Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_0/V10_055.ZIP/V10_055

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/MZ543Zq00jaSE9E04R>;
          Sun, 17 Sep 89 21:12:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 89 21:11:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #55

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
              Re: Trajectory of ULYSSES.
               Observing Oct 12 Launch
         Corporate Space Administration - AN OVERVIEW
              Linguistic Tidbits
                   apo/peri
            Re: Linguistic Tidbits
             Re: Galileo Mission
           Earthlings weaker than believed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 89 19:12:53 GMT
From: amara!babar![e-mail]  (S. Khai Mong)
Subject: Re: Trajectory of ULYSSES.


How does the energy needed to put Ulysses into the polar solar orbit
compare with a trajectory to send something directly into the Sun?  As
I remember it, there was a discussion here about dumping things into
the sun and the consensus was that no useful payload could be put into
such a trajectory.
--
Sao Khai Mong:   Applied Dynamics, 3800 Stone School Road, Ann Arbor, Mi48108
[phone] (uunet|sharkey)!amara!khai  [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Sep 89 09:18:41 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!mimir!hugin!augean!sirius!chook.ua.oz![e-mail]  (Francis Vaughan)
Subject: Observing Oct 12 Launch


I will be visiting the US in two weeks, (mostly on business) but find
myself with about a week of free time neatly coinciding with the Oct 12
shuttle launch. I would greatly appreciate some advice on what will be
involved and what pitfalls exist in trying to observe the launch. Also
appreciated would be advice on what is worth visiting. I will be in the Bay
area a couple of weeks before so a visit to Ames looks like a good idea as
well. This will be a bit of a pilgrimage for me, very high on my lifes wish
list.

Some of this has been lightly covered before, but not in much depth.
Maybe we could produce some sort of guide for readers or the net noise.

Questions include.

        What do mere mortals get to see? How far from the launch area are
        you put? (ie how long a focal length lens is needed?) Do non US
        citizens have any problems?

        Perhaps some pointers on accomodation, transport, how many other
        spectators would one expect etc.

        What are the odds on a delay of the launch. (Bad question I know,
        but a gut feeling of whether I am pushing my luck or not would be
        good.)

        What is the weather likly to be like?

        Is anyone else on the net going to be there? Maybe we could meet
        up, and make up some sort of party.


        Dept of Computer Sci.                   Francis Vaughan
        University of Adelaide                  [e-mail]
        South Australia

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

Date: 10 Sep 89 20:56:49 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Corporate Space Administration - AN OVERVIEW


Here is a rough draft of the overview for the CSA.  The specifics of how
the organization will operate are still being revised, but for a copy of
that in its current form and in its final form, just send me e-mail.  I
will be distributing that to everyone on my mailing list.

Please comment about this and respond either by e-mail or follow-up
postings.  Please keep "Corporate Space Admin" or "CSA" in the subject
line.  See my signature if you need a postal address or phone number.
Thanks.

-Daniel

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


            Overview

The Corporate Space Administration has one goal:

Construct a space station with both rotational and non-rotational
sections to allow all of the benefits of a zero-gravity environment
and have a crew of researchers and staff able to take residence for
prolonged periods of time in an environment which is most familiar
to them--one that has gravity.  We want this goal to become a reality
by the year Two-thousand.

The design of the station will be similar in function to NASA's in
that it will be a backbone for other "third party" modules to be
attached.  The major difference is in the housing for a full-time
crew.

This brings up the possibility of working with NASA's space station,
should their's ever be built.

We will do whatever needs to be done, with full moral integrity,
to see that our goal is achieved.

At this point in time, there are a few stages of growth for the
organization to go through.  Starting from a volunteer group, we
will quickly obtain financial supporters and form a central office.

Although there are many stages of development, our goal is firm.
Those stages will be under constant change so that our goal may be
realized in the best possible manner for everyone involved: mankind.

