Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_5/V9_584.ZIP/V9_584

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.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/kYqf3ny00UkV83HE5U>;
          Sat,  5 Aug 89 05:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  5 Aug 89 05:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #584

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 584

Today's Topics:
           Re: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
        Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)
              Re: Neil Armstrong
          Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST
              Re: Neil Armstrong
            powering down old experiments
             Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
          Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST
              Re: Neil Armstrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 16:25:16 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

I am sympathetic to Eugene Miya.  The tenor of rec.space is in general
the most strident of any newsgroup I read.  It is not that some of the
complaints are not justified (to say they are or are not would require
both a level of knowledge and interest I do not possess) but that after
a while it simply becomes numbing, and it goes in one ear and out the
other.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | [phone]                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 17:59:44 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!clmqt![e-mail]  (J.A. Fegan)
Subject: Re: Catch-A-Planet (was:Re:Curiosity)

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Clayton Cramer):
#
# Some of the very oldest Egyptian writings refer to Sirius as being
# red -- which is clearly isn't.  I've seen the claim made that Sirius
# B may have been much larger and red giant in the past -- but not
# recently enough for the Egyptians to have seen Sirius as red, without
# a significant rewrite of astrophysics.


But was Sirius (if it ever was a red giant) in this state at about the time
the Egyptians were saying it was red?  Doesn't it take a while for a star
to change from a Red Giant to a Blue Giant?

--
Never be backward wen visitors kum;      | mailrus!sharkey!lopez!preacher
Don't sit there quiet like a sap         |--------------------------------
Be sociable!  Tell'em wot momma called pa
When she found the maid parked on his lap. -- Tha Return Uv Snowshoe Al

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 15:08:50 GMT
From: ncspm![e-mail]  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong


There's always a reference to Neil Armstrong as a civilian, which he was when
he was an astronaut, but wasn't he a Navy pilot, er, aviator before he flew
X-15's?

How many astronauts, other than shuttle mission or payload specialists, have
there been who were never in the military?  I am using the strict definition
of astronaut = someone who has been in space on a NASA mission.

--
"Good.  For a minute I thought we were in trouble."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: [e-mail]        internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 11:39:08 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!sunic!sics.se![e-mail]  (Bruno Poterie)
Subject: Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>   Ariane 5 development program will probably slip several months and perhaps
>   longer, because a US-built solid-fuel-mixing machine destined for Kourou
>   is being diverted to US solid-rocket manufacturer Hercules to replace a
>   mixer damaged in an accident early this year.  The mixer was to reach
>   Kourou in early fall to be incorporated into the Ariane 5 SRB manufacturing
>   plant, along with another mixer to arrive late in the year.  Worse, the
>   second mixer may be delayed because the first one needs to be reworked to
>   fit Hercules's needs, and manpower is short.  The Europeans are Not Pleased,
>   and are urging the US to deliver the mixers as originally scheduled, saying
>   that Hercules has others.  "This could go down as another black day in
>   European-US space relations, and it comes at a time when Europe already
>   is questioning the reliability of the US as a partner..."

Same kind of attitude already pushed the French, long ago, to launch a rocket
study which eventually evolved into current Ariane. Surprise! I suppose that now
we will have to build a mixer factory, thereby depriving the Americans of this
market share (and of others as well). Keep on doing the good job ;-! ;-) ;-)

Which firm was building those mixers? I bet that it is a private company.
If confirmed, this is one more reason to doubt about the validity of the "private"
approach. If Arianespace had had a contract with the NASA or with another
government or official agency, it would have been respected. But what can you
expect from a private compagny who does not respect commercial contracts?
Go to a conccurent next time? Attack it in a US tribunal? Ah!
There was this insert in Newsweek recently (or was it another weekly?) where
former NASA head said that the leaders of space commercial activities are already
and will increasingly be the Europeans, because "they have the will and the
organisation". The will, you Americans certainly do have it as well, but not
the organisation - rather, not the will of an organisation as i see it on this
forum. Well, i much prefer expensive public NASA to this cheap private company.
A question of trust, i suppose.

Disclaimer: those are my opinions and mine only.
Bruno Poterie, Martian.
Vive l'Europe!
email: [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 20:11:04 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay C. Smith) writes:

>There's always a reference to Neil Armstrong as a civilian, which he was when
>he was an astronaut, but wasn't he a Navy pilot, er, aviator before he flew
>X-15's?

Neil, like Fred Haise, was a NASA civilian (civil service) test pilot
at Flight Research Center (now Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility)
at Edwards, CA.  They were already NASA employees, so weren't hired
by JSC, but transferred.

