Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_4/V9_456.ZIP/V9_456

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/AYSeKf600UkZA0y05S>;
          Wed, 24 May 89 08:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 24 May 89 08:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #456

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 456

Today's Topics:
              Mars Rover Status
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #448
        Re:Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #432
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #440
   Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)
            Re: asteroid almost hits earth
            Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
                 Launch noise
         Re: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)
          Geosynchronous debris cleanup law?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 May 89 17:07:29 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Mars Rover Status

Perhaps someone from JPL can answer this one.

I've been looking at the technical papers published on the Mars rover
project, and the article "A Vision System for a Mars rover" in SPIE
Mobile Robots II (1987) says that the planned launch date is 1998.

Is this still the current launch date, and has NASA made a commitment
to fly the rover yet?  If not, when does NASA need to commit the
funding in order to meet the 1998 launch date?  Do the chances seem
good that NASA will do it?

            Thanks in advance,

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 21:16-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #448

> While going through old papers, etc, I found a rather faded newspaper clipping
> which I thought this group would "enjoy".  I don't have a date on it, but


This sound like James Oberg. There was an article on this idea in OMNI
magazine also, which was definitely by Oberg.

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

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 03:26-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke


The Italian-NASA tethered ionospheric probe was scheduled to
fly this year until the Challenger explosion. I read a new
date for it recently, perhaps 1991.  Here are some older
references on orbital tethers, technical and fictional:

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

Y. Artsutanov, V Kosmos na Elektrovoze (To Space by Funicular Railway),
Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 31, 1960
(contents described in Lvov, Science 158, p 946, November 17, 1967).

J.D. Isaacs, A.C. Vine, H. Bradner, G.E. Bachus, Satellite Elongation
into a True "Sky-Hook", Science 151 p 682, February 11, 1966 and 152,
p 800, May 6, 1966.

Y. Artsutanov, (The Cosmic Wheel), Znanije-Sile (Knowledge is Power)
No. 7  p 25, 1969.

G. Polyakov, A Space "Necklace" About the Earth.
NASA technical memorandum TM-75174,
(translation of "Kosicheskoye 'Ozhere'ye' Zemli " in
Teknika Molodezhi, No. 4, 197, pp. 41-43)

J. Pearson, The Orbital Tower: A Spacecraft Launcher Using the Earth's
Rotational Energy, Acta Astronautica 2, p 785,  September/October 1975.

J. Pearson, Using The Orbital Tower to Launch Earth Escape Payloads Daily,
27'th IAF Congress, Anaheim, Ca., October 1976. AIAA paper IAF 76-123.

J. Pearson, Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cis-Lunar Transportation
and Communication, European Conference on Space Settlements and Space
Industries, London, England, September 20, 1977. in Journal of the
Astronautical Sciences.

H.P. Moravec, A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook, 23rd AIAA
Meeting, The Industrialization of Space, San Francisco, Ca., October
18-20, 1977, also Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 25,
October-December, 1977.

Roger D. Arnold and Donald Kingsbury,  The Spaceport,
Part 1: Analog v99 #11  November 1979  pp 48:67  and
Part 2: Analog v99 #12  December 1979  pp 61:77

J. Pearson, Lunar Anchored Satellite Test, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference,
Palo Alto, Ca., August 7-9, 1978, AIAA paper 78-1427.

H.P. Moravec, Skyhook!, L5 News, August 1978.

Arthur C. Clarke, The Fountains of Paradise,
    Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1978.

Charles Sheffield, The Web Between the Worlds, Ace SF, 1979.

Charles Sheffield, How to Build a Beanstalk,
    Destinies Vol 1 #4, Aug-Sep 79, pp 41:68,  Ace books.

Charles Sheffield, Skystalk, Destinies Vol 1 #4, Aug-Sep 79, pp 7:39

H.P. Moravec, Cable Cars in the Sky, in The Endless Frontier, Vol. 1,
Jerry Pournelle, ed., Grosset & Dunlap, Ace books, November 1979, pp. 301-322.

R.L. Forward and H.P. Moravec,  High Wire Act, Omni, Omni publications
international, New York, July 1981, pp. 44-47.