To make this venture succeed, we will need financial support.
The best possible way to find that support is to function as a
for-profit organization with stock holders.  Financial advisors
have predicted that the next billionaires will be made in the space
industry.  With this long-term return on investment, we should be
able to find major financial backers.


            Stages of Development

1. BACKGROUND RESEARCH

    The members will operate as volunteers, initially, while
    research is done to find other people and organizations
    with similar goals.

    As the number of members grows, we will seek investors and
    establish a temporary central office.

    During this time, contacts will be made in industry,
    government, and other organizations for the next stage to
    be more successful.


2. SPACE INDUSTRY LIAISON

    By this time, a permanent central office will have been set
    up and a full-time staff will handle questions and requests
    from the phone, electronic mail, postal mail, and walk-in
    individuals.

    With established contacts in the space industry, we will
    offer our services as a liaison between industry, government,
    organizations, and individuals.

    A team of engineers and designers will start to be assembled
    and will investigate existing plans for space stations.

3. DESIGN RESEARCH

    The newly formed engineering and design team will work
    with both new and existing plans for space stations to come
    up with the most practical design by following these
    guidelines:
        INEXPENSIVE - use proven techniques and cut R&D
        costs.
        MODULAR - build in stages and allow for expansion.
        IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY - move in with the completion
        of the first stage.

    These parameters will always be open for discussion and and
    suggestions for other guidelines will always be accepted.

    We will work with the space contractors closely so as to reduce
    the number of manufacturing surprises to a minimum.

4. DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING

    After simulating and analyzing the designs, working models will
    be made to confirm our theories.  With this reassurance, our
    public relations people will be notifying the public about our
    progress.  It will be very important to keep the faith of
    everyone watching our progress since we will be needing their
    financial support later.

5. CONSTRUCTION AND MANUFACTURING

    The organization will raise the money necessary to purchase the
    components and construct the station.

6. LAUNCH AND ASSEMBLY

    We will hire the necessary contractors to launch the station
    modules into space.

7. OPEN FOR BUSINESS

    With the completion of the first phase of the space station, we
    will be open for business and ready to start attaching the
    modules of our customers.  The additional modules for the
    backbone of the station will be added once a sufficient number
    of customers have been connected.  This industrial complex in
    space will operate, in principle, just like any other industrial
    facility and will be managed as such.

    With this station, our customers will also be customers of the
    space contractors since the contractors will have to be used to
    launch modules into space.  This will bring in an income not
    only for our investors, but also for the other contractors.
    Hopefully, the research/manufacturing from within the station
    by the customers will benefit the general public by finding new
    discoveries, keeping hazardous research far from innocent
    people, or composing new container-less chemicals and medicines.


            Conclusion

We will achieve our goals because those goals must be attained.  The
exact method and the form of our organization is not precisely known,
but we will accomplish the tasks necessary to realize our goal.

--
Daniel Pezely <[e-mail]>        (Home: 728 Bent Lane, Newark, DE 19711)
Computer Science Lab, 102 Smith Hall, U of Del, Newark, DE 19716 * 302/451-6339

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

Date: 11 Sep 89 19:07:11 GMT
From: frooz![e-mail]  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Linguistic Tidbits

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Henry Melton):
> I have wondered in the past: what are the generic terms?
> [for apogee, perigee, etc.]
> Many times I have seen (as in the case above) the 'gee' words promoted
> to the generic case.  Is there already an accepted generic, or should we
> quitely drop perilun and aphelion and just use the 'gee' words?

The generic terms are apoapsis and periapsis.  The plural, in case you
want to speak of both, is "apsides."  (Pronounced with three syllables:
aps'-uh-deez.)

By the way, the apsides of lunar orbit are the "aposelene" and
"periselene;" the Greek prefixes should be used with the Greek root
words helion, gee, and selene rather than the Latin roots sol, terra,
or lune.  (Or something similar; my lack of proper classical education
may be showing here.)  The incorrect terms "apolune" and "perilune" are
often used, though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Sep 89 15:31:16 GMT
From: mfci![e-mail]  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: apo/peri

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

>
>I have wondered in the past: what are the generic terms?  It makes no
>sense to have 'peritriton' and 'apotoon'.  Even having seperate terms

Hmmmm.
Is the generic term "apoapsis / periapsis" or does that just refer to
stars in general, but not planets? I fergit.

