Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO182.TXT

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 05:00:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #182
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 15 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
                          "Late 'L5' Society
                      A response from Anonymous
                   Biosphere. Design/Needed? More!
                   Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
                David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth
            Discovery Missions Selected for Further Study
                   Divide NASA/People here groups.
             Getting people into Space Program! (2 msgs)
                          HST repair mission
                   leading-edge anonymity (2 msgs)
             Mars "Space Station"/Cut a Iceburg for Mars!
   Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?)
                  Money Talks, and clinton listens.
                  Old Tech, why do we need new tech?
                      parachutes on Challenger?
                    Shorter Posts/Subject Changes!
                              SSTO news
                Suggest a Solution, Not just problems.

    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: 13 Feb 93 22:18:06 +1700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
Coffman) writes:

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

Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The
National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies
Institute.  We're still kicking.


--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Parish - Orange, Texas            | My opinions are mine and free
Lamar's Token Perpetual Student        | and may be used by anyone.  My
(409)745-(vox)3899;(rec)1581;dat(2507) | time is for sale.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 21:01:55 GMT
From: David Sternlight <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

Has anyone noticed how violators of the rights of others wrap themselves in
their own rights when challenged? For a start, Anonymous' signature is a joke
once, but when repeated is a clear violation of netiquette, which calls for
3 or so signature lines but not many more than 5, both out of respect for
the rights of others and out of consideration for the costs of message
traffic and storage, which posters usually don't pay.

"Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins."

David
--
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 08:00:25 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Biosphere. Design/Needed? More!
Newsgroups: sci.space

What would be needed for a biosphere and its effect on the space race/space
development..

Curious what people think about biospheres and what do they know?

One benefit of this dicussion, not only for the direct benefit, but also for
the thinking on how difficult it can be to maintain a ecological system..


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:01:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> [e-mail] wrote:
>
> : I had an idea that is in the future.. Maybe give astronauts a book
> : computer, have an internal modem where it sends info to the main
> : shuttle/Station computer so that all info that the astronaut wants or
> : can give is put into the computer..Make the book/hand held a writable
> : one where the astronauts can take notes. It might have to be able to
> : handle space walks(?).. Make the Shuttle Computer a AI or a node for a
> : earth bound AI..
>
> We looked into "book computers" three years ago as an electronic
> replacement for the Flight Data File (the books the astronauts use
> in the Space Shuttle).  At that time, image display technology was
> not up to the task, and it hasn't progressed in a major way since
> then.  "Pen computers" are nifty toys, but they rely on forces and
> motions which are difficult to control in microgravity.  Remember,
> each time you push on a key, it pushes back just as hard.  The same
> applies to pens.
>
> Making a display which can handle EVA is no mean feat.  It has to deal
> with vacuum, some serious temperature extremes, and the biggest glare
> problem you've ever seen -- the naked Sun.  (And you thought
> fluorescent lights reflecting off your PC screen caused problems!)  And
> the controls would have to be accessible by gloved hands, and those
> gloves really restrict fine finger motions.  When you add up power
> supply (the Suit people get really upset if you try to run off of their
> power connectors), disk drive (which has its own gyroscopic motion
> problems), keyboard and display, you get a package which is awkward to
> hold and control, and you don't have anyplace to "set it down" while
> you work.  (We even thought about strapping it to the arm of the suit.)
> An "internal modem" would have to have an extra communication
> connection back to the Orbiter or Station, and we don't have the radio
> equipment to handle that.
>
> 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.
>
> For the EVA computer, instead of having a device external to the
> suit, there was a scheme for making an "heads-up display" for the
> Extravehicular Mobility Unit (suit), but I believe they ran out
> of funds after building their Mac-based prototype.  (I tried it
> out once in the lab in building 7.)
>
> There are some efforts to use AI for a few Shuttle and Station tasks,
> but basically AI is either more trouble than it's worth or too risky to
> use in space-based applications.  Real AI is absolutely nothing like
> the AI you see in books or movies.  (There's a non-politically correct
> saying, that Artificial Intelligence is like artificial limbs: it's for
> people who don't have enough of their own.)
>
> In the long run, we absolutely have to solve these problems.  We simply
> can't cart tons of paper and a portable print shop to the moon and
> Mars.  (Laser printers won't work in space, by the way, since the
> carbon particles they use are a safety hazard.)  I presented a paper on
> Paperless Spacecraft at the AIAA a few years ago.  If there's a lot of
> interest, I could dust it off and post it.
>
> -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>       [e-mail]  [phone]
>
>      "Good ideas are common -- what's uncommon are people who'll
>       work hard enough to bring them about." -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Hum. Power why not have the Boo Computer when it was out of the Shuttle have a
small solar power cell (properly protected).

