Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO257.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 05:00:10
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #257
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 29 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 257

Today's Topics:
                  Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs)
                              govn't R&D
              Hypersonic test vehicle proposed (2 msgs)
   MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
             Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions (2 msgs)
                   Mars Observer Update - 09/27/92
Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) (4 msgs)
               Space and Presidential Politics (2 msgs)
                      Space Calendar - 09/27/92
         With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:08:30 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding

> There are very many of us who consider government oppression the norm in
> the world today, including in the US, one of the least oppressive.  If it
> turns out that man can survive on a reasonable scale out there, this group
> will want to go, even at considerable financial cost to them.
>


I second that emotion...

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 15:22:15 GMT
From: Jim Mann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary
Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:
> >Funny how the space program is stalled because of the insistance
on
> >Scientific missions as opposed to development oriented missions.
Why do
> >I say this? Look at the record. Since 1972 we have visited every
planet in
> >the solar system plus most of their moons with Gaspra thrown in as
a bonus.
> >How many Lunar missions have we had in that time period?  How many
asteroid
> >only misions have we had? Actions speak far louder than words on
this subject.
>
> Well, we haven't visited Mercury or Pluto *yet*.

Didn't one of the Mariner probes flyby Mercury?


--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:42:27 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: govn't R&D

> >With the government,
> >you can bet that every part of the program will be recorded.
>

> This is a good point.  The big reason NASA can make their
> "spinoff" argument is not because they do better R&D, but because
> they publish it and make sure it gets in the engineering libraries.
>


I'll add to that. I think most of us would prefer a little more off
the shelf hardware and a lot less historical paper. I'd like to see
more action and fewer words.

The US has become a goverment of the paper, by the paper and for the
paper...

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:20:04 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed

It seems that there are a lot of hypersonic, sub-orbital and orbital
projects in the U.S.A:

         Aurora
         TSTO/XB-70 like aircraft (AW&ST, August 24, 1992)
         X-30                     (AW&ST, September 14, 1992)
         HALO                     (AW&ST, September 14, 1992)
         HL-20
         SSTO/DCX/DCY
         others ?

Could somebody on this list explain the differences between these
projects ? Only the SSTO has been well explained, thanks to Allen W.
Sherzer. AW&ST gives also some clear info in its September 14 issue.
(I know, that's more or less secret, and I am French. But, owing to
the U.S. debt, I'm not sure that I don't pay for that... Also, why
is there secrecy, since there is no more serious enemy ? Is it just
secrecy against financial inquiries ?)

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:04:45 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed

>  Followers of "Black" programs should also note that the relative
ease with

> which this could be done says a few things about what may have
already been
> done.
>


Instead of the Blackbird, why not use the first stage aircraft that
has recently dipped from black to grey? (As a reader of AvLeak, I'm
sure you know what I'm talking about)

I suspect (WAG) that the supersonic separation tests described in the
article were a predecessor to the new vehicle.

For the non-readers of AW&ST, there have been sigthings of a very
large aircraft with planform like an XB-70 that may be a high speed
launch vehicle for rapid response launch of small defense satellites.
There is a need for on demand launch of satellites into orbital
inclinations that make its' launch and its' appearance (the first
time at least) unpredictable.

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 11:38:36 GMT
From: "John C. Mallery" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Newsgroups: sci.space

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael ([e-mail]), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: [e-mail]
Subject: Volunteer Info

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:51:06 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions

> scientist greed and there are some elements of that.  But
> big missions are expensive.  There is no real way around that.
>


Since there can by the very definition of "big missions" be only a
couple in the pipeline in any given decade, they are risky
propositions.

But if you instead do what you can afford, and do a lot of them, you
will get science now, you will increase the ability to do risky and
innovative missions (if the price tag is low and there are a lot of
them, congress will find more newsworthy fish to fry ... I mean
oversee...)

Big mission is a relative term. If we fly mass produced small probes,
we improve our ability to do missions quickly. And at the rate of
technological advance (still accelerating with no sign of abating
before we get to nanotechnology), "large" will become "small" in a
matter of a decade.