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 14:53:08 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Linguistic Tidbits

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Steve Willner):
[Farthest and closest points to the primary in an orbit...]
> The generic terms are apoapsis and periapsis.  The plural, in case you
> want to speak of both, is "apsides."  (Pronounced with three syllables:
> aps'-uh-deez.)

Steve points out that we should use Greek roots:
> By the way, the apsides of lunar orbit are the "aposelene" and
> "periselene;"
I thought it was "pericynthion" and "apocynthion"?

(These ones I know:)

Generic:    periapsis    apoapsis
Generic star:    periastron    apastron
Earth:        perigee        apogee
Sun:        perihelion    aphelion

How about the rest of the solar system? I think that it's
Mercury:    perihermes    aphermes
Venus:        ?
Mars:        periares    apoares
Jupiter:    perizenon?
Saturn:        perikronon?

Any offers from classical scholars?


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : [phone]              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : [e-mail]        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : [e-mail]   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM      |
 |                          |    FAX : [phone]              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: 8 Sep 89 10:55:30 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Galileo Mission

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lee Mellinger) wrote:
 >In article <24fbc5fb@ralf> [e-mail] writes:
 >:In article <1050400001@cdp>, [e-mail] wrote:
 >:I keep hearing 47 and 50 POUNDS of plutonium (so far only from opponents of
 >:launching the Pu).  I can believe that the *RTGs* weigh 50 pounds, but 50
 >:pounds of Pu???  That sounds way off.
 >
 >There is 48 pounds, 24 in each of two RTG's that supply a total of
 >4200 Watts of electrical power.

Thanks.  I guess Galileo will be broadcasting with a bit more than 21 watts of
power.... (Voyager started with 400 or so watts from the RTGs)
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
FAX: available on request                      Disclaimer? I claimed something?
You know it's going to be a bad day when...
        ...your birthday cake collapses from the weight of the candles.
        ...you wake up face down on the pavement.

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 20:08:22 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (John Hogg)
Subject: Earthlings weaker than believed?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>More to the point, [temperature extremes, radiation and vacuum] don't
>reliably kill bacteria.  The bacterial colony that was found inside
>Surveyor 3's camera survived deliberate attempts at sterilization plus
>2.5 years on the surface of the Moon.

This one's been niggling at the back of my mind for a few days, so I
finally hunted it down.  From Dr. P.M. Molton, ``Survival of
micro-organisms on the moon'', *Spaceflight*, Vol. 15, No. 2, February
1973:

``...The only positive result was from [sample tube] 32 [of 33], which
showed growth in 3-4 days incubation in undiluted THIO medium
[thioglycollate broth, which supports anaerobic organisms], from a 1 mm^3
piece of foam from the Surveyor 3 camera.  The organism was identified as
*Streptococcus mitis*.
...
Since only 1 tube showed growth, from a single sample, possibly from
only a single microbial cell, the result is in question.  No growth was
obtained from other parts of the lunar-retrieved camera [an unflown
spare camera was used as a control], or from the electrical cable
similarly examined.  The bodies of the astronauts were host to *S.
mitis*, together with a number of other organisms.  Despite the careful
approach, contamination by the investigators is a possibility, which is
why the result has been met with scepticism.''

In other words, we *don't* know that terrestrial life can survive
extraterrestrially for extended periods.  We certainly don't know that it
*can't*, so none of the arguments either way about contaminating Jupiter
are invalidated.  But the data on which they're based isn't as firm as is
generally believed.

---
John Hogg            [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
            and
People's Glorious United Freedom-Loving Popular Democratic Front for
the Defence of Canada From Nasty Vicious Aggressive Imperialist
Expansionist Neffoids (Join now---special rates for Tom Neff)

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #55
*******************