Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO595.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Thu, 20 May 93 05:08:17
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #595
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 20 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 595

Today's Topics:
              AIAA - SGV to have DCX speaker in Pasadena
 Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
                    Interesting DC-X cost anecdote
     Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
           Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
                       murder in space (3 msgs)
        Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones) (2 msgs)
                Questions for KC-135 veterans (2 msgs)
                 Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs)
         Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)

    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: 19 May 1993 17:11:44 GMT
From: Vincent Pollmeier <[e-mail]>
Subject: AIAA - SGV to have DCX speaker in Pasadena
Newsgroups: jpl.general,sci.space,la.general

The San Gabriel Valley Section of the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics) will hold its bi-monthly dinner program at the Peppermill restaurant in Pasadena and the public is invited to attend.   The program follows:

                    Delta Clipper:  Single Stage to Orbit

Dr. William Gaubatz,  Program Manager for SSTO Programs at McDonnell Douglas
in Huntington Beach, CA will be speaking on  the Delta Clipper program and on
the current status of the DCX a third scale flight prototype currently
undergoing testing.  The Delta Clipper is being planned as a re-usable
single stage launch vehicle which is being designed to make flight operations
as simple as possible.  McDonnell Douglas is using an innovative approach of
design the launch vehicle to be maintained like more like a commercial airplane
than the current Space Shuttle.


    Location:    Peppermill Restaurant
                 795 East Walnut Ave
                 Pasadena, CA
    (the Peppermill is located a block west of Lake Avenue and 2 blocks south
     of the 210 Freeway)

    Time:         Social Hour:  6:00 - 7:00
                  Dinner and Program 7:00-8:30

    Cost:        $17.00 for AIAA members with reservations
                 $20.00 for non-members and members without reservations
                 $10.00 for full-time students (with ID)

           for more information and to make reservations contact
           AIAA Western Region Office at (800) 683 - 2422

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:55:55 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Voicing my frustration at yet another redesign, I said:
 : >If we had just shut up and bent metal,
 : >we'd have a Space Station right now instead of the ninth redesign.

>Allen W. Sherzer ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Avation Week, November 12, 1990, page 26:
>:    "the original station deisign proved to be essentially broken from
>:    the start", one engineer in Houston said....

>Now THAT's a good response.

Thanks.

>points.  I certainly don't fault informed, well-intentioned criticism
>of the Space Station Freedom Program.

I know you don't, but NASA senior managers DO. We saw time and time again
from the 1990 redesign to the current WP02 mess that NASA managers prefer
to hide problems than deal with them.

>But just saying, "It's a mess,
>and it needs to be cleaned up," doesn't help the Program.

It's a first step. You can't solve a problem until you see it exists.
Currently, NASA managers (and others) don't even see the mess.

>Most of the troubles with the SSFP are managerial, not technical,

For the current design, agreed.

>yet the redesign efforts have all been aimed at technical solutions to
>management problems.

Also true. This means that the new design won't work either no matter what
is selected.

>: >If you don't like the manned space program or the way it's being run,
>: >don't just sit there and complain.  Get down here to Houston and put
>: >your career where your mouth is.

>: With all due respect, I believe I am doing far more to fix it up
>: here in Michigan than I could in Houston.

>I stick by my guns, here.  Houston is where the action is.  For now.

You said yourself above that the problems where managerial, not technical.
Those problems won't be solved in Houston. It is because I agree with you
that I think the work can be done more effectively outside both Houston
and NASA.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------28 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:47:38 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chuck Shotton) writes:

>> It [DC-X] cost SDIO $70M to build and it would cost the USAF:
>>         $320 million or four and a half times as much.

>I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the cost difference could be
>accounted for by the AF's requirement for superfluous 2167 documentation,

Yep.

>5 or 6 huge requirements and

No, requirements where held constant.

