Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO179.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 27KB

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 18:49:24
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #179
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 13 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
                  Are Landsat Satellites receivable?
                   Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
                           Clinton cuts SSF
             Getting people into Space Program! (2 msgs)
                    hardware on the moon (2 msgs)
                          HRMS/SETI Update?
                      Magellan Update - 02/12/93
                           Martian Bacteria
                         Peekskill Meteorite
                    Privatization of space science
                          Sabatier Reactors.
        Spaceships made of ice: some lighthearted speculation
                                Well..
                          wind on the moon?

    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: 12 Feb 93 21:58:38 GMT
From: Jordin Kare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are Landsat Satellites receivable?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <1kupj5$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jordin Kare) writes:
>
>>[Landsat] 7 will have a second instrument called
>>HRMSI ("Herm-see"), the High Resolution MultiSpectral Imager, with 5-m
>>resolution in multiple color bands and 2.5 meter resolution panchromatic.
>
>HA! Cool! Take that you lousy SPOT!


Just for the net's amusement, I was at a conference on Geological
Remote Sensing this past week, and the Russians had a booth there
offering their satellite imagery for sale.  As of that meeting, they
announced that they were offering declassified photo imagery with
2 meter (yes, 2 meter) resolution for sale; the price was approx.
$2500 for a 20 km x 20 km image.  They had a sample image of
Washington DC (NW area) on display; cars in the Pentagon parking lot
and on Memorial Bridge were easily countable.  National Airport wasn't
shown or we could have had fun identifying airplanes on the runways....

    Jordin Kare

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 23:14:14 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>We'd also have to build a book computer which could withstand the
>rigors of EVA training, especially the "swimming pool" -- the
>Weightless Environment Training Facility (WETF).  It's not just 25 feet
>of water; it's also the jolts and dings equipment takes when it's used
>there.  And the WETF is kept at 94 degrees F, so cooling your
>electronics becomes a problem.
>

Which brings up an obvious question:  Why is the WETF kept so warm?

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: 12 Feb 93 23:45:39 GMT
From: "Steven J. Edwards" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton cuts SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

An article appeared in today's (1993.02.12) issue of the _Washington
Post_ that the Clinton administration has decided on cutting the
current annual budget of Space Station Freedom by some forty percent.
This reduces the earlier amount of about 2.3 G$ to about 1.5 G$ in an
agreement reportedly worked out with NASA administrators.

Although I haven't seen any hard data yet, I suspect that the
Superconducting Supercollider may be in for similar treatment.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == [phone]              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == [e-mail]     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 21:14:53 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:

>As you know Allen, I am a big proponent of your beloved SSTO concept
>and I am lobbying hard for its continued funding. However, I take GREAT
>exception to your contention that hardly anybody cares if Freedom flies.


I apologize if you took offense. I didn't intend to include people at
your level in my remark. I realize that you want to see a space station
and I can sympatise since I also want very much to see a space station
built.

However, I find it hard to believe that the leadership on the program
shares your desires. We spent almost $8 billion designing a space station
which *couldn't be built*. The contractors and NASA apparently knew it
couldn't be built but preferd to proceed and hush it up rather than find
and deal with the problems. One engineer, for example, almost lost his
job for providing information for my column on overruns.

Note that this has nothing to do with your efforts which I regard as
honest and sincere. However, I can't reconsile the actions of your
leaders with the actions of people who share your desire for a space
station.

I have received lots of messages of support on this from other engineers
working on Freedom. They agree that the NASA leadership doesn't care if
a station is built. They would like to see this issue addressed head on
instead of blaming it on Congress so that we can have a real station.

>I gave up an opportunity to obtain a job at twice the salary because I
>(and many others) care deeply about the success of NASA's space
>exploration efforts.

I too have turned down jobs paying much more to promote space. In addition,
I spend hundreds of hours and a few thousand $$ of my own time and money
because I care about the success of anybody's space exploration efforts.

>It has driven us to exasperation to see the government micro-management

The last bit of government micro-management I saw directed NASA to
drop their design which couldn't be assembled and to select a design
which could actually be built. As somebody who wants to see a space
station built and as one of the people paying for it I strongly endorse
this bit of micro-management. I am also greatly distressed that it
had to come from Congress and not NASA.

Think, Dr. LaFave, of the implications if Congress hadn't stepped in.
1995 would have rolled around and we would attempting to explain why
we spent $40 billion on a pile of parts in LEO which can't be assembled
into a space station. How will the taxpayers feel when they see that
$40 billion burn up on re-entry because things where breaking faster
than they could be assembled? How would they feel about giving it
a second try?