Charles Sheffield, Summertide, Destinies Vol 3 #2, Aug 81, pp 16:84

Report on the Utilization of the External Tanks of the Space
Transportation System, proceedings of a workshop held at the
UC San Diego, La Jolla, California, August 23-27, 1982,
under NASA contract  #NAS 8-35037 from the Marshall Space
Flight Center.  ** Section III: Tethers and External Tanks **

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

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 18:52-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #432

> in a plane, I take the risk; not my lawyer.  Let the ones who are willing to
> take the risks reach for the skies, the rest of you can stay on the ground
> and argue about the legal aspects.

I heartily agree. If you are afraid to die, go live in a deep hole.

I can't even afford an airplane because of all the rich lawyers, and
I'm really kind of sick of it. My recommendation is that we chuck them
all out the air lock. Let the wimps stay on the ground and huddle
together looking for absolute safety. I'll take my chances shooting for
the stars.

There is no difference between procedural slip ups, human error, human
miscalculation and hardware faults.  They are part of the risk
calculation. On new systems, the risk is unknown. If you are realistic
about it, you will go into each flight assuming you could buy the farm. And
then you just don't worry about it cause you'll never know what hit you
anyway. If you return in one piece, you flip your lucky penny and go
have a drink.

No, I am not know and never have been a test pilot. But I've been in
risk situations that would curl your hair. And my attitude is
unchanged. I take a risk. I accept the associated unknowns. What
happens is my own responsibility. Caveat Emptor is the whole of the
law.

    "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" -- W. Shakespeare
                    Dale Amon

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

Date: Sun, 21 May 1989 20:15-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #440

>         A book I highly recommend to those of you who want to join and/or
>    form various space groups and need some background information on
>    doing so can obtain this help from Michael A. G. Michaud's 1986 book,

My one claim to fame and I got left out of the book! He described the
startup of "Scientists for A Manned Space Station" effort back in about
1984, something that I had a fairly hefty role in. Some of the old
timers on Space Digest may remember it. (ah the misguided efforts of
youth). :-)

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

Date: 21 May 89 18:42:57 GMT
From: tekbspa!optilink![e-mail]  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nichael Cramer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nichael Cramer) writes:
# ## #Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ?
# ##
# ## I don't remember the numbers (in species/yr) offhand, but I've read
# ## arguements (e.g. by S J Gould) that claim that we are *now* in the midst of
# ## the one of greatest (if not in fact _the_ greatest) of mass extinctions of
# ## all time.
# ##
# ## If I recall right, the numbers work out to ~1 species/100,000 increase in
# ## human population.
# #
# #I've read that the current rate of extinction is about 15 species/century --
# #which is clearly far lower than ~1 species/100,000 increase in human
# #population.
#
# CLAYTON
#
# I checked my source for the above after I got home last night, and he was
# claiming a loss of 10,000 species/yr but he didn't cite any sources.  This
# does sound very high.  But on the other hand, it seems equally difficult to
# believe we've only lost 13-14 species in all of the 20th century.  (I've
# also seen figures in the 1-10/yr range.)
#
# Do you (or anyone else) have specific references for what the actual value
# of this rate is?
#
# Thanks
# NICHAEL

Nope.  I sure would like to see some numbers.  Now that I think about
it, I think what I had read (in a newspaper, so probably false) was
that over the time man has been on the planet, there has been an
average loss of 15 species/century -- not the same as the rate for
this century.

--
Clayton E. Cramer                   {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Assault rifle possession is a victimless crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: 22 May 89 16:49:21 GMT
From: xanth![e-mail]  (John K Hayes)
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>/* Written  9:06 am  May 17, 1989 by [e-mail] in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
>>this occurs corresponds roughly to the K-T boundary.  They estimate the meteor
>>to have been about 6 miles across which would produce the equivilent of
>>10,000 times all the world's nuclear explosives.
>
>>    ---{john hayes}  Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA
>/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
>
>Would this not create the greatest of all earthquakes? I have read
>peoples comments on meteor hits in the past, but have not seen any
>reference to this aspect of it. You could be on the opposite side
>of the planet from the hit, and when the shock wave traveled the
>distance through the planet, the ground below you would suddenly
>jump many feet up and down. Monster waves would also occur on the
>oceans I would think. The entire planet would reverberate. I wonder
>how long it would take to settle down.
>
>Al Irwin