>design reviews, travel expenses flying personnel

That would account for a lot. I have worked on $70M DoD programs. They
would have quarterly meetings with up to 50 people flying in for a couple
of days. Not to mention the huge amount of time wasted preparing for them
by the engineers.

SDIO had design reviews but only two or three SDIO people showed up.

>Of course, this is my cynical opinion based on years of watching the
>government procurement process try to cover up a lack of creativity and
>innovation with reams of documentation. ;)

Agreed. A big lesson from the DC-X is that it need not be this way.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------28 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 19 May 1993 16:38:03 GMT
From: "Charles J. Divine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark S. Nelson) writes:
>Let's not forget that the liberal (or at least democrat) that every
>conservative loves to hate, Jimmy Carter, was President during the
>earliest years of the shuttle program.  I don't really think he had much
>of a problem with space exploration.

But his VP Walter Mondale did lead an assault on NASA beginning in
the late 60s.  He not only proposed the elimination of all human
spaceflight, he even introduced legislation to abolish NASA while
a senator.

With regard to the the shuttle, Mondale tried to stop the program
and harassed it while VP.  (One scheme of his had to be vetoed by
Carter personally)

Carter himself did not seem that protechnology in general.  His
general approach to problems seemed to be puritanical preaching --
not let's see what we can do.

>
>Also, to say that liberals don't like technology is the same as saying
>that ALL physicists, chemists, engineers, etc, etc. are conservatives.  As
>a future physicist ( and present undergrad), I can attest to being a
>technology loving liberal.

May your tribe increase.

Personally I'm protechnology and my political views are a mixture of
liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism -- makes 'em all mad at
me.

>
>P.S. The main reasons Reagan and Bush liked space was for military
>purposes.

Sure about that?  I know quite a few conservatives who would argue
that point.

>  Hmm...Just think how far we could have gone if we weren't
>sinking all that money into weapons...

Or exploding entitlement programs.... Or lawyers....



--
Chuck Divine

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:52:33 GMT
From: Eric H Seale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>... There is some
>risk involved with the aerobraking.  The spacecraft will experience some
>heating as it passes through the atmosphere, most of which will be
>dissipated through the solar arrays and the back of the High Gain Antenna.
>The aerobraking will not only help circularize the orbit, but valuable data
>will also be collected on the aerobraking itself that can be used by
>future missions.

Other risks of aerobraking:

1)  On the drag passes, the spacecraft will see a substantial flux of
    high-energy atomic-oxygen.  There is some concern as to the effects
    of this on the spacecraft's surface (in particular, on the electrical
    interconnects between cells in the solar panels).

2)  Aerodynamic torques during aerobraking passes will be considerable.
    The aerobraking attitude itself is aerodynamically stable, but if
    some (say, hardware) problem arises on the spacecraft during
    aerobraking, and the spacecraft tries to "call home" for help, it is
    considered doubtful that the spacecraft could maintain an Earth-
    pointed attitude over an orbit.

3)  Venus' atmosphere is not as well-characterized as the Earth's.
    Particularly during the "end-game" where Magellan's orbit is rapidly
    approaching its circular "target", any unpredicted (and
    unpredictable) "blooms" in the atmosphere could cause serious
    problems.

The long and the short of it: aerobraking is doable, but not without
risk.  Most folks I've talked to feel Magellan will be skating pretty
close to the cliff, but probably far enough away to pull this off.  The
biggest concern is that this scheme leaves no margin for error -- any
hardware failures during aerobraking, and Magellan's goose is probably
cooked (figuratively and literally).

Of course, Congress is getting bored with Magellan anyway (now let's see
-- if a program fails, they whine because of the failure; if a program
succeeds, they whine because they have to keep funding it... ;-) ).
My understanding is that without aerobraking, Magellan's operations funding
would have been cancelled anyway, and the bird would have been turned
off.  If Magellan doesn't make it through aerobraking in one piece, at
least she'll go down with her boots on...