>If you really want to see your SSTO fly, you need the support of
>those of us in the NASA community. I guarantee if 100,000 of us lose our
>jobs because of a stupid boondoggle like cutting Freedom, you can forget
>that support and kiss your own baby good-bye.

Are you saying that if Freedom is cancled you won't support SSTO? No,
I have a higher opinion of you than that. You support SSTO because it
is the right thing to do. Freedom's life or death won't affect that.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 17:55:26 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>I think a better comparison is the SR-71.
>It gets to australia and back at some fairly cheap price, without
>major mental problems.  Or the X-15.  it had a fairly substantial
>cruise range and was defined as a space craft.  Does anyone have
>any figures on the costs of either the SR-71/hour or the X-15?

I don't have any hard cost numbers, but Mary may. I do know that
when the SR71 was in military service it didn't take off until
it's tankers were in the air. I suspect it would need 3 or 4
refuelings to make it to Australia. The X-15 certainly wasn't
a long range aircraft, and was not designed for in flight refueling.

>All comments aside,  I would expect the DC-1 to not cost more then a
>small multiple of either the SR-71 or X-15.  and to start have
>a operational record very similiar to either.

I wouldn't be at all surprised either. I expect DC-1 would have about
the same cost per pound-mile as X-15, updated for inflation.

>The X-15 had 3? aircraft built to acquire data and flight characterestics,
>and aside from some program difficulties. Wrecking one bird, killing
>an astronaut??? and bending some metal, plus burning some incredible
>holes in places you'd never expect.
>
>I would imagine the X-15 test program should provide a
>guide to the difficulties of the DC test program.

Yep.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 17:33:44 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John F Carr) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>    [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>
>>I seem to remember hearing that somewhere is a little government statement that
>>explains that even though we planted a flag we did not intend that action to
>>signify a claim to the territory.
>
>Didn't the US sign a treaty disallowing all national claims to the moon?
>
>(My memory may be wrong, but I remember that the US at one point had signed
>one but not both of two treaties which declared the moon and the ocean
>floors the common property of all mankind -- meaning any economic
>exploitation will result in 150 other countries demanding money).

The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 13 Feb 1993 01:37:27 GMT
From: John F Carr <[e-mail]>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
    [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>I seem to remember hearing that somewhere is a little government statement that
>explains that even though we planted a flag we did not intend that action to
>signify a claim to the territory.

Didn't the US sign a treaty disallowing all national claims to the moon?

(My memory may be wrong, but I remember that the US at one point had signed
one but not both of two treaties which declared the moon and the ocean
floors the common property of all mankind -- meaning any economic
exploitation will result in 150 other countries demanding money).

--
    John Carr ([e-mail])

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

Date: 13 Feb 1993 01:26:12 GMT
From: Tim Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: HRMS/SETI Update?
Newsgroups: sci.space

   I used to work with the SETI/HRMS project, though I don't any longer. I am
speaking on my own, so nothing I say is official in any way, shape, matter, form,
etc., in any space-time continuum you can imagine.
   That said, the HRMS project "kick off" last October was the start up of a
prototype, not the full project. Real SETI observations do not begin until
1996, assuming my memory is accurate. The data base that will be gathered by the
project is the largest I have ever heard of, and the data rates will be
phenomenal as well. The next two or three years are devoted to discovering how to
do the observations, as strategic planning meets the real world, and how to
handle the dataflow. Creating the data archive is an adventure all its own.
Don't expect to hear much for a while.

---
EVERYTHING I SAY IS MY OWN PERSONAL PRIVATE OPINION; BELIEVE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Earth and Space Sciences Division, JPL.
Assistant Administrator, Division Science Computing Network.
Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
Member, BOD, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.

INTERnet/BITnet:    [e-mail]
NSI/DECnet:         jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet:          YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet:             118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N

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

Date: 12 Feb 1993 22:29 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 02/12/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                            MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                              February 12, 1993

1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, transmitting
a carrier signal plus 1200 bps X-band telemetry.

2.  The TWTA (Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier) experienced another spurious
shut-off (SSO) Thursday, which was corrected automatically.  A memory readout
was commanded to determine the time of the TWTA SSO.

3.  The G3034 command sequence was uplinked late Thursday and began
execution at 11:15 AM PST on Friday.  It is a 4-week sequence similar
to the past several loads.

4.  The Magellan Project continues a systematic process condensing its
operations and preparing for the Lean Mean Gravity Team phase of the
mission.  Approximately 1400 sq. ft. of the MGN MSA (Magellan Mission
Science Area) has been vacated to provide space for the Rapid Prototyping
Test Bed.

