Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO481.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 06:06:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #481
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 23 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 481

Today's Topics:
                          Boom! Whoosh......
          Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? (2 msgs)
          Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...
                      Galileo Update - 04/22/93
 Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)
            Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)
                            Moonbase race
                 Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?
         PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST (3 msgs)
                           Proton/Centaur?
                    Vandalizing the sky. (2 msgs)
               Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.

    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: 22 Apr 1993 19:33:36 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boom! Whoosh......
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: queen.eng.umd.edu
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David M. Palmer) writes:
>>>orbiting billboard...
>>
>>I would just like to point out that it is much easier to place an
>>object at orbital altitude than it is to place it with orbital
>>velocity.  For a target 300 km above the surface of Earth,
>>you need a delta-v of 2.5 km/s.
>Unfortunately, if you launch this from the US (or are a US citizen),
>you will need a launch permit from the Office of Commercial Space
>Transportation, and I think it may be difficult to get a permit for
>an antisatellite weapon... :-)

Well Henry, we are often reminded how CANADA is not a part of the United States
(yet).  You could have quite a commercial A-SAT, er sky-cleaning service going
in a few years.

"Toronto SkySweepers:  Clear skies in 48 hours, or your money back."
       Discount rates available for astro-researchers.



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 22 Apr 93  10:30:59
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In a message of <Apr 19 04:55>, [e-mail] writes:

 >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
 >writes:

MB>                                                             So the
MB> 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.

JG>Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

Couldn't we just say periapsis or apoapsis?



--- msged 2.07

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 10:23:22 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Phil G. Fraering writes:

> Mark Brader writes:

>> Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to
>> me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American
>> has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil
>> Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
>> Same person?

> No. I estimate a 99 % probability the Gehrels referred to
> is Thomas Gehrels of the Spacewatch project, Kitt Peak observatory.

You may change that to 100% certainty.  But to clarify, Spacewatch is a
University of Arizona project using a telescope of the Steward Observatory
located on Kitt Peak.  It is not associated with Kitt Peak National
Observatory, other than sharing a mountain.

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

Date: 22 Apr 93 16:25:01 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In my first posting on this subject I threw out an idea of how to fund
such a contest without delving to deep into the budget.  I mentioned
granting mineral rights to the winner (my actual wording was, "mining
rights.)  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are
not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli
situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group
(I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
moratorium on taxes.

Tom Freebairn

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

Date: 22 Apr 1993 23:00 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/22/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                 GALILEO
                     MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                               POST-LAUNCH
                           April 16 - 22, 1993


SPACECRAFT

1.  On April 19, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer
(MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

2.  On April 19, a Command Detector Unit Signal-to-Noise Ratio (CDUSNR) test
and a Radio Frequency Subsystem Automatic Gain Control (RFSAGC) test were
performed using the LGA-1 (Low Gain Antenna #1) over DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter
antenna) and DSS-61 (Madrid 34 meter antenna), respectively.  Data analysis
is in process.  These tests are periodically performed to provide detailed
information relative to the telecom command hardware integrity.

3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

4.  On April 21, the first of two suppressed carrier/DSN (Deep Space Network)
advanced receiver characterization tests was performed over DSS-14 (Goldstone
70 meter antenna).  The spacecraft modulation index was varied from 43 degrees
to 90 degrees for a range of ground receiver bandwidth settings.

5.  The AC bus imbalance measurement has not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period but the DC bus imbalance
measurement has.  The AC measurement reads 20 DN (4.5 volts).  The DC
measurement has ranged from 43 DN (4.6 volts) to 138 DN (16.2 volts) and
currently reads 138 DN (16.2 volts).  These measurements are consistent with
the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team.

6.  The Spacecraft status as of April 22, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  68 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 21 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 5 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 184 hours


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, April 22, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         169,747,800 km (1.14 AU)
    Distance from Sun           286,967,900 km (1.92 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed          91,200 km per hour
    Distance from Jupiter       532,735,900 km
    Round Trip Light Time       18 minutes, 58 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of April 22, 1993, a total of 70185 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 65077  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5108 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, one real time command was transmitted: one was initiated in
the sequence design process and none initiated in the real time command
process. The only command activity was a command to reset the command loss
timer.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

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

Date: 21 Apr 1993 19:17:23 GMT
From: Jordin Kare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inflatable Mile-Long Space Billboards (was Re: Vandalizing the sky.)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>[e-mail] (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC
>
>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.
>
>This sounds like something Lowell Wood would think of.  Does anyone
>know if he's involved?