Eric Seale
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:05:28 GMT
From: Martin Gemmel <[e-mail]>
Subject: murder in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Anselm Lingnau ([e-mail]) writes:

} Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an
} abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value?

No, because HAL is still on board.

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

Date: 19 May 93 16:23:08 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <[e-mail]>
Subject: murder in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <1tb3f1$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> >
> >
> >THe US now has Long Arm statutes,  that cover crimes against
> >Government personnell  anywhere,  anytime  and against
> >People on  US vessels.  I think it also inludes,  crimes against
> >US citizens  in International  areas,  including  AIrports.
>
> These statutes are also probably illegal. According to the Constitution,
> treaties form superior law to legislation, and we are founding signatories
> to the UN treaties which prohibit interference in the internal sovereign
> affairs of nations. That means kidnaping Noreiga is likely a crime conducted
> "under color of law". There are strict penalties in the US Code for crimes
> conducted "under color of law". Note that it would be perfectly OK to
> declare war on Panama and sieze Noreiga as a "spoil of war", but the raid
> as conducted is probably illegal under the UN charter, and hence under
> US law. The same goes for the doctor kidnaped by US agents in Mexico. Of
> course the law is what the men with the most guns say it is, so the point
> is moot.

  Actually, in the case of the Mexican doctor the Supreme Court ruled
something along the lines that there was nothing in the Constitution
to prevent the US from enforcing its laws anywhere in the world (at
least that's how NPR reported it). Evidently the Court, at least the
current one, doesn't think much of treaty obligations.

---
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: 19 May 1993 16:32:45 GMT
From: Sean Barrett <[e-mail]>
Subject: murder in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martin Gemmel) writes:
>Anselm Lingnau ([e-mail]) writes:
>
>} Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an
>} abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value?
>
>No, because HAL is still on board.

Nonsense.  Only a person (or a corporation) can own something.
--
 Sean Barrett                      ``KLONO'S tungsten TEETH and
 [e-mail] (fast)   CURVING CARBALLOY CLAWS!!!''
 [e-mail] (reliable)    PGP key by finger or from key servers.

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:40:05 GMT
From: Mike Ross <drseus!mike>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robin Kenny) writes:
)
)In a similar vein, would you agree that what Armstrong actually said
)was: "That's one small step for (a) man, one damn leap for mankind!"
)                                ^^^          ^^^^
)Forever more it was reported as "big leap" - until many people ACTUALLY
)REPORT HEARING it as "big" and not "damn". The (a) was more an intake
)of breath than actually voiced.
)
)Robin Kenny - who doesn't hear that as "big" and is curious who else doesn't...
)

Actually, I heard the first words as "... one GIANT leap for mankind."

No, sir, it doesn't sound at all like "big".

-mike


--
******************************** [e-mail] *****
* Michael L. Ross/C33 | Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.   *
* Robotics Department | 2400 Nasa Rd. 1, Houston, TX 77062    *
*[phone] voice,[phone] fax**********boring, eh?****

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:56:00 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan J. Filipski) writes:

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

>Here is a transcript (my own) of Neil Armstrong's first words on the
>surface of the Moon. Taken from the NASA short film, "For all mankind"
>of the Apollo 11:

>   I'm gonna step off the LEM now. That's one small step for man, one
>   giant leap for mankind."  "There seems to be no difficulty in

>did he blow his line? did he really intend to say "one small step for *a*
>man"?  It would read much better so, since "man", without the article,
>is usually considered synonomous to "mankind".  Did armstrong ever
>comment on this?

I have heard (perhaps apocryphal) reports that after being asked this
question for the umpteenth time, his somewhat testy response was on
the order of, "Well, dammit, that's what I *meant* to say!"