Joe Engle was an Air Force pilot who flew the X-15.  He wasn't
employeed by NASA, just assigned to the program.  We frequently
have military pilots here on joint projects.

>How many astronauts, other than shuttle mission or payload specialists, have
>there been who were never in the military?  I am using the strict definition
>of astronaut = someone who has been in space on a NASA mission.

I think all of the flight crews (i.e. people flying the vehicle) were
military.  This is built into the requirements.  Test pilot implies
test pilot school implies military, for example.  If you're looking
for high-performance jet aircraft time, you're looking for military
pilots.

Mission specialists and payload specialists aren't flight crew and I
think most of them are non-military.  There were some scientists who
flew in the pre-Shuttle era, too.  Harrison Schmitt was a geologist,
not a pilot.  Some of these people may be veterans, but this wasn't
related to their selection.

We have had three test pilots here who weren't _exactly_ U S military--
they were Air National Guard pilots.  This is hair-splitting, I think,
because they're trained by the Air Force, fly Air Force aircraft, and
meet Air Force standards; they're just paid by the state government
rather than the federal government.  But I don't think any Guard pilots
have become astronauts.
--

M F Shafer                          [e-mail]
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 03:34:35 GMT
From: att!tellab5![e-mail]  (Al Zantow)
Subject: powering down old experiments

>>APOLLO-11 LUNAR EXPERIMENT STILL USEFUL AFTER 20 YEARS
>>
>    And a whole bunch of the powered experiments might still be useful
>if they hadn't been turned off in the 70's.  The same wonderful cost
>effectiveness that nearly turned off the DSN for Voyager's Neptune
>encounter.
>--

    I seem to recall that they shut down some of the Viking (?) or
Mariner craft on Mars to "save money".   How does shuting off some
equipment that cost BUCKS DELUXE to put there save money?  Is this stuff
powered by a mighty long extension cord or what?  It seems to me that
it costs nothing to leave it on, you can always turn off the Earth side
station and later turn on the Earth side equipment again.  I know that
you would probably loose track of distant equipment, but it seems that
the possiblity of re-establishing contact is better than killing it
for good.  Maybe it's to justify the need for more missions  8-)  8-)

(Yes, I know new equipment can do a much better job, and I support
putting more up there, it's just that I think we could use the old too.)

"Physics is fun, unless your personally involved"  -"Alvis of the Labs"

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

Date:         Tue, 25 Jul 89 10:15:10 EDT
From: Leonard Abbey <[e-mail]>

How can I get back issues of Space Digest?

Thanks.



Leonard Abbey
Georgia Tech
Research Institute
[e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 23:44:15 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>This is easy to believe -- I cannot imagine Henry's views being welcome
>at much of any level within NASA.  I would just point out that
>convincing NASA staff is not the only legitimate agenda for
>editorializing here.  The opinions of informed, educated and interested
>citizens (such as one imagines reads the newsgroup) are worth much more,
>if only by sheer numbers (though I have high regard for NASA grunts, as,
>I think, does Henry).

You have to be careful with information.  It's value changes with time,
sometimes it is not correct, sometimes half-correct [worse].  Although the work
we do is supposedily in the public domain, it can't all be.  We have
contractors, and people reading who bid on contracts, etc.  Agreements
get made, etc.  I speak from
the experience of getting burned once( or was that twice?).  You
should not generally trust me to say everything I know (very little
anyway), nor should you (reader, not just Tom) expect to believe
anything that Henry, Dale, or anyone posts to the net.

>That's because I'm cheerleading more than I'm honestly questioning.  We
>NEED to do this.  It would be a bonanza for science and, if properly
>managed, for public perception.  What kind of bucks would Spielberg
>contribute to this for the sake of (a) a kick-a** planetary journey
>he could produce and present on 70mm movie screens, and (b) immortality.
>If someone knew how to sell our real life Solar System the way they sell
>BATMAN, the sky would be the limit, or so it seems to me.

It kind of depends.  You have to make some distinction between reality
(science) and what we desire: we desired to find intelligent life,
or at least life on other planets.  Science is a study, a search for
truth and understanding.  Part of the motivation is romantic.  The planetary
program has done a surprising amount to "shatter people's dreams:"
Oh it's just another planet with craters...  Bradbury and others had
comments made to them about this prior to Viking.  So the issue
isn't entirely public perception.  Is all science exciting? [Wasn't
this a Monty Python skit?]   I don't think sell or immorality are the
right words.  I mean, I know what I get out of science, but it's not
something at everybody appreciates (otherwise I would expect to see more
of my elementary school companions, and I don't).