No.  The idea was suggested around here during discussions of possible
near-term commercial space activities.  One of the folks involved in those
discussions, a
spacecraft engineer named Preston Carter, passed the suggestion on to
some entreprenurial types, and Mike Lawson is apparently going ahead with
it.  Preston is now at LLNL, and is working with Space Marketing on
the sensors that might be carried.
>
>>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense.

Actually, that sounds unlikely.  I don't know what the launch vehicle
would be, but I would expect it to go on a commercial launcher --
certainly not on the Shuttle -- and the fraction of the cost paid to NASA
for, e.g.,  launch support would probably
cover NASA's incremental costs pretty well.

>>This
>>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
>>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
>>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
>>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.
>
>This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My
>guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to
>build large, inflatable space structures.

No, as noted, LLNL is involved in lightweight sensor design, per
Clementine and related programs.  I'm sure folks around here would like to
see a demonstration of a modern inflatable structure, but after all,
the U.S. did the Echo satellites long ago, and an advertising structure
would not be much closer to an inflatable space station than Echo was
(or a parade balloon, for that matter).
>
>>..........
>>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

While I happen to personally dislike the idea, mostly because I've got
a background in astronomy, it's hardly vandalism -- it would be a short-lived
intrusion on the night sky, doing no permanent damage and actually hurting
only a small subset of astronomers.  On the other hand, it would certainly
draw attention to space.
>
>If this is true, I think it's a great idea.
>
>Learning how to build structures in space in an essential
>step towards space development...

Which, unfortunately, this is not likely to contribute much to.

>If such a project also monitors ozone depletion and demonstrates
>creative use of (partial) private sector funding in the process -- so
>much the better.
>
>>Is NASA really supporting this junk?

As far as I know, it's a purely commercial venture.
>
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?

I gather it is being very seriously discussed with possible advertisers.
Commercial projects, however, generally don't get "funding" -- they
get "customers" -- whether it will have customers remains to be seen.
>
>>Are protesting groups being organized in the States?
>
>Not yet.  Though, if this project goes through, I suppose The Return
>of Jeremy Rifkin is inevitable...

Nahh.  He's too busy watching for mutant bacteria to notice anything in
the sky :-)

>
>Brian Yamauchi            Case Western Reserve University
>[e-mail]    Department of Computer Engineering and Science

Jordin Kare    [e-mail]    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

[These are my personal views only and do not represent official statements
or positions of LLNL, the University of California, or the U.S. DOE.]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 20:31:30 GMT
From: Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lindbergh and the moon (was:Why not give $1G)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>[e-mail] (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Layne Cook) writes:
>>> The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit
>>> of Saint Louis venture to his financial backers. But I strongly suspect
>>> that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to realize that much more
>>> was at stake than $25,000. Could it work with the moon? Who are the
>>> far-sighted financial backers of today?

>>  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled-
>>and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position.
>>The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long
>>transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.
> Lindbergh's flight took place in '27, not the thirties.

  Of course; sorry for the misunderstanding.  I was referring to the fact
that far more aeronautical development took place in the '30's.  For much
of the '20's, the super-abundance of Jennies and OX-5 engines held down the
industry.  By 1926, many of the obsolete WWI aircraft had been retired
and Whirlwind had their power/weight ratio and reliability up to the point
where long-distance flights became practical.  It's important to note that
the Atlantic was flown not once but THREE times in 1927:  Lindbergh,
Chamberlin and Levine, and Byrd's _America_.  "When it's time to railroad,
you railroad."

>>It didn't require gov't to fund these as long as something was known about
>>the potential for profit at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't
>>funded, some were private.
>Could you give examples of privately funded ones?

  Not off the top of my head; I'll have to dig out my reference books again.
However, I will say that the most common arrangement in Prince Henry the
Navigator's Portugal was for the prince to put up part of the money and
merchants to put up the rest.  They profits from the voyage would then be
shared.

>>But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount
>>of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.
>A person who puts up $X billion for a moon base is much more likely to do
>it because they want to see it done than because they expect to make money
>off the deal.