--
"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: 19 May 93 16:13:35 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (IGOR) writes:
> >> computer equipment.  I know the operational limit of 2.5 G downward
> >> during operation, but I get long pauses out of computer company reps
> >> when I ask them if their hardware (esp. hard drives) can take that.
> >>
> >> If anyone has experience with the KC-135, planning or designing hardware
> >> for it, and would be willing to answer a few questions, please contact
> >> me email.  Many thanks.
> >>
> >
> >You might also want to talk to some of the memory/chip manufacturers
> >directly about the possibility of getting your hands on a flashram box.
> >It'll give you storage that's just as invulnerable to G as the board it's
> >mounted on.
> >
> >Of course, it's still a little experimental....
>
> we used a PC-XT and read and wrote during the 2-g's period, It did fine.
> same thing for a 486 clone. I also know some other people who used a
> Mac II with hard dirve and they never seem to have a problem. For the drive,
> if you think you may have some problems you may want to make it stand up on the
> side so that the Gees won't affect too much the writing on the disk or on the
> hard disk....
>
> hope this helps,
>

  Email bounced... Anyway, this might trigger a more interesting
discussion than the flame fests that usually plague this group.
BTW, you might post your question to sci.aeronautics as well,
comp.sys.realtime and comp.peripherals(.scsi) may also be useful sources
of information.

  Wasn't that long ago that fighters were still using magnetic core and
fixed head drums for g and rad tolerance, maybe they still do... ;-)

  You might check on drives intended for use in laptops. If the data is
important, and if you only get one chance to acquire it, then think
redundancy, i.e multiple drives (perhaps even mounted perpendicular to
each other), even redundant controllers, multiple interconnected systems,
or at least a cold standby system. You might also take a look at a tape
drive as a redundant logging device.

  A lot more can go wrong than just drives -- just don't get carried away
and blindly throw in redundancy, you may end up with a system so fragile that
it ends less reliable than the basic system (analyze why you're adding the
redundancy, what failure modes are being eliminated, and what failure modes
may be introduced). Also, check all connectors, cables, and circuit boards
for retention, support, and security. G-loads, shocks, and vibration can
cause circuit board flex and shifting, connections to slip and make
intermittent contact, and loose cables can damage components and loosen
connectors (laptops may have some advantages compared to desktops). Consider
the plane's nickname, it'd be a shame to lose your data just because someone
deposited their lunch on your system, keyboard covers are cheap insurance.

  Include sequence numbers (timestamps probably won't tell you if a record
is missing) and checksums or other error detection codes on each record
written, if your disk does crash or an occasional sector is corrupt, you
then have information that can be critical to being able to extract
and validate much of your data using low-level disk diagnostic/recovery
software. The sequence numbers and checksums in your records will allow
you to eliminate duplicate and invalid records, to sort the data back
into sequence and determine how much data is missing. Data from redundant
devices can also be merged in and similarly filtered to fill in dropouts.

  Besides redundancy, you might write your software so that it has some
fault tolerance, assume you're going to have some intermittent disk errors
and design to recover and continue, and to minimize the effect of a lost
record, e.g.:

  -Read after write(s) to verify, make sure the data is read from the
   platters and not from a buffer or cache.

  -On errors, write a duplicate record in the next block or at an alternate
   location.

  -Have a strategy for handling repeated errors, you may need to abandon
   the failing drive and rely on your redundant(s), but first, you might
   try skipping a large number of blocks to get away from a damaged area
   on the disk, switching to an alternate partition, or simply continue
   writing on the bad disk without error checking (enough data may be
   recoverable to fill in many of the dropouts that may occur on the
   redundant copy).

  -Design your buffering strategy so that the writes of a record to the
   redundant device occur at different times, transient environmental
   effects like shocks or EMI are then less likely to cause an unrecoverable
   loss of all copies of the record.

  -Buffer and sequence the records into blocks of output such that sequential
   pairs, or even triplets,..., of records are written to different and
   distant sectors. If a record is lost on all drives, it is then less
   likely that the unrecoverable loss will span multiple contiguous records.

  -Avoid dependencies between records, e.g., store absolute values not
   deltas, if a record is lost, you may not be able to resync and recover
   what follows. Don't store just a single copy of calibration or other data
   required to interpret the rest of data.