5.  The spacecraft has completed 6760 orbits of Venus and is now 61%
complete on its gravity data collection in Cycle-4.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never yell "Movie!" in a
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | crowded fire station.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 12 Feb 93 23:29:51 GMT
From: Louise Rowder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Martian Bacteria
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello All,

     My question is out of pure curiosity.  I'm not writing
a paper or doing an assignment on it.

     Last month I saw a program on PBS (I think it was Nova)
that said that they were exploring the possibility that
Bacteria was trapped inside of ice below the surface of
Mars.  It showed a group of scientists in Greenland coring
ice samples (now that I think about it, it may have been
Siberia) and then finding viable bacteria very, very old.

    My question is:  Is this a realistic scenario? Finding
viable subsurface bacteria locked in ice.  Could Martian
bacteria pose any threats to a possible future colony or
station on Mars?

    This is just curiosity.  If you think there's a
more appropriate place to post this, please tell me, but
a trip to the local library hasn't been very helpful on
this subject.

    Thanks,   Louise
**Generic Disclaimers for my employer**

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

Date: 12 FEB 93 16:35:53
From: "Dana A. Bunner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Peekskill Meteorite
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes...

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Hennessy) writes...
>>What is the normal price for meteorites?
>>
>
>There is a tremendous range, and it depends on the meteorite, and they
>can go from .10/gram to 1000/gram.  Iron meteorites tend to go for $1-$2/gram,
>stone meteorites from $2-$20/gram, and stony-irons from $5-$25/gram.

Thanks for the info.  I was just wandering around in our campus Geology
Museum the other day and found that they have a dozen or so meteorites
on display, including a 320 pound iron meteor from Arizona.  I suspected
the collection was worth quite a bit.  Several of them are unenclosed and
thus available for curious fingers for rubbing.

Dana

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 21:52:47 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privatization of space science
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Feb11.193348.14992@bsu-ucs> [e-mail] (Craig Meyer) writes:
>What would happen if a prospective space-services company were to approach the
>governments of the world an offer to bring back a bucket of Mars dirt, along
>with other samples and measurements, to the highest bidder?
>
>Would agencies like NASA and ESA oppose such private-run operations? ...

It depends on who is running them at the time... but they probably would.

NASA has been dragged kicking and screaming into doing things the capitalist
way here and there, notably in expendable launch services, but it took
direct orders from On High to accomplish that.  They really want to run
the show, not just pay for the results.  (They can, of course, produce all
kinds of good reasons why it's natural and inevitable to do it that way.)

ESA hasn't been dragged, kicking-and-screaming or otherwise, into going
even that far... and European governments have much stronger socialist
leanings than the US government.

>...if the offered price were less than they
>could match?

Either lights would burn all night in government office buildings until
they assembled a long list of reasons why you couldn't possibly deliver
on your promises and your prices, or they'd say "that sounds like a neat
idea -- we'll study it and get back to you" and you'd never hear from
them again.  This is how NASA responded, for example, to proposals for
private funding of another shuttle orbiter.

>Is there entrepreneurial potential in such projects?

Not with the current customers, I'm afraid.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 18:06:15 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|>So why was centaur banned?  couldn't they have made a few changes to
>|>make it "Shuttle-safe"
>|
>|Difficult, I'm afraid.  The problem was a combination of really large amounts
>|of cryogenic fuels, pressure-stiffened "balloon" tanks, and an overall load
>|that was uncomfortably high and required the ability to dump propellants
>|before an emergency landing (two orbiters were modified for that).  Plus, in
>|my opinion, a certain amount of superstition; in particular, NASA has never
>|liked balloon tanks.
>|
>
>SO what are Balloon tanks?  and how are they different from conventional
>tanks?  Also,  Could shuttle have carried a empty centaur to orbit,
>and met up with an orbiting fuel dump?  EVA teh astronauts, and have them
>gas up the centaur for burn?

Balloon tanks, like balloon tires, depend on internal pressure to maintain
their shape. We've never done on orbit cryogenic fueling. It would be
an interesting experiment, but likely not cost effective unless we had
a permanent fuel dump in space fed from extraterrestrial resources.

>Granted only galileo to date needed the centaur, but other medium weight
>missions could certainly use a centaur.  ANy outer planets orbiter
>or mercury orbiter  could certainly use a high performance upper stage.
>
>Gary and Dennis keep raving about how much work you can do with the shuttle
>and what a great platform it is for repairs.  How about a mission
>that actually takes advantage of these features?
>
>Or would it just be better to launch the mission on a Proton or Titan 4
>or even energiya?