Yes, it would seem to explain how practically all life would have been
destroyed.  I'm sure it would have taken quite a while for things to settle
down and new life to develop.  The article describes these massive extinctions
as a rebirth of the planet with one dominant species being replaced by the
next.  I wonder who's next....
--
    ---{john hayes}  Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA
                     internet: [e-mail]
                     Home: [phone]     Work: [phone] ext 134

                      <++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>
Are you a Have or a Have_Not?  Because if you're a Have_Not, you've probably
had it; whereas, if you're a Have, you've probably got it and are going to
give it away at some point in the future!       --- The Clash
                      <++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++>

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

Date: 22 May 89 23:32:57 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Myers) writes:
> >The ultimate reusable booster!!!
>
> >It never leaves the ground.  Needs no refurbishing before reuse.
> >No need for downrange recovery ships, aircraft, or crews.
>
> >Probably exceeds local noise limits, though.
>
> But was the Columbiad an "assault rifle"?

Nope.  It doesn't accept an n-round clip.

> :-)
>
>
> Bob "Of course, our fine, upstanding American hunters NEED 900-foot-long
>      rifles for SPORTING PURPOSES!" M.

Yow!!  What are they gunning for?!  (Congresscritters are hardly big game,
though they might be classed as varmints.)

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

Date: Mon, 22 May 89 14:28:09 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Launch noise

>From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Clive Feather) writes:
>> The *BIG* cannon in Jules Verne's "From Earth to the Moon" was called
>> the "Columbiad". Close enough ?

>... Probably exceeds local noise limits, though.

This is a legitimate concern for any earth-based ballistic launcher (explosive,
electromagnetic, etc.) Even if the noise of the initial impulse can somehow
be controlled, a projectile of the size generally mentioned would create a
tremendous sonic boom, which I suspect would be painfully loud even many miles
away. This would place constraints on a suitable location for such a launcher.

Have any studies been conducted on the magnitude of the noise problem?
                                      John Roberts
                                      [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 May 89 19:00:22 EDT
From: Colin Hunter <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Magellan Status for 05/19/89 (Forwarded)

From: Colin Hunter

trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee) writes:


>             MAGELLAN STATUS
>             May 19, 1989

:Craft details/problems deleted:

>    SPACECRAFT Distance  From Earth (mi)
>    2,220,474
>
>    Velocity  Geocentric                         5,905 mph
>              Heliocentric                      59,970 mph
>
>    Round Trip Light Time                           12.2 sec

If  you  are only going to give us a date, these figures show considerable
redundancy as far as  accuracy  is  concerned.   It is very interesting to
have the distance from Earth given to 7 significant figures, etc, but this
is meaningless without an equally accurate time also being stated.  Can we
assume noon (GMT, EDT, PDT)?

J. Colin R. Hunter                       |
Department of Microbiology & Immunology  |
University of Maryland at Baltimore      |  BITNET: CHUNTER@UMAB

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

Date: 21 May 89 19:41:40 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto![e-mail]  (Henry Melton)
Subject: Geosynchronous debris cleanup law?



I've just been reading "Adventures in Celestial Mechanics" by Victor G.
Szebehely, 1989 University of Texas Press.  On page 132, is reads:

"Collisions with orbital debris, such as parts of inactive satellites,
rocket bodies, parts of missiles, etc. present very serious danger to
the functioning of satellites, space stations and space vehicles in
general.  At high altitudes, the dispersion of debris is such that the
probability of impact is small.  The geosynchronous altitude is an
exception since only recently it became mandatory that inactive
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
communications satellites be removed.  At low altitudes the probability
of impact is reduced since the "space garbage" sooner or later reenters
the atmosphere and burns up."

What does this mean?  Did somebody pass a law?  Obviously inactive
satellites can't remove themselves.  Is somebody going to fund an
international orbit guard?
--

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #456
*******************