  The problem is that the amount of prize money required to inspire a
Moon Base is much larger than any but a handful of individuals or corporations
can even consider putting up.  The Kremer Prizes (human powered aircraft),
Orteig's prize, Lord Northcliffe's prize for crossing the Atlantic (won in
1919 by Alcock and Brown) were MUCH smaller.  The technologies required were
within the reach of individual inventors, and the prize amounts were well
within the reach of a large number of wealthy individuals.  I think that only
a gov't could afford to set up a $1B+ prize for any purpose whatsoever.
  Note that Burt Rutan suggested that NASP could be built most cheaply by
taking out an ad in AvWeek stating that the first company to build a plane
that could take off and fly the profile would be handed $3B, no questions
asked.

--
 Keith Mancus    <[e-mail]>                           |
 N5WVR           <[e-mail]>                        |
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,          |
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish                  |

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 14:35:37 PDT
From: Charlie Prael <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moonbase race
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

> Allen, sometimes I think you're OK.  And sometimes you tend to rashly leap in
> making statement without thinking them out.
>
> Wanna guess which today?
>
> You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know
> of a private Titan pad?


Doug-- Actually, if memory serves, the Atlas is an outgrowth of the old
Titan ICBM.  If so, there's probably quite a few old pads, albeit in need
of some serious reconditioning.  Still, Being able to buy the turf and
pad (and bunkers, including prep facility) at Midwest farmland prices
strikes me as pretty damned cheap.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - [e-mail]
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 18:36:42 GMT
From: Craig Keithley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) wrote:
>
> The major component of any realistic plan to go to the Moon cheaply (for
> more than a brief visit, at least) is low-cost transport to Earth orbit.
> For what it costs to launch one Shuttle or two Titan IVs, you can develop
> a new launch system that will be considerably cheaper.  (Delta Clipper
> might be a bit more expensive than this, perhaps, but there are less
> ambitious ways of bringing costs down quite a bit.)

Ah, there's the rub.  And a catch-22 to boot.  For the purposes of a
contest, you'll probably not compete if'n you can't afford the ride to get
there.  And although lower priced delivery systems might be doable, without
demand its doubtful that anyone will develop a new system.  Course, if a
low priced system existed, there might be demand...

I wonder if there might be some way of structuring a contest to encourage
low cost payload delivery systems.  The accounting methods would probably
be the hardest to work out.  For example, would you allow Rockwell to
'loan' you the engines?  And so forth...

> Any plan for doing
> sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting
> money in a big way.
>

This depends on the how soon the new launch system comes on line.  In other
words, perhaps a great deal of worthwhile technology (life support,
navigation, etc.) could be developed prior to a low cost launch system.
You wouldn't want to use the expensive stuff forever, but I'd hate to see
folks waiting to do anything until a low cost Mac, oops, I mean launch
system comes on line.

I guess I'd simplify this to say that 'waste' is a slippery concept.  If
your goal is manned lunar exploration in the next 5 years, then perhaps its
not 'wasted' money.  If your goal is to explore the moon for under $500
million, then you should put of this exploration for a decade or so.

Craig


Craig Keithley           |"I don't remember, I don't recall,
Apple Computer, Inc.     |I got no memory of anything at all"
[e-mail]       |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980)

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 21:38:15 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.aci.planetary,alt.astrology

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David McAloon) writes:

> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!

If not for the lack of extraneously capitalized words, I'd swear that
McElwaine had changed his name and moved to Cal Poly.  I also find the
choice of newsgroups 'interesting'.  Perhaps someone should tell this
guy that 'sci.astro' doesn't stand for 'astrology'?

It's truly frightening that posts like this are originating at what
are ostensibly centers of higher learning in this country.  Small
wonder that the rest of the world thinks we're all nuts and that we
have the problems that we do.

[In case you haven't gotten it yet, David, I don't think this was
quite appropriate for a posting to 'sci' groups.]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 18:54:43 GMT
From: Daniel Appelquist <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (David McAloon) writes:
[Lots of trippy stuff deleted]

Wow...  What is this guy smoking and WHERE can I GET SOME?

Dan
--
Daniel K. Appelquist|QUANTA is the electronically published and distributed
[e-mail]       |magazine of science fiction  and  fantasy.   For  more
703-758-2712        |information, send  mail to  [e-mail] or,
703-758-0233 (Fax)  |for back issues, ftp export.acs.cmu.edu, id:anonymous.