Glare. Hum. Mayeb have a display unit inthe helmet of the suit, that the book
can plug into it.. Maybe have a place to attached the book computer into on the
suit back pack. Make the book able to understand the voice (I know in the
future).

Disk Drive? Why have a drive at all.. maybe a RAM Drive or have a set channel
that the book sends its info to and fro the shuttle.. Why have a disk drive as
long as you are close the the shuttle. Have a RAM driver and have a auto dump
feature (where the RAM Drive would dump its memory to the Shuttle, to clear out
the memory and to save what needs to be saved). Why radio? maybe a laser (lower
power) when the down load happens..

The main CPU might be in the backpack, but the "screen" and "I/O device" would
be inthe helmet.. And the downloading device would be on top of the helmet(?).

HEads up display might be voice controlled or on ??


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

Any comments or ideas, post them here or send them to me..

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 00:59:17 GMT
From: 8 February 1993 <[e-mail]>
Subject: David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

Need I say more?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [e-mail].
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to [e-mail].
*IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to [e-mail] for details.

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

Date: 14 Feb 1993 02:13:22 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Discovery Missions Selected for Further Study
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>     The mission candidates were selected from 73 concepts
>discussed at the Discovery Mission Workshop held at the San Juan
>Capistrano Research Institute in San Juan Capistrano, Calif.,
^^^^^^^^^^^^  Gee not everyone in NASA is suffering :-)

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:36:26 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Divide NASA/People here groups.
Newsgroups: sci.space

I know it sounds like that NASA needs to seperate into two different areas..
One the R&D and the other operational areas..

Im not sure of the internal structure of NASA, so I might cover something
already done.

The R&D would handle the areas of NASA that deal with strict Researcha and
Development..

The Other would be the part that deals with what we have now. Namely launching
shuttles, missions, dealing with thr private sector (capitalists/non-profit
organizations)...

For what I have been seeing here is that the basic groups of people here are:
Shuttle or not a shuttle..
Space Station or not Space Station.
Space Station of one or another type. (basically kill Fred oand replace.)
Shuttle or DC-X (or Shuttle or Space Plane).
Mars or not mars..
Manned or unmanned.

Any others I forgot, I know I missed something..
Sorry for any spelling or garmmer errors, I am trying to correct.


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 21:54:26 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:

>What is "Have Region"?

Have Region is an Air force project which built a number of structures for
a hypothetical SSTO. They demonstrated that fuel tanks can be made which
are light enough, strong enough, and heat resistant enough to make
SSTO a reality.

I am getting the Have Region final report soon and may post a summary.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------122 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 13 Feb 1993 21:20:53 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

I think they also re-assign the first word occasionally just
for additional security/confusion.
then they also re-assign it for operations.
the big radar at alaska is cobra dane for developement and
rivet  kneecap? when running.  and it has a an designation
for parts.

fun huh?
pat

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

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 20:23:08 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Well if you followed the existing plans, all you'd have would be
>the metal bending costs and the launch costs. However, with some
>of the instruments stripped out it's dynamics would change. Of
>course you could fit dummy ballast in their place. I think that
>resisting the urge to fix some of Hubble's faults in a follow on
>satellite would be almost impossible though. Then you start to
>get back into engineering design costs again. The critical unaddressed
>issue is pointing accuracy and stability. You'd certainly want non-wiggling
>solar panels and different, more reliable gyros. The flight avionics and
>software would need revising. You'd like to modify the electronics to resist
>SEUs in the SAA, etc. Money, money, money.
>
>Gary
>--

   Gary...

   The solar panels and gyros have already been redesigned, and will be
   part of the repair, so I don't see how that would change things very
   much for a HST Junior. Same with the software, to a lesser degree.
   I haven't heard of problems with HST's avionics, but the SAA is always
   going to be there, no matter what electronics are aboard.

   -Brian



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 11 Feb 93 17:29:28 GMT
From: Richard Treitel <[e-mail]>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
 [...]
|> Frog feces.  There is some difference between an 'anonymous source'
|> for police or journalists (who must worry about physical harm as a
|> result of talking) and some little loudmouth running his mouth for the
|> attention and sensation he hopes to cause.