If instead of immediately doing another Cassini class mission we do a
number of smaller, faster, cheaper missions PLUS propulsion (and
other) technology demonstration projects, we would find that in a
decade those "big" missions have magically become small, affordable
and SUSTAINABLE (EXCUSE the use of CAPS. I don't WANT to OVERUSE
them!!!) programs.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:00:40 GMT
From: Mike Wexler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Anita Cochran) writes:

It goes with out saying that A single-purpose craft won't be able to
study the systematics as well as a more expensive multipurpose craft.
I think the more important question is whether several simple, quick &
dirty craft are more cost effective than a single expensive craft.

>Well, if we agree that we want to study the system as a whole, this
>puts certain requirements on the instrument complement.  It suggests
>one needs an imaging instrument, IR and UV spectrometers, and
>fields and particle experiments.  A probe for Titan's atmosphere
>is a nice thing to have too, once you have a spacecraft going that
>way.  So, add these together and what do you have?  You have
>a Mariner Mark II class mission.  And once the spacecraft is going,
>you might as well send a full spacecraft.

Imagine instead of a Mariner Mark II class mission you have a series of
missions starting with a relay satellite and following up with separate
craft with imagine, IR, UV and fields and particle instruments. And with
the quick turn around you can send updated instruments based on knowledge
gained by early instruments. You can afford to try more risky techniques
like ion propulsion and aerobraking. How about a Titan probe that uses
aerobraking in Titan's atmosphere instead of slowing down with a rocket,
for instance.

Could someone with a better idea of the costs involved come up with a
quick estimate of the previous two approaches for a similar set
of overall goals. Note, that it might be possible to launch more than
one of the above craft at the same time.

--
Mike Wexler ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:50:55 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 09/27/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                   MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                       September 27, 1992

          All systems are operating normally on the Mars Observer
spacecraft on the second day following launch.

          Mars Observer was launched at 1:05 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time (10:05 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time) on Friday,
September 25, from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
Performance of the Titan III launch vehicle and Transfer Orbit
Stage (TOS) upper-stage booster appear to have been normal,
although telemetry was not received from the TOS during launch.

          Approximately 1 hour, 10 minutes after launch, the
spacecraft executed commands to deploy its solar array and high-
gain antenna in cruise positions.  Ground controllers did not
receive confirmation from microswitches onboard the spacecraft
that the high-gain antenna had latched in its cruise position
until 4:32 p.m. PDT, or about five hours later.  They believe
that the antenna probably deployed most of the way immediately
but did not latch into position until later.

          Other minor anomalies following launch have also been
resolved.  When the sun sensor on the solar array did not acquire
the sun, the spacecraft's fault-protection software switched to a
secondary sun sensor, which acquired the sun and is operating
normally.  Also during the first hours after launch, an unknown
torque on the spacecraft occurred which required action of
gyroscope-like reaction wheels to restabilize the spacecraft, but
this has not reoccurred.

          Also on the first day after launch, a series of star
calibrations failed which caused the spacecraft to switch from
its normal cruise mode, called "array normal spin," to a mode in
which the spacecraft revolves in relation to the sun.  Ground
controllers believe this may have been related to forces
introduced during the high-gain antenna deployment.  On Saturday,
September 26, controllers sent the spacecraft commands to return
to its normal cruise mode.  The spacecraft executed these
commands and has been operating normally since.

          At about 4:35 a.m. PDT today, ground controllers sent
the spacecraft its first regular command load.  Among other
tasks, these instruct Mars Observer to play back data recorded
onboard during the launch phase Friday.  This will help evaluate
performance of the TOS booster.

          The next major activity planned for Mars Observer is
deployment of booms for two of its science instruments, the gamma
ray spectrometer and the magnetometer.  Controllers will transmit
commands for these events on Monday and the deployments will take
place Tuesday.

