Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_386.ZIP/V9_386

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/IYHj5zy00UkZQH4E4O>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 05:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 05:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #386

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 386

Today's Topics:
           Re: SETI: When and where to look
            Conte's Bill (was NSS update)
       Re: Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation
NASA selects flight telerobotic servicer development contractor (Forwarded)
      Equations of artificial satellites' motions wanted
       CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Creation of a sci.earth newsgroup.
          Cold fusion neutron flux anomaly explained
                 Re: Geostar
Space shuttle acceleration limits (was RE:Unmanned shuttle advantages)
           Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages
    Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 13:58:09 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive![e-mail]  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: SETI: When and where to look

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Pugh) writes:
>on detecting a major event, start broadcasting immediately in the opposite
>direction (on the assumption that anyone "farther away" will aim their
>radio telescopes at 1987a and detect us). Another would be to generate

You mean like something like broadcasting pulses at twice
the (theoretical) maximum that a pulsar could?

Like the pulses detected for a short time from 1987a and
which haven't been seen again since?

Wouldn't work. People would find some explanation unless it
was so unambiguous to be judged a fake.
    Bob.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 14:28 EDT
From: John Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conte's Bill (was NSS update)

>An amendment to the fiscal year 1989 supplemental appropriations bill has
>been introduced by the committee's minority leader, Massachusetts Rep.
>Silvio Conte.

    Isn't Barney Frank from Mass. too? What is it with these guys? Maybe
someone needs to take an offensive approach: accuse them of discrimination
against... uh ... those who want to explore space!?!

>Conte's amendment would transfer nearly $600 [million?]
>of station funding to other domestic programs.

    Just out of curosity, has anyone noticed a correlation between
left/right political leanings and support of space and science? Or is it
just random?


-------------
John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
Internet: [e-mail]

P.S.  W. Baxter (Oakland), send e-mail! I lost your address...

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

Date: 20 Apr 89 01:52:04 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eric R. Christian)
Subject: Re: Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation

In article <890418-181721-109@Xerox> "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@XEROX.COM writes:
>
>Items ran in Space Digest v9 nos 371 & 373 about someone who could predict
>inteference in long distance short wave radio transmission.
>
>There was an article about this in Analog many years ago.
>This is from memory, so I may not have all the facts correct.  If anyone
>can locate the original, it would help this discussion.
>
... Deleted are several steps explaining that Jupiter and Saturn can change
    The distance from the Earth to the Sun and therefore change the
    charged particle flux.
>Conclusion:  Short wave radio propigation is changed by the relative
>positions of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn.
>
>According to the article, this person had about 93% success in predicting
>interference.  He never missed, but sometimes the interference he predicted
>did not, in fact, occur.  He, according to the item, made his living by
>forcasting these disturbances to the radio communications companies.
>
>I make no claim as to the accuracy nor to the spelling of the above.
>
>Bob Swenson
>[e-mail]

This is easily proved wrong.  Jupiter is about 1 thousandth the mass of the
Sun and so therefore moves the center of mass of the system about 1/1000
of its distance from the Sun, or about 800,000 km.  Saturn's effect is
about half of that.  Combined Jupiter and Saturn have less than a one
percent effect on the 150,000,000 km distance from the Earth to the Sun.
The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit changes this distance by more than
3 percent.  However, these efects are overshadowed by the variability of
the solar wind.  Both the solar wind speed and the number of particles
change by about 50% over the 11 year solar activity cycle, and there are
lots of short term variations.  On top of this, solar flares can increase
the flux of particles by orders of magnitude.  Solar flares are the real
culprit when it comes to radio interference.

Eric R. Christian                         RADIO INTERFERENCE CAUSED BY ALIEN
[e-mail]                    SPACECRAFT EXHAUST!  --  Future
[e-mail]           Weekly World News article

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

Date: 20 Apr 89 18:17:47 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects flight telerobotic servicer development contractor (Forwarded)

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Michael Braukus
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.


RELEASE:  89-54

NASA SELECTS FLIGHT TELEROBOTIC SERVICER DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTOR


     NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has
selected the Martin Marietta Space Systems Co., Denver, Colo., to
negotiate a cost-plus-award-fee contract for the flight
telerobotic servicer (FTS) for use in the assembly and
maintenance of Space Station Freedom, scheduled to be deployed in
the mid-1990's.

     The contract, expected to be effective on July 1, 1989, will
consist of the delivery of flight hardware and software for three
missions which consist of two demonstration test flights (DTF)
aboard the Space Shuttle and an operational system for Space
Station Freedom.  In addition, the contract will contain an
option for engineering support during the life of the contract.

     The total cost, excluding fee, as proposed by Martin
Marietta for the basic effort, is approximately $297 million with
an additional cost of almost $6 million for the option.

     The contract will provide for the design, development, test,
integration, launch support, training and ground support systems,
mission operations support and sustaining engineering of all
hardware and software required for the FTS program missions.  It
also includes two Space Shuttle DTF's and the launch of the final
FTS on one of the S.S. Freedom assembly flights.  This effort,
anticipated to extend through 1998, will be performed primarily
at Martin Marietta's facilities in Denver, Colo.

     A key element of the Freedom program, the FTS will employ
technolgies not used on previous NASA spacecraft.  Spinoffs from
robotic technologies developed in the FTS program are expected to
advance U.S. industrial automation capabilities.

     Space Station Freedom will be a permanently manned base in
low-Earth orbit for conducting scientific research, developing
new technologies and enabling human exploration of the solar
system.  The United States, Japan, Canada and nine European
countries, through the European Space Agency, are contributing
elements to the program and will share in its utilization.  A
crew of eight will permanently work and live aboard Freedom,
which will be designed to operate for several decades, well into
the 21st century.