We have been shown evidence that the source of this anonymous post does
indeed have reason to worry about physical harm.

While I regard anonymous posters as invertebrates (speciesist but not
sexist, OK William and Mary?) and wish they would give their names, I
uphold their right to post.  And ours to criticise them.

        - Richard

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

Date: 11 Feb 93 23:19:08 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dances with Drums) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> >I look at it as someone who wants to shoot of their mouth for
> >attention but doesn't have the courage to do it other thna
> >anonymously.  This is generally a symptom of immaturity.

>     Really?  The police seem to think that anonymous tips are a valuable
> source of information.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! The Police think WHAT? If the police in your area
consider anonymous tips as a valuable source of information remind me
never to move there. GOOD police department consider anonymous tips with
very LARGE grains of salt and usually even then as only worthless tips
that chew up man-hours and effort tracking down. Most are worthless.

> Why would they recognize that anonymity may not
> be incompatible with value of information, but you give anon posters them no
> credibility.  It would seem that you have a gut reaction bias against
> anon posters regardless of the content of their posting.  This is called
> prejudice.

Call it what you want. I'll give you the best example of what anonymity
can turn into. Ever listen to a CB radio? Guaranteed anonymity and it
shows. People feel free to say all sorts of things when there's no
accountability.

Anonymous messages aren't worth the name they're posted under.

>     It seems this whole little discussion got started when some anon
> poster posted an alleged transcript of the challenger crew conversations.
> If you take the attitude that 'nothing is sacred', you can just read
> that person's posting and say "Huh.  Maybe it happened that way, maybe
> it didn't."  and go on with life.  To get really upset about it seems
> to be showing a lack of perspective.  If you don't like it, ignore
> it -- maybe it will go away.

....or turn into the same thing CB radio is now. Makes me shudder to
think about it.


--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:48:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mars "Space Station"/Cut a Iceburg for Mars!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Okay, if you got a asteroid fro the asteroid belt or from someplace else, and
you get it to MARs, how would you get it to the surface?

Chop it up and drop it down into the atmosphere/surface? Might need a orbital
space station orbiting Mars.. Here is some ideas..

1. Leave part of a Mars misson behind in orbit to act as a "Space Station".

2. Use a solar sil to send the "Mars Space Station" to Mars, automatice or
manned.

3. Send the "Mars Space Station" by normal means, or nearly so. Ion drive or
rocket or ??

4. Other idea, maybe catch a ride of a coment/meteor and do some fly bys where
ever the meteor goes..

Any ideas/or thought?


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:02:04 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Josh, I woulda thought that you had learned from  ISEE-3/ICE, Giotto
>II, and Galileo that there are a lot of asteroids out there.  If you
>look hard enough and get clever enough, there may well be
>opportunities.

Yes, but these were all flybies, which are much easier than
rendesvous, both in terms of delta-v and frequency of windows.

>(Upon reading your message I went looking for Mars Trojans in the
>*Boys' Big Book of Asteroids* but found nothing.

I seem to recall a Mars Trojan being discovered a while back.
Given the large population of small objects in orbits very close
to Earth's, I suspect there will be an even greater swarm very
close to Mar's orbit, if not at the LaGrange points themselves.
Alternatively, astronauts might stopover at one of the known tiny
asteroids near Earth on the way out.

From a scientific and prospecting viewpoint, it makes much more
sense to fly a bunch of automated missions and do quite a bit
of telescopy before commiting astronauts to an asteroid.  90%
of the near-earth asteroids are junk; only about 10% are likely
to have good sources of ice or metal.  We need to winnow out the
90% before we send astronauts -- or even $multi-million probes.
It would be very inexpensive to characterize the surfaces of
dozens of earth-crossers with the new large telescopes (eg Keck).
Let's not send expensive spacecraft to mere rockpiles, much
less astronauts!

>Adventuresome cosmonauts might play with aerobraking at Mars or Venus
>to give even further velocity changes!

I'd do the Mars Trojan on the return leg, so that we don't lose
the savings from aerobraking in Mars' atmosphere on the way out.
If we can aerobrake, we can put more mass on the surface of Mars
than on the surface of the Moon with the same size rocket!
(Getting back's another story -- that's where native propellants
from comets and/or Mars' atmosphere win big).

