Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_4/V9_413.ZIP/V9_413

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/QYMfUZy00UkZR6Hk46>;
          Sat,  6 May 89 05:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  6 May 89 05:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #413

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 413

Today's Topics:
        Re: Private spending for space science
               SETI:  What has it done
          orbital element tracking software
                  Re: Tesla
              Re: Smart Pebbles
              Re: Smart Pebbles
             Re: Magellan update
                RE: Near miss
          Re: B E M (was Space Shuttle Attacked ...)
              RE: Smart Pebbles
            Re: KH12 for astronomy
     Re: Myth: Only a Government can ... and space week question.
        Re: Private spending for space science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 May 89 21:20:10 GMT
From: thorin!alanine![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>We have millions of people who believe in funding space research.

    We have polls showing millions of people support NASA.  Those same
polls show that they support government entitlement programs to a far
greater degree (for good reason :-).  There are very few govt.
activities the public does *not* support to a greater degree than
NASA, at least in the polls I've seen.

>Let the people who believe in space fund it.  But do not ask them to fund it
>under the control of the government.

    I give the Space Studies Institute $300/year (to increase once I
have a real income), along with a few thousand other people
contributing similar amounts. This is a far greater level of support
than the typical "space activist". If a significant fraction of these
"millions of people" did the same, a private space program would be a
reality. Since we don't see this level of support, I think it's fair
to say that the public's interest in space does not extend to
their bank accounts.

    I don't buy the argument that the mere existence of NASA somehow
prevents people from funding non-govt. space activities. That's part
of the whole NASA-bashing ideology that's developed over the last 3
years, which provides lots of inflammatory comments but little
constructive action. There are many ways to help bring about the sort
of space activities we dream of, but many people would rather talk
about how the evil NASA big-aerospace loving statist bureaucrats are
solely responsible for the lack of a vigorous space program, instead
of making a personal commitment of time and money.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    ``Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.''
    - Ronald Reagan

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

Date: 4 May 89 17:40:45 GMT
From: blake![e-mail]  (Eric Gorr)
Subject: SETI:  What has it done

I have heard a lot about SETI and was wondering if all you experts could tell
me what exactly the research has provided.  What I am wondering is along
the lines of the research into the Star-Wars space defence system has
given us better lasors, etc.. and reseach in space travel, has produced
velcro which is used in many other places.

thanx..

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
ReSent-Date: Thu,  4 May 89 08:53:38 -0400 (EDT)
ReSent-From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
ReSent-To: Space <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 03 May 89 18:28:14 CDT
From: "Bill Ball" <[e-mail]>
Subject: orbital element tracking software

Citing (w/o permission) from Jeff Angus, "Expert Systems Take Off"
Infoworld, April 24, 1989, p. 46.

"Joe Burger, an aerospace engineer, is selling a product he used VP Expert
to develop, called Space History. The product is designed to find in the sky
the 2,140 satellites launched since Sputnik, or to try to identify a flying
object as a specific satellite, or retrive general information about world
space programs. The $199 product is available from Space Analysis &
Research Inc., 6957 Blackhawk Place, Colorado Springs, Co. 80919; (719)
599-3886."



No connection with any of the above, just thought some of y'all would be
interested...............


Bill Ball                           BITNET: c476721@UMCVMB
Dept. Political Science             INTERNET: [e-mail]
U. Missouri - Columbia

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

Date: 3 May 89 15:37:22 GMT
From: aablue![e-mail]  (John B Scalia)
Subject: Re: Tesla

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Sparks) writes:
>I am feeling picky today, so sue me :-)
>
> [Reference to prior article about Tesla inventions and a possible
>  government cover-up deleted]
>
>Photocopying?!? In 1945?!? I don't think so.
>
Uh, John. In case you haven't noticed this year is the 50th anniversary
of Chester Carlson's invention: xerography. In fact, in 1945 the Haloid/
Xerox Company produced and sold a unit known as the Xerox Standard. (As
told to me just this morning, by a Xerox rep who used to work on them.)
Why, if you haven't noticed, they even introduced all their newest units
with numbers beginning with 50 to commemorate this!

>Ok, Ok. so I got carried away. But it does sound flakey doesn't it? Like
>something you would read in the National Enquirer. But I guess anything is
>possible (except touching your elbow to your nose)  :-)

I think you got a little carried away, but don't worry about it. IMHO,
Tesla was a very brilliant man, but even he got a little carried away. :-)

--
A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio [phone] voice
UUCP:       {uunet!}aablue!jb    Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
FidoNet:   1:157/697        wants to spend their life in an institution.
EchoNet:   US:OH/AKR.0

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

Date: 3 May 89 13:26:31 GMT
From: ssc-vax![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> "Brilliant Pebbles" is aiming at things one or two
> orders of magnitude smaller than that.  (The earlier KE weapons are called
> "smart rocks".)

Will the next stage of development be "Genius Sand?"

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

Date: 4 May 89 15:31:58 GMT
From: uflorida!indri!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
}> "Brilliant Pebbles" is aiming at things one or two
}> orders of magnitude smaller than that.  (The earlier KE weapons are called
}> "smart rocks".)
}
}Will the next stage of development be "Genius Sand?"


Yes.

subscribe to sci.nanotech.  Group description follows:
sci.nanotech            Self-reproducing molecular-scale machines. (Moderated)

Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"
                    - D. Duck

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

Date: 4 May 89 16:45:32 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stuart Warmink) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
> > [later Magellan launch windows are more fuel efficient]
> >     So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
> > window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
> > injection? Atmospheric drag?