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

Date: 18 Apr 89 05:05:40 GMT
From: peregrine!ccicpg!cci632!rit!ultb!ritcsh![e-mail]  (John Bisaillon)
Subject: Equations of artificial satellites' motions wanted


    I am planning to write software that will predict common and useful
information about the position and motion of an artificial satellite.
I want to be able to just input the time and the current orbital elements of
a particular satellite.  I need to know the equations of motion that
use orbital elements and a given time to predict the three dimensional
position of the satellite.  Extremely high accuracy in terms of calculations
is not needed.  Any infomormation on existing equivalent public domain
software is also appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

--

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

Date: 21 Apr 89 01:27:52 GMT
From: leah![e-mail]  (Steven H Schimmrich)
Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Creation of a sci.earth newsgroup.


   I would be interested  in  seeing  the  creation  of  an  unmoderated
newsgroup  entitled SCI.EARTH as a forum for discussion of topics within
the earth  sciences.

   There currently exist no newsgroups  for  the  discussion  of  topics
within  the  fields of geology, meteorology, and oceanography other than
where they might fit into other SCI newsgroups (groups such as  SCI.BIO,
SCI.ASTRO, SCI.PHYSICS, SCI.CHEM, SCI.SPACE, etc.).  I believe that this
would be a broad enough  newsgroup  (encompassing  such  disciplines  as
geology,    seismology,    paleontology,    meteorology,    climatology,
oceanography,  etc.),   one   that   would   generate   interest   among
non-professionals  in  the  above  fields  (I can envison discussions on
earthquake risks, the extinction of the dinosaurs, certain  claims  made
by  creationists, ice ages, the changing climate, the greenhouse effect,
el nino, etc.), and one that would fill a  definite  gap  (there  is  no
analogous newsgroup -- especially for geology-related topics).

   This posting is to find out if there is enough interest out there  in
net  land for the creation of a SCI.EARTH newsgroup. If there is, a call
for votes will be the next step.

   THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR VOTES -- Don't send them!

 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
| Steven H. Schimmrich                    | Internet : [e-mail] |
| Department of Geological Sciences       |  "The Rock Men are very primitive |
| State University of New York at Albany  | Flash, they have no science."     |
| Albany, New York 12222  [phone]  |                      Dr. Zarkhov. |
 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

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

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 17:42:06 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold fusion neutron flux anomaly explained
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

An article in yesterday's _Los Angeles Times_ reported experiments at
Stanford that had detected Helium-4 as a product of the Pons-Fleischmann
experiment.  This suggests that instead of decaying into He-3 and a neutron,
as in "normal" fusion, the He-4 is so tightly contained within the palladium
lattice that it transfers its energy to the lattice through heat and only
rarely emits a neutron, explaining the low neutron counts.

Stanford also reported that they had performed the same experiment with
H2O instead of D2O (which P-F had reportedly notdone because it would have
damaged the elctrode, which was expensive -- this from _New Scientist_),
and detected no heat.  This thing is looking better all the time.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 19 Apr 89 17:16:32 GMT
From: mitel!sce!cognos!geovision![e-mail]  (Gord Deinstadt)
Subject: Re: Geostar

I'm looking for the address (email or regular), or a phone number,
for Geostar.  They're the people that make a navigation system using
satellite transponders.  Also, is there anybody else in this business?
Send replies to gd@geovision, or post them if you don't mind boring
everybody else in sci.space.

Enquiring truckers want to know...

Thanks.

Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with GeoVision. I'm posting this
on behalf of another person in my consulting company.
--
Gord Deinstadt           [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 13:21:12 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Space shuttle acceleration limits (was RE:Unmanned shuttle advantages)

With regard to the 3g acceleration limit, I assume that this is the
nominal limit for a mission provided nothing goes wrong. If the
mission has to be aborted early in the launch the maneuver required to
return to ground results in accelerations up to 7g. I also recall
(although this is a little fuzzy) that when we did the vibration
testing of the ATMOS experiment for SPACELAB 3 that the accelerations
went up to 10g.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 89 15:11:13 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unmanned shuttle advantages

mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ziebmef![e-mail]  (Matthew Francey) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]>SA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes:
>> And then you can fly missions that are outside the envelope of human
>> comfort/survivability, e.g. duration (no running out of air), acceleration
>> (high g forces), radiation (flying during solar flares),... anyone got any mo>re ideas?

[...]

> if payload weight is a problem, why not split it into two shuttle
>     launches?  They are, after all, supposed to be cheap...

"supposed" is the operative word here... I suspect that there was a :-)
missing from your posting.  Besides, some large vehicles do not divide
easily in half (otherwise we might have been tempted to retain the
Atlas-Centaur booster for Galileo).

>    Remember that the shuttle was designed as a thing to get stuff into
>orbit and then come back for some more.  Flying a thing like that into really
>weird orbits or under "anomalous" conditions is probably not a good idea.

The original posting was talking about the *Soviet* shuttle, and I'm not
sure that they would have designed Buran in the way you describe given that
they also decided to design it free from the need for human presence.  A
poster appeared to claim that this provided negligible advantage and I was
taking issue with them.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 21 Apr 89 05:29:03 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (steve emmerson) writes:
>There are some of us out here who support the exploration and utilization
>of space and yet who also believe that the development of the proposed
>space station is an inefficient (and hence inappropriate) expenditure of
>scarce resources.
>
>Just a reminder ;-).
>--

Another reminder. NASA is a government bureaucracy and so is by its nature
inefficient. Furthermore, government is the only current source of the amount
money needed to build large scale space hardware (with the possible exception
of unmanned satellite launchers). So we're pretty much stuck with that
inefficiency.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #386
*******************