Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO201.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 17KB

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 05:29:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #201
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 19 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 201

Today's Topics:
                    *advocate* anonymous postings
                   Atomic lines in the Heliosphere
                       Nobody cares about Fred?
               Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)... (3 msgs)

    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: 18 Feb 1993 14:28:01 GMT
From: David Toland <[e-mail]>
Subject: *advocate* anonymous postings
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.crypt

Organization: Stratus Computer Inc.
Lines: 14
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <1m06dh$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In an earlier article [e-mail] (Robert Mah) writes:
> My view is that anonymous postings will allow for an excess of
> name-calling and other non-civil behaviour.  Call me a pesemist.

I think it unlikely that anonymity will greatly affect the level of
antisocial behavior.  There's plenty of name calling on Internet in
any case, and I have not noticed any disproportionate amount from
anon users.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
[e-mail]   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 13:37:57 GMT
From: Dick Edgar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atomic lines in the Heliosphere
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.misc,sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>I'm interested in finding out about emission or resonance lines
>from interplanetary gas.
>
>Most of the discussion I've seen centers on the He I (59.3 nm) and
>the H I (121.5 nm, Ly alpha) lines.  These have been used, for
>example, to obtain the velocity of the interstellar gas flowing
>through the solar system.  I'd like to know if anyone has
>observed other lines, particularly H I (656.3 nm, H alpha).
>
The Voyager UVS (Ultraviolet Spectrometer) also saw other Lyman series
lines (at least Lyman beta), in backscattered sunlight.

Ron Reynolds, of the University of Wisconsin--Madison Physics department,
has a Fabry-Perot spectrometer that he uses to study the diffuse optical
emission line background.  I've heard him talk about the geocorona and
about galactic emission, but never the interplanetary gas.  He publishes
regularly and copiously in the Astrophysical Journal and Astronomical
Journal; he's also reachable by e-mail ([e-mail]).
Maybe the velocity structure is such that the interplanetary H-alpha
emission is buried in the geocoronal emission?

>I've checked things like Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.,
>Ann. Rev. Earth and Plan. Sci., a data book from 1977 on the
>Interplanetary Medium, checked references in some works
>on the H I and He I lines, and scanned the annual indices for
>a few JGR: Space Physics.  So far, no dice.
>
>Anybody have any other ideas?
>--
>
>     T. Joseph Lazio
>     514 Space Sciences
>     Ithaca, NY  14853-6801
>     [phone]
>     [e-mail]

---------
Richard J. Edgar  ([e-mail])
University of Wisconsin--Madison, Department of Physics
"It all depends, of course, upon whether or not it
depends or not, of course, if you take my meaning"

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

Date: 17 Feb 93 23:11:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>

>Which was correct. NASA rescued the satellite because they thought it would
>be good PR. If they thought (as they should have) that EVA was important
>they would have been doing far more of it a long time ago.
>

This is your statement about NASA's purpose Allen. NASA stated that they
wanted to do this go gain EVA time. Whom shall we believe? Add to this the
fact that Intelsat paid 83 million dollars for the rescue and you have a
NASA that not only got a lot of very valuable EVA time BUT at the same time
offset a very large part of the cost of the mission. Not a bad deal
actuaaly.
>That is why I said you would have a legitimate point *IF* NASA was engaged
>in regular EVA.
>
>In fact, even here it is a bit strained. It turns out that the astronauts
>say they where so busy with the work they didn't have time to try and learn
>from the experience.
>

Where does your information come from Allen. It turns out that as a result of
that mission many in NASA, both on the ground, as well as the astronauts learned
from the experience. To prove this merely look at the fact that more EVA's are
planned during the time leading up to SSF constructions.

>>During the course of the mission, they find there ARE some differences between
>>ground simulations and The Real Thing.
>>So, NASA adds EVA time whenever it can on future Shuttle missions.
>
>Too little too late.

Merely your opinion Allen.