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

Date: 22 Apr 1993 18:41:36 -0500
From: Greg Howard <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.aci.planetary,alt.astrology

Actually, the "ether" stuff sounded a fair bit like a bizzare,
qualitative corruption of general relativity.  nothing to do with
the old-fashioned, ether, though.  maybe somebody could loan him
a GR text at a low level.

didn't get much further than that, tho.... whew.


greg

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 18:25:38 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proton/Centaur?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <1r54to$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>The question i have about the proton, is  could it be  handled at
>one of KSC's spare pads, without major  malfunction,  or could it be
>handled at kourou  or Vandenberg?

Seems like a lot of trouble to go to. Its probably better to
invest in newer launch systems. I don't think a big cost advantage
for using Russian systems will last for very long (maybe a few years).
Lockheed would be the place to ask, since you would probably have to buy
the Proton from them (they market the Proton world wide except Russia).
They should know a lot about the possibilities, I haven't heard them
propose US launches, so I assume they looked into it and found it
unprofitable.

>Now if it uses storables,

Yes...

>then  how long would it take for the russians
>to equip something at cape york?

Comparable to the Zenit I suppose, but since it looks like
nothing will be built there, you might just as well pick any
spot.

The message is: to launch now while its cheap and while Russia and
Kazakstan are still cooperating. Later, the story may be different.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 20:47:42 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Uwe Schuerkamp) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Enzo Liguori) writes:

>> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were
>>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the
>>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the

>This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.

>>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.

>If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in
>terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are,
>selling every bit that promises to make money?

Well, I guess I'm left wondering just who all the 'light fascists'
think *they* are.  Yes, I understand the issues.  I don't even
particularly care for the idea.  But am I the only one that finds the
sort of overreaction above just a *little* questionable?  You must
find things like the Moon *really* obnoxious in their pollution.

A few questions for those frothing at the mouth to ask themselves:

    1) How long is this thing supposed to stay up?  Sounds like it
would have a *huge* drag area, not a lot of mass, and be in a fairly
low orbit.

    2) Just what orbital parameters are we talking about here?
What real impact are we talking about, really?  How many optical
astronomers are *really* going to be impacted?

    3) Which is more important; adding a few extra days of
'seeing' for (very few) optical astronomers or getting the data the
sensors are supposed to return along with the data for large
inflatables (and the potential there for an inflatable space station)?
The choice would seem to be one or the other, since the advertising is
being used to help fund this thing.

    4) If your answer to 3) above was "the astronomers", then feel
free to come up with some other way to fund the (to my mind) more
important research data that would be gained by this WITHOUT SPENDING
ANY MORE OF MY MONEY TO DO IT.  In other words, put up or shut up.

>I guess we really
>deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I
>guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.

Probably so.  I'm just not sure we agree about who the 'stupid' are.

>    Another depressed planetary citizen,
>    hoover

Yeah, me too.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 21 Apr 93 16:54:09 GMT
From: Jeff Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Enzo Liguori) writes:

>Now, Space Marketing
>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>orbit.  NASA would provide contractual launch services. However,
>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates
>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This
>may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of
>Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the
>project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone
>monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs.

How could this possibly be "environmental vandalism" when there is no
"environment" to vandalize up there?

Since the advertising "is just to help defray costs", it's certainly no
surprise that "the taxpayers would bear most of the expense".  Sounds
like a good idea to me, since the taxpayers would bear _all_ of the
expense if they didn't do the advertising.

>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize
>the night sky?

Great idea, they should have done it long ago.

>What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).

I can't believe that a mile-long billboard would have any significant
effect on the overall sky brightness.  Venus is visible during the day,
but nobody complains about that.  Besides, it's in LEO, so it would only
be visible during twilight when the sky is already bright, and even if
it would have some miniscule impact, it would be only for a short time
as it goes zipping across the sky.

>Are protesting groups being organized in the States?

No doubt.  People are always looking for something to protest about, so
it would be no surprise.

>Really, really depressed.

Well, look on the, er, bright side.  Imagine the looks on the faces of
people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D

--

Jeff Cook                                  [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Apr 1993 16:14:24 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why DC-1 will be the way of the future.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>    Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record-
>players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower
>per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.
>


I don't think so at first,  but solid state offered  better reliabity,
id bet,  and any lower costs would be only after the processes really scaled up.

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 481
------------------------------