Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_0/V10_004.ZIP/V10_004

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

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/IYyscOa00UkV4HM05w>;
          Wed, 30 Aug 89 03:17:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 03:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #4

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 10 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
                Re: Satellites
         Justification for the Space Station?
             Re: Re: Contractors
              Direct Information
                 Pluto fly-by
    1989 Midwest Space Development Conference @ Purdue University
                 DSP/Rhyolite
              Re: a time capsule
             Re: Neptune on the Boobtube
          Re: Mars Investigation Chronology
              Re: bad Neptune News on TV
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #616
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 89 12:16:47 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: Satellites

Yes there is a new edition. It was 1957 - 1986 if memory serves, and
there may have been one since. The British Library has a copy btw,

Nick

--
Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical
& Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]

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

Date:     Thu, 24 Aug 89 11:38 EST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Justification for the Space Station?

John van Deusen writes:
>Let us consider just one manned space project, the space station.  Keep
>in mind that the current defense budget for protecting the US, Europe,
>and Japan from the world's economic basket case, Russia, is 305 billion
>dollars.

        Economic basketcase, eh?  I guess you must think that Brazil,
Mexico, and the rest of the Third World are examples of economic
miracles/genius.  The problems that the USSR (NOT Russia - that country
hasn't existed for nearly 70 years!) is facing are mainly internal, unlike
the external stranglehold being placed on the world's debtor nations.  I am
not sure which is a preferable plight.  Besides, are we so desparate for
protection from an `economic basketcase'?

> [...stuff deleted...]  Given those problems, one might wonder why we
>would be building a space station?  Our government must really be
>committed to advancing the frontiers, right?  Actually the space station
>is a last-ditch effort to stave off a major depression in the military-
>industrial complex.

        You may not agree with the use of the funds, but putting the
money into exploration makes much more sense than throwing the money
away into the military wormhole.  At least there is a knowledge gain in
exploration - with the military, manufactured substances are just used
up with no gain at all.  You are right, there are better ways of spending
the money, any of which is superior to the military gobbling it up.
Obvious answers are space exploration and pollution control of every
type.  Both require high-tech industries, so that the current
military-industrial complex won't be out of a (pork-barrel) job - they'll
just have to redirect their emphasis and possibly retool.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|  Arnold Gill                          |
|  Queen's University at Kingston       |
|  BITNET:    gill@qucdnast             |
|  INTERNET:  [e-mail]  |
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 15:45:32 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Contractors

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>still considerably different from the claims by some people that the
>expansion of private launch services will almost immediately cause launch
>costs to drop by a factor of 50 (or 100 or 1000).

Have you heard anyone claiming that?  I haven't.  What I have heard, and
have claimed, is that such cost reductions are well within the bounds of
possibility within, say, a decade, given a solid competitive market with
volume, say, comparable to that of the USSR's normal launch schedule.
We don't have that yet.
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:23:11 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Direct Information

Is there an electronic publication that contains up-to-date information, withou
t being colored by opinion? I like this list, and plan to continue subcribing,
but I'd like to get up to the minute info on the goings on in the space industr
y, if at all possible. Any help toward this goal would be apreciated. Thanks,

                                            Sincerely, Karl Rademacher,
                                            Director of Public Relations.

===============================================================================
=         **** ******   ****  ADVANCED DIGITAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION OF IL. =
=       **  ** **    ** **      DIVISION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPEMENT   =
=     **    ** **    ** ********  803 Mulberry #2, Murphysboro, Il. 62966     =
=   **      ** **    ** **          Bitnet: ST6676 or ST6677 at SIUCVMB       =
= **        ** ******   ************  This message was sent Aug/24/89         =
===============================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 13:57:08 CDT
From: [e-mail] (d. scott hess)
Subject: Pluto fly-by

From: [e-mail]
}If we wanted to send a spacecraft to Pluto, what would be the
}earliest date we could reach it (given current technology)?
}I assume a fly-by of Jupiter would shorten the trip (with
}respect to a direct flight), but by how much?  Would going
}via a third planet, perhaps prior to Jupiter, make the trip
}any shorter?
}
}Thanks,
}Bob

Sorry, cannot help you here.  I've spent time trying to figure out
exactly how gravity-assist works, and thus far, its beyond me.  (NOTE:
If someone wouldn't mind, I'd like you to explain it to me.  Not over
the list, please.)