Of course, there's always the extremely improbable possibility of
an asteroid's orbit coinciding with an Earth-Mars transfer
window.  More probable (but still very rare) is a comet coinciding
with an Earth-Jupiter transfer window, since Jupiter tends to
capture comets into such oribts (the Jupiter family comets,
perhaps the single most valuable resource for space colonization).
These would be valuable enough, if found, that they are worth a
few good computer searches, despite the probability we won't
find any good windows.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Feb 1993 15:06:47 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Money Talks, and clinton listens.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

Today, Spokesmen for Vice PResident Gore,  announced that
No cuts would be made this year to SSF, that 2.25 billion
would remain in this years funding proposal.
They refused to comment on reports from the OMB that GOLDIN
had promised to Deliver the program for 40% less.
Capitol Hill observers (Most likely a dear friend of ours)
said they had never seen such rapid flip-flops.

Oh well, I guess that 30 million didn't go for ad space after all.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 08:11:59 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Old Tech, why do we need new tech?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Doing repairs and such.. Why do we need a shuttle?

Why not just send a newly made Apollo/Gemini/Mercury (nely made not a refurbish
of an old one) on top of the right sized rocket and send it up to the
sattelite to do the repairs..

Basically what Im trying to say is why do we need new technology when we have
the technology to do many of the new projects.. Migth have to do some upgrades.
Basically we have been living in the same world as the military services,
basically the Cold War world, with its normal paranoid ideas.. Space Race and
such..

Why not just use the tech we have for now, stuff that can do the job and nicely
enough is old stuff (tech) and therefore cheaper, known, the infrastructure
is there already. Why re-invent the wheel?

Just some thing to think about!


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 14 Feb 1993 02:26:41 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
|>>The right solution for future vehicles is the one used today for airliners:
|>>build them redundant and fail-safe so you don't *need* escape systems.  Any
|>>escape system is far inferior to being able to save the whole vehicle.
|>
|>I'm not sure the above is a very valid engineering or statistical comparison.
|>Airliners fly thousands of flights each day while the Shuttle flys less
|>than 12 per *year*.  To build things that don't fail, you have to
|>understand all the failure modes, both expected and unexpected (remember
|>the Comet?  The DC-10 engines?), and this unfortunately seems to require
|>a few crashes now and then and some of deaths...


What you also need to do is have reasonable margins on all
components.  The STS like most other rockets has very thin
operational margins.  a little too much stress and BANG.

747's  have been accidentally pushed way outside their
operational envelope with only  minor damage,

If you push the margins as hard as the military designers do,
it doesn't take much to bend the airframe or drive the cost
up an order of magnitude.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:12:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shorter Posts/Subject Changes!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Can people please change the subject of a post if the post/answer/reply has
definitely changed the meaning since the original post..


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

Also maybe work on shorter taglines/signature files..

I read quite a few posts at my normal 1200 baud and it takes forever to weed
thru some 100 post (50 if I call every day), I also check a few other
newsgroups and I can read some 50 to 200 messages a night..

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 04:06:56 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO news
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>from today's "What's New":

>     from: WHAT'S NEW  Friday, 12 Feb 1993    Washington, DC

>    [concerning funding for SSF:]
>    Congressman Brown told reporters he will urge President Clinton to
>    restore full funding when he meets with him later today. To
>    scientists who oppose the station, Brown said the science aspect
>    was always overrated; the space station, he said, "is like
>    building the pyramids, it will glorify the nation."  What
>    alternative cuts would he suggest?  "I would cut $3.5B out of the
>    Strategic Defense Initiative."  [remainder deleted]

>Now I know that SDIO is the sponsor of DC-X.  Is that $3.5B a close
>approximation of DC's budget?

It's a close approximation of SDIO's entire budget. DC-X's budget was
~70 million dollars (or is it 40 million?).

>-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

Let me edit this with regard to the source you quoted above:

> {\em "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
>  are the laws of the universe."}                       - G. J. Caesar

Perhaps I should have been posting this anomynously.
--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

BTW, if you're using MSDOS, or Windows, look at the hardware. It was
probably made outside of the United States.
It's pervasiveness is based on leverage using little to no US-manufactured
goods. If you want US manufacturing to stay alive, buy something else.
Like an Amiga. Or an Atari. While you can. It's too goddamn late for
you to stop acting retarded and buy a NeXT.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:22:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Suggest a Solution, Not just problems.
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have heard alot of people here, many who tell what is wrong, but they are
part of the problem, for they do not suggest a solution to the problem..

Well I offer this solution to the problem, ask questions and suggest a solution
to the problem.


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 182
------------------------------