> The batteries of the IUS and Magellan would run out of juice - Magellan's
> solar panels won't be deployed until after the IUS burns.

Oops - Magellan's solar panels *will* be deployed before the IUS burn, so it
is just the IUS's batteries that can run down. I am not sure if the IUS's
inertial navigation system can keep the necessary accuracy if left in orbit
for a few weeks or so, either.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 4 May 89 13:54:54 CDT
From: [e-mail] (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law)
Subject: RE: Near miss

[e-mail] writes:

>When you start thinking about Tunguska, the early 70's pass above, the
>.5M mile misses of really big stuff in the last 25 years ...  it makes
>you feel like you're sitting on the bulls eye of some cosmic dart
>game.

As my father might have said, "Shit son, we ain't even on the board!"

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
[e-mail]              |
[phone]                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

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

Date: 3 May 89 15:18:29 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi![e-mail]  (Clive)
Subject: Re: B E M (was Space Shuttle Attacked ...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law) writes:
>haven!vrdxhq!daitc!ida.org![e-mail]  (Eric Roskos) reports:
>>London's respected Daily Star newspaper

"Daily Star", "respected", cough, choke, etc.
It is difficult to cope with these two in the same sentence.

>>which has a circulation of 1.3 million

Good heuristic for UK national papers:
the higher the circulation, the ...
... lower the respectability
... smaller the physical size
... larger the typeface
... lower the s/n ratio
... lower the amount of news in it
... higher the number of nipples per issue.
--
Clive D.W. Feather           [e-mail]
IXI Limited                  ...!mcvax!ukc!acorn!ixi!clive (untested)
                             [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 4 May 89 13:44:08 CDT
From: [e-mail] (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law)
Subject: RE: Smart Pebbles

att!oucsace![e-mail]  (Mike Stuard) asks:

>If this is to be a space based weapon why would there be ground based test
>of this nature.  I would think that the manuverability and acceleration
>requirements would be different in orbit than in a 1g atmospheric situation.
>We know that it can accelerate at at least 1g and is quite manuverable
>(based on the apparent stability during the hoverv) but what real data about
>its capabilities in orbit can be determined in this test.

The reason for not testing outside, to say nothing of space, is that to
do so violates some provision of the ABM Treaty, which our glorious leaders
have already decided may or may not apply in some or all of the circumstances
here, sort of.

Anyways, my understanding of this weapon is that it will be about 20cm in
diameter, and may have some sort of contact explosive to enhance the impact
damage, but not a warhead.

And what happens when one decides to shoot at the shuttle?

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
[e-mail]              |
[phone]                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

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

Date: 4 May 89 21:25:07 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (les.j.wu)
Subject: Re: KH12 for astronomy

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>                                        ......  The KH-12 optics, on the
> other hand, are probably similar to those of the Hubble telescope.
> But the sensors almost certainly aren't designed for it.  The optics are
> probably up to the job, but the sensors are designed for looking at
> brightly-lit objects through a blurry atmosphere going past at 8 kps, not
> for long exposures of faint objects far away.
>
> Besides, have you seen *any* photos taken through those birds?  Of course
> not.  And you know why, too.  If such photos existed, they'd be secret.
> --
> Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> 2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

Actually, some photos of a Russian ship yard were published a couple of
years ago by Jane's Defense Weekly.  The guy who leaked them was
prosecuted and went to prison.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les J. Wu                    AT&T Bell Laboratories
(UUCP) att!whuxr!ljw                One Whippany Road
(arpa) [e-mail]        WH 14A-260
                        Whippany, NJ 07981
*** STANDARD DISCLAIMERS APPLY ***        Tel: [phone]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 1 May 89 21:46:36 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can ... and space week question.

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (William Baxter):
) In article <[e-mail]>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
))                               Why don't you
))speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily
))spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such.
)
) Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already
) spending money on their own launch systems.

Hercules Aerospace is not a small company. They are spending hundreds
of millions of dollars of their own money on getting into the private
space launch business.

As the DOD/NASA trough dries up expect to see more and more major
aerospace companies going into private space in a big way. All these
companies are in business to make money. When they can't make it off
of the government they will figure out how to make it off the private
sector.

Graham-Ruddman(sp?) may be the key to private space operations.

            Bob P.

P.S.

What are you doing to celebrate space week? It looks like we have
enough displays lined up to fill a shopping mall, a planetarium, and a
convention center. With any luck we will have both astronauts and
cosmonauts as guest speakers. It looks like we will have displays from
both NASA and the Soviet Union also.

It is, after all, the twentieth anniversary.
--
-              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
- UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet
-
-             Reality is stranger than most can imagine.

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

Date: 4 May 89 17:24:25 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Marc Bonin)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
> >Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
> >undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
> >expense in the next 20 years? ...
>
> Why assume that *industry* has to do it?  What about the National Geographic
> Society?  Or a university consortium?
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   You are forgetting something here.  Where would universities get the money
to fund a research project like this??  Probably the same place they get most
of their research funds. The biggest source of research funding in the U.S.
are ( ask any grad student :-) )

             (1)  Dod
             (2) National Science Foundation (NSF)  and other gov agencies

    So saying that universities could replace government funded space probes
is a bit circular.

     I do like the idea of a National Geographic sponsored probe

   "Contribute $100 and get a 24 x 36 full color print of Saturn "



                        Marc Bonin



                    Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
                   University of Texas at Austin

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #413
*******************