 5
Ghz band with crossed polarization. At a minimum, a new circular feed system
and LNB would be required. The dish would not exhibit huge gain at conventional
cellular frequencies and usually doesn't have good enough geometry to
be useful above 5 Ghz although some dishes are capable of good performance
at Ku band. The dish itself is usually not a large part of the cost of
a home satellite system so using one with all these system changes in
place of a purpose built downlink system is not likely to be cost effective.
At best it would shave a couple hundred dollars off the cost of the system.

The cost of a purpose built system could be as low as $15,000 if mass
produced. But with only 21 envisioned, the cost would be much higher
for commercial aquisition. Using volunteer labor and scrounged materials,
ala AMSAT, could bring the cost down to nil for a limited run of 21.
Maintaining such custom homebuilts over their lifetime could be a
nightmare though. That's the advantage of mass production, easy availability
of spare parts.

Gary

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 06:02:03 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: Government GEO Communications R&D (1 of 2)

Jim, you posted a long and interesting article on "Negative Economic

Mulipliers".  Fundamentally, I agree with most of it.  But in the

interest of accuracy, I think you can be challenged on one

significant point:



>In the early 60's, before the Apollo program, NASA was barred from

>participating in comsat development and operations.  It was the

>only area of space D&O from which NASA was barred. [... deleted

>material about how beneficial this was to the comsat industry ...]



Hmmm..... I seem to remember that NASA has had some role in the

development of communications satellite technology through the 60's,

70's and 80's, particularly in geosynchronous satellite technology.

Didn't NASA develop and launch Syncom-1 (the first geosynchronous

communications satellite)?  And I believe that they launched about 6

ATS (Advanced Technology Satellites) to develop and prove out

geosynch communications technology.  I seem to remember this since

ATS-3 was still in use a couple of years ago, having been retired by

NASA from its experimental program, then loaned to India to use as a

test for direct broadcast satellite TV to Indian villages, and then

returned to the U.S. when India launched Insat-1A - it was last

being used in the Pacific for medical teleconferencing to remote

island medical facilities.

   Also, I believe the ACTS (Advanced Communications Technology

Satellite) is currently developed under NASA funding.  It's designed

to prove out Ka band communications technology and on-orbit

switching systems (as well as several other technologies).  Didn't

they purchase a TOS stage from OSC recently to launch this?

  And doesn't NASA's TDRS satellite have a specific role in

"communications"?  Admitedly, its primary use is for space-to-space

and space-to-ground communications, but t also performs ground-to-

ground communications.

   I looked through my copy of theNASA Act of 1958, as amended, and

couldn't find any reference to a prohibition of comunications

satellite development.  You might be thinking of the Communications

Satelite Act of 1962 which authorized the charter of the Comsat

Corp as a private companyand the establishment of INTELSAT as the

monopoly PROVIDER of intercontinental satellte communication

facilities.  (The act has since been amended to allow private firms

to provide trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific satellite

telecommunications). Comsat wa the carrier's carrier (all U.S.

telecom carriers sending international satellite comunications via

INTELSAT system must pay Comsat's tariff) and Comsat represents the

.S. on the INTELSAT and INMARSAT Board of Governors.

   I believe that NASA was theprimary sparkplug for geo comm sat

development through the 1960's and into the 1970's Commercial

communications satellites as a vigorous industry is a fairly recent

invntion, after all - the first major U.S. commercial

Geosynchronous communications satelite (not Telstar, and not an

INTELSAT satellite) Westar A was launched in 1974.  RCAs first

Satcom satellite didn't launch until 1975.  From 1972 to 1985, NASA

spent rlatively little R&D money - but the DoD spent some

additional amount for the developmnt of their GEO communications

systems.  OMB directed NASA in 1972 to cut R&D on civiian comsat

technology on the grounds that the industry had matured to the point

whee it could provide its own research and development funds.

However, in the next decae, U.S. leadership in comsat technology

was seriously challenged by R&D directly sponored by foreign

governments (U.K., France, German, Italy, ESA, Japan).

                                        (cont)


--- Opus-CBCS 1.20.v
 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! [phone] *HST* (1:129/104.0)
--
Wales Larrison - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Wales.Larrison
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #743
*******************