          As of 12 noon PDT today, Mars Observer is approximately
700,000 kilometers (430,000 miles) from Earth, traveling at
13,000 kilometers per hour (8,060 miles per hour) with respect to
Earth, and 120,000 km/hr (74,400 mph) with respect to the sun.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 14:26:11 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>
>>  > 1. Shuttle is not a failure 49 out of 50 ain't bad.  Look to Congress
>>  > and Cap Wineburger for the high operational costs of the shuttle.
>>
>>In other words, "the shuttle's not a failure, and it's not NASA's
>>fault anyway!".   Can you write two sentences without contradicting
>>yourself?
>>
>>The purpose of the shuttle was to reduce the cost of getting into
>>space.  The shuttle has been a dismal failure in meeting this,
>>its primary goal.
>
>Only half right.  The primary reason for the Shuttle is REGULAR access to
>space.  Cost was also supposed to be lowered but that went out the window
Gak!  You call every now and again regular?  The original plan called for 20-26
launches a year by now, one every other week.  We're lucky to get one every
other month!

>with Cap Wineburgers redesign, in 1971.  The shuttle has been an awesome
>success for one reason.  It keeps people interested in space.  I have not
>seen a single spacecamp set up anywhere by anybody to do planetary flybys,
>or robotic exploration.  Each year 40,000 kids go through space camp here in
>Huntsville, a similar number in Florida.  Spacecamps have been and are being
>set up in Japan, France and Russia. The stimulus for all of these as been man
>in space and execpt for the Russian the central motif is shuttle and space
>station operations. How many lives have been changed in childhood because
>of these spacecamps, especially Huntsville's? I know personally of several,
>most of them women that have dedicated their lives to the space program
>because of your "failure". Nothing more needs to be said
How many of those 40,000 will actually acheive their goal of making it into
space?  Nobody wants to be a ground controller, everybody wants to be an
astronaut.  In a way, the Shuttle is killing dreams by letting them become
fantasies.  And NASA, with its PR machine, is the real guilty party.
>
>>
>>  > 2. Clinch River Breeder.  Congress cut the money due to Three Mile
>>  > Island and the anti-nuclear hysteria.
On this and the other topics, I am not qualified to comment.  Which has never
stopped me or anyone else   :-)   :-)    :-)
>
>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>
>
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |"Repay kindness from a stranger by kindness
[e-mail]          | to another stranger."
PADI DM-54909

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:30:57 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)

>> 3.  Synfuels.  Jimmy Carter's idea to destroy mountains in the west for

>> shale oil.  Would have been so toxic to the environment that even the
>> oil companies did not want to deal with it.  Bad idea pushed by so called

>> environmentalist President (can you name his latter day descendant?) Of
Gore
>> you can.
>

> Synfuels failed because the price of oil dropped, not because
> environmentalists complained.  Oil companies were leery of oil shale
> development because they could make no money on it.
>


Actually, you are both wrong! Oil shale development is quietly going on under
PRIVATE financing. One of the largest ventures is in Australia and has
Australian, Japanese, USAnian and other corporate funding behind it.

They are building a prototype plant soon and will eventually scale up to full
production.

The synfuels program of Carter was unneeded and was a completely political
beast intended only to answer the question: "The electorate is upset about oil
prices going up. What can we do right now that will make it look like we are
doing something about it?"

The oil shale venture in Australia has been going for about 15 years now (I've
been holding a small amount of stock in it for nearly that long). Talk about
long term thinking? The business plan extends about halfway into the next
century. So much for corporate shortsightedness...

The venture is a matter of advance planning by oil and mining ventures. When
the quantity of oil out of self pumping holes in the ground inevitably
declines and it's price inevitably climbs, the production capacity for oil
shale will already be coming on line. No fanfare, no publicity. Millions if
not hundreds of millions in private investment...


Yes, there is some government research involved. But this is primarily
commercial, which is my point.

As Nick says, when there is a way to make money in space, the private money
will be there, and the long term planning will be there.

If anyone is REALLY excited about this, I could pull some numbers and other
info off their quarterly report.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:02:29 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)

> The French do not seem to think so. They still have an active breeder program.
> My sister happens to live near the CRBR and your memory has to be real short
> not to remember the political wrangling that went on with the anti-nukers

> and that project.
>


This time you are both right :-)

Carter was pushing nonproliferation and recycling was considered to be one of the
key issues to preventing the spread of enriched materials. That made the program
a political liability.