  -Use raw disk partitions for logging, you won't need to worry about
   inodes or FAT's getting corrupted and the OS doing you the favor of
   recycling your data before you get a chance to recover it.

  -Check all return codes, log exceptions, progress statistics, and summary
   statistics as well. When trying to reconstruct and validate data, every
   clue helps (helps with testing as well).


---
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: 19 May 93 16:18:07 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (IGOR) writes:
>
> >we used a PC-XT and read and wrote during the 2-g's period, It did fine.
> >same thing for a 486 clone. I also know some other people who used a
> >Mac II with hard dirve and they never seem to have a problem. For the drive,
> >if you think you may have some problems you may want to make it stand up on the
> >side so that the Gees won't affect too much the writing on the disk or on the
> >hard disk....
>
> Hmm.  I would think being on edge would be *worse*, since that might
> make the tracks unsymmetrical around the spindle due to the sideways
> force on the head.  Older drives used to tell you to reformat if you
> were going to stand the drive on edge; at 3+g, this side force might
> even be a problem for new drives.
>

  The reformatting requirement was for the old, slow, drives that
relied upon the open-loop positional (in)accuracy of stepper motors.
The head assemblies and stepper motor were rather massive and subjected
the motor to different loading patterns when repositioned, thus slightly
changing the alignment and creating the requirement for low-level
formatting. Wear, and perhaps environmental factors, could have
similar effects, thus the need to reformat some notorious drives several
times while breaking them in, and periodically thereafter, especially
when using RLL controllers.

  Modern drives have active feedback and tracking mechanisms ("servo
feedback") to maintain alignment at much higher densities. In some
cases there is a dedicated platter with "servo tracks", and there are
also methods of encoding the tracking signal along with the data.
Low-level formatting requires special ciruits to rewrite the servo
tracking signal. Some manufactures omit these circuits from the drive,
which is the reason some disks can't be low-level formatted without
specialized equipment.

  Heads are also much smaller these days, and should be less prone
to flexing and torquing. The heads are also subjected to some significant
impulses when seeking that probably make 0-3 g changes over comparative
long periods of times look insignificant, at least if in the same plane
as the platters. Disk drive specs often include a rating for survivable
shocks, operating and non-operating, that would provide at least an
indication of which drives might be more tolerant of short-term g-loading.
Within limits, whatever they are, the main concerns for continuous
g-loading are probably fatigue, bearing wear, and reductions in shock
tolerance.

---
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:53:02 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
>>
>>
>>>[e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>>
>>> >>I expect Hollywood has exaggerated for dramatic effect.  X-ray
>>> >>vision from orbit is just not available.
>>> >I think the imagery was supposed to be in the infrared.
>>
>>>Yes... the main "exaggeration" I thought of is that they were showing
>>>it as LIVE VIDEO.  I doubt very much if that is how the sats work.
>>
>>I think you can safely bet that there is real-time imagery capability
>>available.

>YES, but "real-time imaging" does not have to mean live 30 fps video.

YES, but is it your contention that because it does not *have* to mean
live 30 fps video that it *does not* mean 30 fps video?  In other
words, are you asserting as fact that no such system exists?

[Note that I am *not* asserting the fact of the existence of such a
system with a 30fps or similar frame rate.  However, I can think of
situations where such a system would be useful or desirable by people
who could get allocation for funding of such a project and can think
of no specific technological impossibilities involved in its creation.
You may feel free to draw your own conclusions from there, however it
seems a reasonably safe bet, unless you can come up with reasons why
such a system would be impossible, that such a system exists.]