A little input I _can_ give is that Pluto is a helluva long ways out
there.  Everybody knows this, but few really KNOW it.  What really
brought it home to me is when I wrote a program to simulate orbital
motion.  I entered in the data for all of the planets except pluto.
Very large.  I mean, really.  Look up the length of one year for one of
the outer planets, and you'll see what I mean.  I think Pluto's is
somewhere over 230 years.  That's why we;d have to plan quite far ahead.

An idea came to me with this question.  A bit ago (probably a long time
for those of you not living with the BITNET distribution), there was
talk about a probe which did something like 3 fly-bys of earth to get up
to speed, or orientated correctly.  Then the sun fly-bys/impacts
(landings? :-)  I suspect that the fastest way to get to pluto, albeit
fairly weird, would be to do a gravity (un)assist around Jupiter, and
the a gravity assist around the SUN.  One proposal I've heard for
light-sail launching says that the best way to launch (without large
moon or space based lasers) would be to put it on an asteroid, and drop
it into a cometary orbit around the sun (heck, put it on a comet), and
then jumping off with your "sail in the wind", so to speak.  This get
you a fair amount of "free" velocity, plus you make the most of the
inverse-squared nature of light.  Maybe even getting a boost from the
solar wind.

Any updates on the 1992 light-sail contest?

Scott Hess
[e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 16:26:14 GMT
From: att!cbnewsd![e-mail]  (david.c.newkirk)
Subject: 1989 Midwest Space Development Conference @ Purdue University

The 1989 Midwest Space Development Conference will be held at Purdue
University in West Lafayette, Indiana from October 20-22.  A buffet
dinner, displays, discussion and a star party are scheduled for the
evening of the 20th (a Friday), with sessions starting Saturday morning
and running through Sunday morning.  Daniel Graham, Charles Walker and
David Webb are featured speakers.  Rooms are available at the Union
building (1-317-494-8900) for $40-60 a night, but less expensive rooms
are ususally available farther from campus.  Conference registration is
$40 before October 1st, and $50 after, and meals are extra.  Contact
"Conferences" at 116 Stewart Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
IN 47907 for a registration form.

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 18:39:20 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: DSP/Rhyolite

I am researching an article on military satellites and have a few
queries about the DSP and Rhyolite/Chalet series of spacecraft. From the
work of Des Ball (the books "Pine Gap" & "A Base for Debate"), plus recent
issues of AW&ST I have the following list:

1968-63a  6 Aug  1968 AAD  Early Warning Test (Project 949)
1969-36a  13 Apr 1969 AAD  Early Warning Test
1970-46a  19 Jun 1970 AAD  Rhyolite SIGINT
1970-69a  1  Sep 1970 AAD  Early warning Test
1970-93a  6 Nov  1970 T3C  DSP1 (unusable due to Transtage failure)
1971-39a  5 May  1971 T3C  DSP2
          4 Dec  1971 AAD  launch failure
1972-10a  1 Mar  1972 T3C  DSP3
1972-101a 20 Dec 1972 AAD  Rhyolite SIGINT
1973-13a  6 Mar  1973 AAD  Rhyolite SIGINT
1973-40a  12 Jun 1973 T3C  DSP4
1975-55a  18 Jun 1975  T3C Argus  SIGINT
1975-118a 14 Dec 1975  T3C DSP5 (unusable due to collision with Transtage)
1976-59a  26 Jun 1976  T3C DSP6
1977-07a  6  Feb  1977 T3C DSP7
1977-38a  7  Apr  1977 AAD Rhyolite SIGINT
1977-114a 11 Dec 1977  AAD Rhyolite SIGINT
1978-38a  7 Apr 1978   AAD Rhyolite SIGINT
1978-58a  10 Jun 1978  T3C Chalet SIGINT
1979-53a  10 Jun 1979  T3C DSP8
1979-86a  1  Oct 1979  T3C Chalet SIGINT
1981-25a  16 Mar 1981  T3C DSP9
1981-107a 31 Oct 1981  T3C Chalet SIGINT
1982-19a  6  Mar 1982  T3C DSP10
1984-09a  31 Jan 1984  T34D DSP11 (failed?)
1984-37a  15 Apr 1984  T34D DSP12
1984-129a 22 Dec 1984  T34D Chalet SIGINT
1985-10b  24 Jan 1985  STS  Magnum SIGINT
1987-97a  29 Nov 1987  T34D DSP13
1988-77a  2  Sep 1988  T34D Chalet SIGINT (failed)
1989-     10 May 1989  T34D Chalet SIGINT
1989-     14 Jun 1989  T4   DSP14