But when the economics came down against it as well... then the plug was finally
pulled. More the knockout punch than the total reason for the shutdown.

You can probably find some references to this in Science Magazine. For some
reason I think it would have been about 1984 that it shut down.

The french had their own reasons for building the breeders. They are more
dependant on nukes than just about anyone else, and I believe they are more
dependant on external sources than say, the US.

The french government is also very well known for supporting targeted industries
regardless of how much money they lose. On the anecdotal level, a brother-in-law
of mine has told me stories about bidding against subsidized french firms in
large civil engineering projects. Keep in mind that things may be changing in
France as well as other places. You can only keep so many tax subsidized plates
spinning at once. Eventually you either apply triage or your economic goes down
the tubes. I do not have enough information to say where the french reprocessing
plant falls on a scale of economic viability. I suspect it will be another decade
before anyone can say for sure in any case. At present it serves their national
interest. Clinch River did not serve the US national interest to any great
extent. As Nick said, the prices went down...

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:14:53 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)

> When Government R&D has been given a specific, concrete goal and has been
> given the resources to carry it out, (Early American canal system, Railroads,
> Panama canal, WWII, A bombs, H Bombs, Apollo) it has been wildly successful.
> The common denomonator in the above so called failures is a lack of will and
> lack of vision (sense of purpose) in carrying the effort to its finish.
>

The point is not that government, or ANY OTHER institution, cannot be wildly successful
if conditions are right. It is that the political coalitions required make such
conditions extremely rare.

Even if a coalition does come together, the end result is not necessarily a good one.
The forging of a coalition can easily turn an initially elegant solution into a
committee'd monstrosity to get a large enough constituency on board. The shuttle is an
excellent example of this.

The point is not that a government program can NEVER succeed. It is that it USUALLY
doesn't succeed.

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

Date: 27 Sep 92 23:52:00 GMT
From: Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reply-To: [e-mail]

This newsgroup has recently contained some rather absurd opinion
and speculation about the effect of a Clinton/Gore administration
on the space program.  The simple facts are that neither party has
said much about what they would do and that the issue is rightly
peripheral to the campaign.  Most reasonable people understand
this.

I would like to comment on some of the more egregious
extrapolations that have been made.  For example, Allen Sherzer
accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the
space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and
Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in
years.  All the action in the Senate takes place in the full
committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more
properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and
Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings.  In fact, the real
action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where
Barbara Mikulski is the main player.

Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are
relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses
of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO
technology.  Consorting with a known agnostic!  I know John Pike,
and if he has a fault it is that he is too much of a space
enthusiast.

Others have followed the bizarre chain of logic that 1) Clinton
wants to spend a little bit of money on what appear to be sensible
things, 2) he will have to cut something else and 3) NASA is the
only game in town (ever hear of agricultural subsidies?), so 4)
Clinton will clobber NASA.  Another chain of logic seems to go
like this 1) Clinton wants to cut military spending a tad more
than Bush does, 2) a lot of defense is aerospace, 3) NASA is
aerospace, so 4) Clinton wants to cut NASA.  If anything the true
political logic works the other way: be kind to NASA so aerospace
doesn't suffer too much.

I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you
would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and

2) loose marbles.  Get real!  Space is not and should not be a big
issue in this Presidential election.  The issues are how to
strengthen the economy and give people real opportunities to
improve their lot while reducing the deficit and the burden of the
national debt and healing the divisions in our society.  Without
that, NASA is going nowhere.  Only a prosperous and united society
will support space exploration.

So don't lose the forest for the trees.  Vote on the big issues.
Vote for Bush and Quayle if you really believe that they are
better for the country as a whole (I certainly don't), but don't
vote on the basis of dimly defined space policies.

Mark W. Goodman

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 13:48:54 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Note the followup line.

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

>The simple facts are that neither party has
>said much about what they would do

On the contrary. Both canidates have said what they would do. Both canidates
also have track records which can be evaluated. Simply because Gore's track
record doesn't measure up is no reason to call other people absurd.

Are you suggesting Gore will suddenly change several years of activity just
because he becomes VP?

>and that the issue is rightly peripheral to the campaign.