>
>I assume from past postings Doug, that you are not an engineer or at
>best a student so I'll explain why this is important. In design it is
>inevitable that mistakes will be made. It also turns out that the later
>mistakes are found, the more expensive it is to fix those mistakes. Therefore
>good engineers spend a lot of effort finding errors as soon as possible.
>

I am both a student and an Engineer and so I can answer you here. I agree
with your methodology as stated. I also point ou the fact that due to
budgetary considerations less EVA was planned during this time period. It
turned out to be a bad example of cost savings. So when this was identified
then as a corrective action, more EVA is planned for the next several years.
Since it is three years till first element launch and since in this time
there will be in excess of 20 shuttle missions, it is my opinion and many
others that it is not "too little, too late".

>Now with a large space station requiring several times the existing EVA
>experience base to assemble, assembly itself becomes a large risk area.
>The prudent thing to do is to begin very early in the project conducting
>LOTS of experiments on orbit and coorelating them with ground based
>efforts (like water tank simulations and task models). NASA failed to
>do this and now it is starting to look like there may (suprise suprise)
>be more problems than NASA anticipated. Instead of anticipating problems
>early on, they wait for the end of the project. This is one reason why
>the station is so expensive. Better risk reduction up front and we would
>have had a station we can afford.

Allen I seriously question that you have ever worked on an R & D project.
In every project that I have ever worked on, in either private industry or
at the university, there have been unanticipated problems. This is where
the word contingency comes in. When you identify a problem that had been
previously not shown to be a problem then you correct the problem. This is
what NASA has done.

>
>>NASA realizes it has some shortcomings.  It now does EVAs and people such as
>>yourself start bitching about how useless it is to have two astronauts haul each
>>other around in the Shuttle cargo bay.
>
>At this stage in the game, it is indeed too late. In 1984, that would have
>been a great experiment to try.
>

I seem to remember many early experiments with pre SSF hardware that
impacted the design of SSF. There is a prototype of the ECLSS hardware
flying on SpaceHab on STS57. There will be many more experiments in the near
future. There have been several experiments of SSF subsystems in the past.

>I applaud these initial experiments they are doing but it should be obvious
>that they should have done more sooner. Asking why in hell it took so long
>to do the obvious is a reasonable question.
>
No you don't applaud anything that I have seen you post on recently. Go
back and look at your posts. Do you see anything postive in them regarding
NASA?

>>So tell me, Mr. Sherzer, what is the REAL reason why you don't like NASA?
>
>Parts of NASA I like a lot. When I was in aerospace I read a lot of the
>NASA aeronautical work. It was all first rate stuff and we are far better
>for it. Manned space (which I think is very important) doesn't spend my
>money very wisely. Examples abound; asside from Shuttle and Fred we
>can look at:
>

Interesting that you are not in aerospace now. If you care so much about
lowering the cost of spaceflight why don't you go back and show them how it
is done?


>1. The wake shield facility. NASA cost models say it should cost $93 million
>to build. A private company is building the exact same thing for $11 million.
>

Ever hear of the General Services Administration Allen? It controls ALL
government procurment. If there is a hell on earth it is having to deal
with GSA. The delays, the paperwork, the rules laid down by congress on
procurement are abysmal.  Much contracting is done today simply to get
beyond the labrinth and get the job done faster cheaper and better. Why
don't you, (as the Administrator has), begin a call for procurement refore
and a splitting away of NASA from GSA. This would do much to help NASA hold
down costs and insure accountability, and bring valuable projects back within
the walls of NASA where they belong.


>2. Spacehab. NASA costing says it should cost $1.12 billion. A private
>company is building the exact same thing for $115 million.
>

Where di you get that number Allen? It is being built by a NASA contractor
(Actually MacDac Huntsville and AeroItalia) and it is not being burdened by
the inane procurement rules that plague NASA proper.

>3. DCX. NASA says eight years and about a billion $$. MacDac says $60
>million and two years.
>

Again state your sources for this accusation.

>
>>Were you denied a job there?
>
>Never applied to NASA. I was offered a space station job (at a 15%
>increase in pay) but turned it down. No, I'm not upset because I
>didn't get a job.
>

Why did you not take it? Heck we could already had SSF in orbit and gone
to Pluto now in the DC clipper with you there.