--
"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: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:37:20 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.headlines,misc.invest,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,talk.environment,talk.politics.space

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

>What makes you think that mirrors is all they'll use.  Seems to me an
>advertiser wouldn't want to waste the night and just stick in a nuclear
>battery to power some way-cool visual eye-catching super-duper special
>effects.  Isn't that how most satelites are powered.  Even solar batteries
>could work for the el-cheepo advertisers.  All right you can still use
>the mirrors to focus your ad to different sections of the city or whatever.
>The yuppies get an ad for "Volvos" and the ghetto can get an ad for "Spam".
>Give these advertisers an "inch" for twighlight ads and soon the entire

>sky will be filled with all kinds of bombarding annoying junk.

Figure out how much power this barely visible reflective mirror is
actually using.  Then figure out how much power it would take to light
the thing visibly instead of using reflected sunlight.  It's going to
take a lot more power than a 'nuclear battery' is going to be able to
provide.  You'd have to boost so much mass for your power plant that
it simply isn't worth doing.  Either that, or you have to build an
SPS, at which point it is economically better to beam the power down
to earth and sell it rather than beam it to an adsat.


--
"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: 19 May 1993 17:09:25 GMT
From: "Jeffrey L. Cook" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

In a previous article, [e-mail] (victor yodaiken) says:

>In article <1t9b8j$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>>This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky
>>(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant
>>impact on astronomical observations.  I suspect there must be some kind
>>of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this,
>>people are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would
>>so vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism.
>>
>
>How clever of you. Nobody could really be upset at the idea of looking
>up and seeing commericials in the sky or having all of life reduced to
>an exchange of commodities and huckstering, so it must be a damn communist
>plot to discredit our peculiar kind of freedom.

Well, this "damn communist plot" is your idea, not mine.  I certainly
don't consider our kind of freedom to be "peculiar".  And nowhere
did I suggest that "nobody could really be upset"--obviously some people
are _very_ upset.  My point, which your posting so eloquently proves, is
that people are getting upset over an issue that has _nothing_ to do
with "light pollution" or interference with astronomical observations.
It also has nothing to do with objects in space:  Nobody's complaining
about the prospect of looking up and seeing huge space stations or other
structures in the sky.

The _only_ difference between this structure and any other proposed
space structure is that this one would contain a commercial message.
It might say "Coke" instead of "NASA".  It would show that space _can_
be commercially exploited, and can ultimately pay for itself, rather
than having to be funded by taxpayers' money.  I would _much_ prefer to
see a structure in orbit that was funded by private enterprise with an
advertisement, than to see a government-built structure that I and my
children were forced to pay for.

>Same goes for all pollution
>controls: those smokestacks demonstrate strength, only luddite communist
>technophobes could object to a nice visible plume that would demonstrate
>the strength of western capitalism.

On the contrary, the luddite communist technophobes ruled the roost for
almost three-quarters of a century in the former Soviet Union, and
turned their beautiful country into a toilet.  Billowing smokestacks are
symbolic of their failure, not our success.

Of course, you changed the subject from orbiting billboards to pollution
controls and smokestacks, which is an example of the "underlying agenda
coming to the surface" I spoke about in my posting.

Jeff Cook                            [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:28:14 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>...If nothing else, he and his Marshall team would have been very
>involved in the design of the interface between the Redstone and the Mercury
>capsule and certain aspects of the various abort modes.

He and the USAF Atlas people would both have been involved in this sort
of thing, but I doubt that questions like automation vs. piloting were
decided with much input from them.

>Once JFK called for a moon landing and Mercury shifted to Atlas, it also
>seems certain that von Braun's efforts were completely refocussed to Saturn-
>Apollo (as they called it at Marshall!) and that his input into the Mercury
>orbital and Gemini programs was minimal.

Interesting sidelight here:  there was a point when von Braun just might
have become head of the entire Apollo project... if he'd been willing to
jump ship from the Army to NASA.  He had the track record and the reputation
and the personal charisma to (probably) pull it off, if he'd been in the
right place at the right time.  But he didn't want to abandon his team,
and he felt considerable loyalty to the Army for its support over the
years, so he stayed where he was and the vacuum was filled by others.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 595
------------------------------