Rightly? Not in my opinion. To me space exploration and colonization is
very important. A canidate who supports it tells me that he/she has vision
and a belief in a brigher future.

Canidates who say that we cannot afford to explore show they are not
looking to the future. They are stagnant and willing to throw away the
seed corn for some short term political gain.

In the future sir, do not tell people how important they should regard
ANY issue. That is for each of us to decide, not you.

>I would like to comment on some of the more egregious
>extrapolations that have been made.  For example, Allen Sherzer
>accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the
>space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and
>Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in
>years.  All the action in the Senate takes place in the full
>committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more
>properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and
>Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings.

This is simply wrong. According to the rules, the full committee cannot
act on a bill until the subcommittee reports it out. Gore routinely fails
to do so therefore the full committee can do nothing. Who told you this
anyway?

The intent was that both house and senate would pass authorization bills
by June or so every year. The appropriations committees are then to use
the authorization bill as gideance in their appropriations.

To see how it should be done, look at defense. Gore's subcommittee is a
laughing stock but nobody laughs at the Armed Services Committee. Gore
doesn't pass authorizations, ASC does. Gore is ignored, ASC isn't.

>In fact, the real
>action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where
>Barbara Mikulski is the main player.

True enough. That is because Gore's refusal to pass authorizations means
that the appropriations has a free hand. This is why Traxler managed to
kill NASP and convert it into pork for his district; had Gore done his
job, the NASP program (which is far more important that pork for Traxler)
would have lived.

The House committee under Brown worked hard this year to pass a timely
diciplined authorization. This would have gone a long way toward restoring
the power of the Authorizers, but Gore couldn't be bothered. I suppose his
golf game was more important than doing his job and passing a timely
authorization bill.

>Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are
>relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses
>of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO
>technology.

Not at all. I know lots of people skeptical about SSTO and I respect
their opinions. The difference here is that those people have specific
technical objections.

Pike is different. His objection is: "nothing we have dont to date
has reduced costs therefore costs can never be reduced". This shows
a person who simply is too close minded to accept new ways of doing
things. Putting such a person in charge of the space council at this
time would be a disaster.

>I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you
>would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and

On the contrary, we have an extensive track record of the top space
policy makers within a Clinton adminstration. I consider that a lot
to go on since actions speak louder than words.

>2) loose marbles.  Get real!  Space is not and should not be a big
>issue in this Presidential election.

for reasons stated above, space should be an issue. It shows how
a canidate views the future.

>improve their lot while reducing the deficit

Clinton going to reduce the deficit? Come on now, nobody actually
believes that. Surely you don't?

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------208 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:08:12 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Calendar - 09/27/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle,alt.sci.planetary

     Here's the latest Space Calendar.  If you see any updates to the
calendar, then please let me know.  Note that launch dates are subject to
change.

                             =========================
                                  SPACE CALENDAR
                                September 27, 1992
                             =========================

* indicates change from last month's calendar

   October 1992
     ?? - Galaxy 7 Ariane Launch
     ?? - UFO Atlas Launch
     04 - 35th Anniversary, Sputnik Launch (1st Satellite ever)
     05 - Progress Launch (Soviet)
     09 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver 15 (TCM-15)
     10 - Draconid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 197.0 degrees)
    *10 - Mars Observer, 1st Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-1)
     12 - SETI Scanning Begins
     12 - 500th Anniversary, Columbus Discovers America
    *12-15 - Galileo, Dual Drive Actuator Test #4 (DDA-4)
    *12 - DFS-3/Kopernikus Delta 2 Launch
     15 - STS-52, Columbia, Laser Geodynamics Satellite (LAGEOS-II)
     15 - Freja Long March Launch (Sweden/China)
     20 - AUSROC II Launch
     21 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 208.4 degrees)

   November 1992
     ?? - Superbird A Ariane Launch
     ?? - Geotail, 2nd Moon Flyby
     03 - Southern Taurid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 220.7 degrees)
     05 - STS-53, Discovery, Department of Defense (DOD)
     07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 6 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
     13 - Northern Taurid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 230.7 degrees)
     13 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver 16 (TCM-16)
     17 - Leonid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 235.7 degrees)