>Completely solvable.  The AI wonks posit totally self sufficient rovers,
>which I consider an evident shuck -- I'd orbit a powerful CPU and engage
>in hour long exploration programs at most, with frequent ground based
>interaction.  At all events it's a purely technical issue, and could
>be handled with the proper funding.

Sounds great.  Convince the manned space people. 8)

>>Just so long as you don't have the short-term "must have it now"
>>mentality.  Space is big, really big...... 8)
>
>I challenge the Miya-creature to define "now."  I would like to have a
>tub of Martian soil in the JPL vaults before the century is out.  I
>think we have everything we need to do it, except the will.  If we
>insist on taking meat there next after the paparazzi orbiters,
>however, it won't happen.

We didn't have vaults at JPL, we had warehouses, sort of like that one
at the end of the 1st Indiana Jones movie (remember?  "We have top men..").
I know people who would like Martian soil now and could use it (planetary
science program at Caltech for instance).
I use "now" in the present tense for the general public.  You won't
have a dialogue like people talking between Earth and Moon.  Consider
light travel time from here to Mars.

My point is that the public has a very short memory, attention span.
Alderin made a comments about that today on a visit.  We (people)
have to be willing to engage in projects we may not see in our lifetimes,
nor will directly involve us.  If it has to absolutely be YOU, who goes
into orbit, then maybe, none of us goes.  The attention span problem
(called "Crisis management" in some areas), is pervasive in other
areas: education, business/manufacturing, urban problems, economic
competitiveness.  We have to deal with this.  We have to be willing
to elect people who think beyond their next election.  To start
projects (non-DOD) which go into the next Century [isn't it amazing
how the DOD is able to do this?].

"Now" means we get bored because it takes months or years to fly to
another planet.  It slips from sight and mind.  So boring that we
start planning the next mission before the first completes [both
good and bad] and fail to integrate new information into these missions.
Never getting anything done.
"Now" must mean we have to change and start to think about this in
the long-term.  Not just for the show or flash, or the glitt-zzzz
That's just surface stuff, lacking substance.  That's Hollywood.
"Now" must mean converting the unconverted, not preaching to converts
(those that read space nets).  Those Congress critters who you might not
have heard speak against Bush's space comments.  Comments which
might disappear from memory after next's week's impending political crisis.
(Just like Exxon, not forgetting we all buy gas).

Anyways, time to go do some real work.

>btw I bet the NASA readership doesn't comment on me much either, after
>the "Dance Band" parody  :-)

What parody? I don't read much (I have to go back to the cave, my
newsrc tells me so).  NO one tells me anything.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
                  Live free or die.

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 16:14:13 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com!gary.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: space news from June 26 AW&ST

re: the solid propellant mixer for Ariane 5

My understanding is that it was to be purchased by Arianespace from a private company. At
a guess, I'd say that US Gov't approval would be required to export a propellant mixer,
but that would have been the limit of Gov't involvement.

However, some Gov't agency has decided that replacing the mixer in the Hercules plant is
of strategic importance and has diverted the mixer being built for Arianespace. I don't
think you can blame the manufacturer for that; it is Gov't interference. All they have
to do is revoke the export license.

However, it doesn't alter your basic point... in space activities, the US just is not a
reliable partner. I'm sure all countries have policies that could affect, say, launch
assignments at times of strategic need (e.g. I think the need to launch a replacement
for the malfunctioning French Telecom shuffled the Ariane launch manifest slightly)
but when combined with apparently haphazard changes in national space policies,
especially those surrounding commercial space activity, it is no wonder that other
countries get nervous.

NASA refusal to launch satellites that may compete with Intelsat was one of the driving
forces behind the French Diamant launchers and the later Ariane series. Ever wonder why
the Diamant first stage burned turpentine and nitric acid? The US refused to export the
hydrazine that they wanted to use.

gary
(hughes @star.dec.com)

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 15:33:33 GMT
From: dinl![e-mail]  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hix) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Fred Sabernick) writes:
|>
|> There is a humorous but rather unflattering story about Neil Armstrong in
|> Chuck Yeager's autobiography _Yeager_. The gist of the story is that
|> [...Neil does a touch and go on a dry lake and gets stuck in the mud...]
|
|Another story was that he attempted to taxi a Century-series fighter
|all the way to the hangar after shutting down the engine.  The only
|problem was that the hydraulic system ran off the engine, and there
|was only enough pressure to steer into position...but not enough to
|operate the brakes.  (And they *told* him not to try it.)
|
Sorry, that was Scott Crossfield, someone else who Yeager apparently didn't
think too highly of.  And it was a failure of the utility hydraulic system.
Crossfield hadn't read the operating handbook very well it seems.

--
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd            *
CFI Aspen Flying Club            * Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.                *
*******************************************************************************

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #584
*******************