The Centaur has ridden atop the venerable Atlas since 1962, though that
one exploded. Viking went to Mars atop one.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 12 Feb 93 22:19:43 GMT
From: Fred Cox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spaceships made of ice: some lighthearted speculation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

[e-mail] (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>I'd just like to point out that this was a major feature in a story by
>(the late) Isaac Asimov titled "the Martian Way."  Basically, a group of
>humans stationed on Mars, worried that Earth will cut off their water
>supply, fly out to the asteroid belt, find a half-kilometer or so
>ice-based asteroid, insert a few rocket engines, and fly it back.

>(some scientific errors which actually don't detract from the story: the
>martian atmosphere is not anywhere near breathable, the asteroids aren't
>made of mile sized batches of ice, etc., but it's a pretty good story anyway).

The errors seem to be in your memory, not the late Dr. Asimov's story.
The ice chunk was snagged from Saturn's rings, not from the asteroid
belt.  He specified it as about 2 miles long, not .5 km.

Also he never implied that Mars had a breathable atmosphere.  People
lived under pressure.  In fact, he stated that the atmosphere was very
thin, otherwise the iceberg wouldn't have survived reentry.

Fred Cox
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 17:21:17 PST
From: Jason Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Well..
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech

[e-mail] (Robert A. Baumgartner) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mic
> > Well, since Warp 1 is c, the speed of light, it should take a ship travelin
> > to a planet 60 light years away 60 years. Pretty basic...
> >
>
> Theoretically (Not mine), when a ship travels at near the speed of light
> time, for people aboard this ship, would slow down to near zero.
> This is a relative effect - The time for people left on earth, for
> example would take 60 years, but the people on the ship would not
> age 60 years, actually much much less.  In this same theory, one
> could travel to the edge of the universe and return in a human life span.
> The problem is that when they returned it would be quadrillion-billion-
> million years later ( a large number of years).  Suffice it to say the
> solar system that we live in would not exist.
>
> This is from Carl Sagan PBS series.
> --
>  Bob Baumgartner; AG Communications Systems; Phoenix AZ
>  UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!baumgartnerb
>  Internet: gtephx![e-mail]
>  (602) - 582-7444

I'm reading a book called Faster Than Light, and it's got a nifty thing
about just such a situation.  Documents a NAFAL (Nearly As Fast As Light)
ship, which would travel at 1g acceleration.  To those external, it would
seem that the thing never went over the speed of light.  However, the
book introduces (to me at least) a concept of another scale.  Once the
NAFAL ship's captain stops, he's going to look back and say "WOW, I just
went 25 light years and I'm only a year older".  As he travels, using
distances calculated from earth, he will find himself to be going faster
than light as well (in fact, at 1g, after 25 years he thinks he's going
72 billion times the speed of light by that logic).  This is not some
wierd twist of figures, and I'm not saying that it doesn't involve some
strange ideas, but to THAT PERSON, when he/she stops, he's going to think
that he just went and enormous distance in very little time.

                                                        Jason Cooper

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 23:26:06 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: wind on the moon?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <ldsoderb.729538124@reading> [e-mail] (David S. Oderberg) writes:
>Is there anyone out there - perhaps from JPL? - who might solve the
>following problem. I am aware that there is supposed to be no wind
>on the moon, since there is no atmosphere. There is certainly
>no wind capable of blowing a flag. On the well-known "one small
>step for man" film, the flag stands bolt upright, held up, it
>is said, by wire supports.
>
>So far so good. But I _also_ recently saw film, said by the presenter
>(a non-NASA physicist) to be NASA film of an Apollo mission, 11 if I
>recall (not sure), in which the US flag FLUTTERS as if in a strong
>breeze. It well and truly WAVES and FLAPS as surely as it would have
>had it been in a strong breeze on Earth. I cannot recall for certain
>whether it was a colour film, but I _think_ so. It was of higher
>quality than the "one small step" grainy b&w film.
>
>What is the explanation? Several have been suggested to me on email,
>all of them, to my mind, ludicrous: gas from the space suits, exhaust
>from the module, a practical joke by an astronaut (there were _no_ hands
>on the flagpole, though there were astonauts moving around, if I recall),
>optical illusion, trick photography.
>
>My eyes did not deceive me. It fluttered, long and hard.
>

I'm almost 100% certain that what you saw was the view of Tranquility Base
from the ascent stage of the lunar module during lunar lift-off.  The
exhaust from the ascent engine whips the flag around something fierce and
Buzz Aldrin even reported seeing the flag fall to the ground although this
isn't visible on the film.  The same camera was also used to take pictures
of the Apollo 11 EVA.  It's entirely possible that you saw shots of Armstrong
and Aldrin on the surface immediately followed by the lunar lift-off sequence.

Sorry to disappoint you...

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 179
------------------------------