   December 1992
     ?? - Pioneer Venus Burnup
     ?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch
     08 - Galileo, Earth Flyby
     08 - Asteroid 4179 Toutatis, Near Earth Flyby (.025 AU)
     10 - Lunar Eclipse
     14 - Geminid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 262.0 degrees)
     14 - 30th Anniversary, Mariner 2 Venus Flyby (1st Flyby of Another Planet)
     19 - 20 years since man has been to the Moon (Apollo 17)
     22 - Ursid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 10:00 UT, Solar Longitude 258.7 deg.)
     25 - Isaac Newton's 350th birthday (or January 4)

   January 1993
     ?? - Eutelsat II F-5 Ariane Launch
     03-4 Quadrantid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 10:00 UT, Solar Lon 283.13 deg.)
     07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 7 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
     12 - STS-54, Endeavour, TDRS-F
    *12 - Mars Observer, High Gain Antenna Deployment
    *16 - Mars Observer, 2nd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-2)

   February 1993
     ?? - Hispasat 2 Ariane Launch
     01 - 35th Anniversary, Explorer 1 Launch (1st U.S. Satellite)
     06 - Astro-D Launch (US/Japan)
     15 - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch
    *16 - Mars Observer, 3rd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-3)
     18 - Jules Verne's 165th Birthday
     18 - STS-55, Columbia, Spacelab Germany (SL-D2)
     19 - Copernicus' 520th Birthday

   March 1993
     ?? - SPOT-C Launch
     ?? - Radcal Scout Launch
     01 - Ulysses, 3rd Opposition
     11 - STS-56, Endeavour, Atmospheric Lab for Applications and Science
          (ATLAS-2)

   April 1993
     06 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 11 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission)
     22 - Lyrid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 02:00 UT, Solar Longitude 32.1 degrees)
     23 - Pi-Puppid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 33.3 degrees)
     28 - STS-57, Atlantis, European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA-1R)

   May 1993
     04 - Galileo Enters Asteroid Belt Again
     15 - Magellan, End of Mission?

   June 1993
     04 - Lunar Eclipse
     14 - Sakigake, 2nd Earth Flyby (Japan)
     22 - 15th Anniversary of Charon Discovery (Pluto's Moon) by Christy

   July 1993
     01 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite(ACTS)
     29 - NASA's 35th Birthday

   August 1993
     ?? - Seastar Pegasus Launch
     ?? - ISTP Wind Delta-2 Launch
     ?? - ETS-VI Launch
     ?? - GEOS-J Launch
     ?? - Landsat 6 Launch
     08 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus Orbitor 2 Launch
     12 - Perseid Meteor Shower (Max: 04:00 UT, S.L. 139.6 deg and 15:00 UT,
                                 S.L. 140.1 deg.)
    *13 - Mars Observer, 4th Trajectory Correction Manuever (TCM-4)
    *24 - Mars Observer, Mars Orbit Insertion
     25 - STS-58, Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS-2)
     28 - Galileo, Asteroid Ida Flyby

   September 1993
     Nothing scheduled.

                                  #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

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

Date: 28 Sep 92 12:43:11 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>I will judge it to be here when you allow a surgeon to do a heart bypass
>>on you by teleoperation with a 1/10 second delay. If you live, we can
>>talk about it.

>How about brain surgery?  Robots, for example the Puma 260 robot arm,
>have been doing stereotactic drilling, probe placement, and medicine ...

I note that they still have brain surgeons and they still don't
seem to have been replaced by robots. However, I'll accept that.
You may place whatever equipment you want in the OR. However, no
human (except you) is allowed in the room and all inputs and outputs
to the room are delayed by 1/10 second. I will allow you to set bandwidth
limits but remember, the more you use the less activity telepresence can
replace in space.

If you think you would survive (even with the Puma 260) with today's
technology then you do indeed need brain surgery :-). Personally, I
don't think you would survive long enough for them to get to your brain.

But if you do survive, then I will agree that for very small levels of
activity humans are not needed in space. We can then move on to the limits
set by your bandwidth requirements.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------208 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 257
------------------------------