AAD = Atlas Agena D
T3C = Titan 3C
T34D = Titan 34D
T4 = Titan 4
STS = Space Shuttle

So my questions:

1) Which of 1970-46 or 1970-69 was more likely to be a Rhyolite? Ball is
 certain that one was.
Although the former was often cited as having failed to go into GEO, the
reports at the time in AW&ST were contradictory and various sources list
a GEO not GTO. The launcher for both was occasionally described as an Atlas
Agena D plus a kick stage, anyone know about this?

2) Of the launches in 1984, did DSP11 fail to reach GEO as reported by
Ball, and are the identifications of it, DSP12 and the fourth Chalet (1984-129)
correct and in the right order?

Some identifications above may puzzle some people but Ball's analysis
would, I feel, convince most who had only seen , e.g, Curtis Peebles' book
"Guardians" and the early "Spaceflight" articles of Anthony Kenden on this
subject,

Nick


--
Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical
& Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 16:05:28 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: a time capsule

To the extent that the scientific community had to compete with the lunar
program for precious funding, it's not surprising their consensus was that
40% was too high.

And to the extent that we nod nowadays at the received wisdom that the
"crash" nature of the JFK program led inevitably to disappointment and
lack of direction in space later, we might hesitate before sneering at
those 1964 scientists and their "go slow" attitude.  Had their viewpoint
prevailed, we still be on the Moon today.
--
"We walked on the moon --    ((    Tom Neff
    you be polite"         ))     [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 16:00:42 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Neptune on the Boobtube

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Proicou) writes:
>                                               CBS news tonight (8/23)
>did a peice on some old gantry towers from some launch pads at KSC.  They
>were being torn down and used to build artificial reefs for the fishermen.
>All the environmental and fishermem groups were pleased.  CBS made the
>story sound like some great side benefit of the space program at the start.
>Oh well, now you know why I don't watch CBS news except about 1 a month.

To quote Charlie Brown (whose face was recently discovered on Mars
<grin>):  good grief!  Those old gantries were USELESS and unsafe.  The
Canaveral station has been around a long time, firing mostly military
missiles of increasing size and power for decades.  There is a long row
of abandoned towers rusted beyond recovery or repair and having little
or nothing to do with the US space program past, present or future.
There is no reason to keep them standing unless you like to flagellate
yourself a la Ballard with the sight of ruined launch hardware.  The
dune- and marshland they occupy is precious and deserves to be returned
to the wild state; and yes, those things would make great artificial
reefs!  I am not surprised that fishermen love the idea.

A sense of proportion would not be out of place here, exhilarating as
CBS bashing must be to enthusiasts of the sport.  By the way, the
stuff that counts -- the Apollo pads -- are a national historic site
and won't be going anywhere.
--
"We walked on the moon --    ((    Tom Neff
    you be polite"         ))     [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 15:32:28 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars Investigation Chronology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Bain) writes:
>As a second point, I assume that the Mars Orbiter is dead, so we can't
>get it to take a couple more snapshots of Elvis... er.... the face?

The Viking Orbiters both died long ago, when they ran out of attitude-control
fuel.  Crossing fingers, Mars Observer should be in position in another three
or four years...
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 23:08:26 GMT
From: voder!berlioz![e-mail]  (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head )
Subject: Re: bad Neptune News on TV


CNN promises coverage tonight from midnight EDT on, they assert.
    Fingers crossed!
--
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman    There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away,
[e-mail]    That's what I says to myself, says I,
time sucks                       jolly good luck, hooray!

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 15:39:04 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #616

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leonard Abbey) writes:
>Mr. Spencer, we could do it again.  You couldn't.

I assume this refers to my Apollo signature...

Give me and NASA equal funding for the project, and let me run mine my way
without a bunch of nitpickers breathing down my neck, and I will guarantee
not only to reach the Moon, but to beat NASA to it.
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #4
*******************