>>Astronaut slot?
>
>Again, no. I would have been a good pilot (95+ percentile on the Air
>Force Pilot Aptitude Test) but my eyes are terrible. So I have never
>applied. I long ago accepted that I will never fly spacecraft or high
>performance aircraft. No regrets.
>
>>It is obvious you have an axe to
>>grind, beause they're incapable of meeting your standards of perfection.
>
>I am holding them to the 'reasonable man' standard, not perfection. I
>think the abuses described above are very good reasons not to like the
>job NASA is doing and to expect a lot better. Why don't you?
>
> Allen

As I have challenged you before and will again. Start a company, start
bidding on NASA contracts, and with your vision, ideas, and cost cutting
philosphy you will outdo Rockwell and Lockheed in five years. NASA must
go for the low bidder by law. Like the commercial says Just Do IT!

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 14:25:56 GMT
From: James Michael Sambrook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Is there a planned mission to Titan in the near future??

I would tend to doubt it.  It WOULD be nice to find out what's going on out
there, but I don't think anything's planned for a LONG time.

>Is there any comets/meteors and such that go from near earth orbit that also
>pass by Titan? Maybe from Mars to Titan..

Hmmm...there are probably some which pass near both the earth and Titan.
Everything just needs to be in the right alignment for it to work out right.
Kinda like with the Voyager probes...Of course, if you want the specific names
of any asteroids/comets/other space debris which passes Earth and Titan,
call up NASA!  ;^)

>What moon was it that 2010 went to or near to..

Well, in the book 2001, the Discovery went to Japetus (a Saturnian moon).
In the movie 2010, they went to Jupiter, where they found life on Europa.

*******************************************************************************
*   "A common mistake that people make trying to design something completely  *
*        foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."      *
*                      - Douglas Adams, "Mostly Harmless"                     *
*                                                                             *
*              James Michael Sambrook, Aerospace AND Nuclear Engineer         *
*                  "Are you nuts?"           "Nope, just insane!"             *
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 14:56:53 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Is there a planned mission to Titan in the near future??
>Is there any comets/meteors and such that go from near earth orbit that also
>pas by Titan? Maybe from Mars to Titan..
>
Casini, scheduled to arrive about 2004.
>
>What moon was it that 2010 went to or near to..
>
Europa, the ice planet.  I think Galileo will look at this
around 1996.

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 15:46:57 GMT
From: "Robert M. Unverzagt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1m069k$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Michael Sambrook) writes:
> >Is there a planned mission to Titan in the near future??
>
> I would tend to doubt it.  It WOULD be nice to find out what's going on out
> there, but I don't think anything's planned for a LONG time.
>

I would tend not to doubt it.  The Cassini mission is scheduled to
launch in, er, 1996 or 1997 (can't remember which).  The Huygen's (sp?)
probe will be dropped onto Titan.

> >Is there any comets/meteors and such that go from near earth orbit that also
> >pass by Titan? Maybe from Mars to Titan..
>
> Hmmm...there are probably some which pass near both the earth and Titan.
> Everything just needs to be in the right alignment for it to work out right.
> Kinda like with the Voyager probes...Of course, if you want the specific names
> of any asteroids/comets/other space debris which passes Earth and Titan,
> call up NASA!  ;^)

Just what do you mean by "near?"

>
> >What moon was it that 2010 went to or near to..
>
> Well, in the book 2001, the Discovery went to Japetus (a Saturnian moon).
> In the movie 2010, they went to Jupiter, where they found life on Europa.
>
> *******************************************************************************
> *   "A common mistake that people make trying to design something completely  *
> *        foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."      *
> *                      - Douglas Adams, "Mostly Harmless"                     *
> *                                                                             *
> *              James Michael Sambrook, Aerospace AND Nuclear Engineer         *
> *                  "Are you nuts?"           "Nope, just insane!"             *
> *******************************************************************************

Or like my dad sez: "Nothing is foolproof.  Fools are too ingenious."

Shag

--
       Rob Unverzagt        |   Last call for alcohol.
  [e-mail]   |   Last call for freedom of speech.
[e-mail] |                            - Jello Biafra

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 201
------------------------------