Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_0/V10_059.ZIP/V10_059

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

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/EZ697H600VcJ04ak5x>;
          Thu, 21 Sep 89 03:46:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 03:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #59

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
             Re: How is Voyager powered?
    Space Industry Liaison Org (was Corporate Space Admin)
             MARS FACE to FBM conversion
              Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.
      Re: Was Voyager another damaging Apollo one-shot?
Re: Progress M-1 (new type of cargo craft) launched to USSR's Mir station
               Mail for William Baxter
               Re: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 89 04:06:10 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (nick szabo)
Subject: Re: How is Voyager powered?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Neal Woodall) writes:
>>
>Why screw around with strontium?  If you are willing to pay $2500 for
>300 watts, solar cells can do that right now, including the batteries
>to get you through the night.

>"P"TG's are in use in the Cascade Mountains*, to power remote weather data
>gathering stations (rain, snow depth).  They have some solar cell power as
>well, but people know what they are, and steal the panels.  Not too many
>people know a "P"TG when they see it.  "P" is for propane, by the way.
>


Solar cells are not reliable because weather is not reliable (over many
days, not just one night); propane must be continually replenished.  The
strontium RTG's presumably suffer from neither of these disadvantages.
I would like to see how they plan to protect customers from the radiation,
and how they plan to dispose of depleated RTG's.


"Life depends less on an abundant supply of energy than on a good
signal-to-noise ratio."
                Freeman Dyson

--
--------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj
These opinions are not related to Big Blue's

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 12:45:35 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (pezely)
Subject: Space Industry Liaison Org (was Corporate Space Admin)



The corporate space administration idea is transformed into a more
practical plan: INDEPENDENT, NON-PROFIT LIAISON FOR THE SPACE INDUSTRY.

Rather than have a corporate (for-profit) company with the hopes of
making money, many people have contacted me about how to revising the
proposal.

Another NASA is not needed, or rather, is not really feasible due to the
budget which is involved: tens of billions of dollars.  Two competing
space agencies would be too much, and the division of the public's money
might harm both programs.

A "disinterested" third-party is needed to act as a channel of
communication between NASA, government, the international space
industry, space organizations, researchers, and universities.  With
this, it would be possible to have a truly unbiased liaison and
information database which would be of service.

My original plan, and still present in my mind, was to have a space
station ready to be constructed by the year two-thousand.  Obviously, I
can't do it by myself, so I was going to be the focal point to bring the
necessary people together to make that dream a reality.

The original plan of what evolved into a second NASA would be the wrong
direction and would waste time.

NASA has a design for a space station, and it is supposed to be modular.
Maybe an organization can pull the right group of individuals and
companies together to make NASA's station into the type of station which is
needed, and maybe we can find the money which NASA is loosing.  This
could be done, possibily, by stripping NASA's design and replacing it
with better modules which are funded and owned by the contractors.

I still believe that if the contractors are shown exactly how profitible
it would be for them to assist in putting up a station, partially owned
by them, then they will do it.  That will save the money which NASA has
to overspend with, and might make the station into a true orbiting
industrial complex.  And, that could/would be better for those who would
be using (renting a module of) the station.


REASONS FOR THE LIAISON ORGANIZATION:

Channel of communication to/from NASA.

Channel of communication to/from space contractors.

Channel of communication to/from space organizations.

Channel of communication to/from researchers and institutions.

Act as a consulting team.

Use NASA's budget.

Assist NASA in raising funding.  Go to the public and show them that
professionals are indeed working on the space station and that their tax
money (and hopefully donations) is being spent on a worthwhile project.

Assist with public relations for the industry's plan, and show the
uninterested general public what they're missing.

Help NASA develop a space station which suits the needs of
science and industry more effectively.

Information clearing-house -- "one stop shopping" for what the
international industry has today in terms of who (people and companies),
what (designs, talents, etc.), where (where they are), etc.



DRAWBACKS

Must deal with NASA's / government's / USAF's bureaucracy

Must handle NASA's over spending and inflated prices


POSSIBILITIES

Have the contractors, as individual entities or as a few small
consortiums, put up their own space station(s) and we will just assist
them with design and help find customers based upon need and
availability of facilities as known from our information database.




This type of organization could get off the ground immediately by having
access to the internet through a university.  I'm sure that the space
contractors will contribute to the database, and getting a computer
system donated might be possible.  Once we have enough info in the
database, then we should have obtained enough funding to move into an
office and have a paid staff to answer questions and respond to info
requests.

The operating details are not the concern with this draft other than
that the organization could start functioning as soon as next week!

Making the contacts would start by obtaining the database info, but
would also take a while to cultivate a working relationship before the
rest of the industry could use us as a service.


Please let me know what you think about this plan.

* Is it better or worse than the previous plans?
* Is this more geared to what is needed?
* Do you foresee this type of organization being successful (doing what
it set out to do)?
* Do you think that the industry will welcome it or ignore it?  (Not that
they will be able to ignore it, though. :-)  )

Thank you.
- Daniel
--
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: 12 Sep 89 00:15:08 GMT
From: pilchuck!seahcx!phred![e-mail]  (David Burd)
Subject: MARS FACE to FBM conversion

Recently a program was posted to convert the MARS FACE data
into FBM format.  Could someone be kind enough to email this
program to me?

Thank you in advance

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
uw-beaver!pilchuck!seahcx!phred!daveb              David Burd

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 16:07:34 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com![e-mail]  (N = R*fgfpneflfifaL)
Subject: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.


        Someone recently sent me this news blurb.  If it is true, then
    this is no laughing matter for our space program if Quayle is truly
    so outdated in his thinking of the planet Mars and who knows how
    many other astronomical subjects:

        In an August 11 interview on Cable Network News, the head of the
    National Space Council, Vice President Dan Quayle, explained why the
    United States should undertake a manned mission to Mars:  "Mars is
    essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same distance
    from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures where
    there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water, there is
    oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 21:13:06 GMT
From: lightsabre![e-mail]  (Rick Kwan)
Subject: Re: Was Voyager another damaging Apollo one-shot?

Some time ago, in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Tom Neff) wrote:

> ...I wonder if the Grand Tour wasn't
> the unmanned equivalent of the Kennedy space race and its resulting
> one-shot lunar landing program -- in the sense that, having rushed
> ahead to grab the dessert, we found ourselves in no mood to continue
> eating our vegetables, i.e., building a solid and lasting program.

Others have pointed out the knowledge gained; my view here is *much*
more mundane.

Certainly, we have rushed ahead to make the Grand Tour schedule,
but I thought it was because the GT planetary alignment only happens
about once per century.

In about 15 years, we managed to cover a large part of the solar
system.  The alternative would be to send many more probes, spaced
out over a longer time, and probably culmulatively costing more;
but I have my doubts about their survivability (more below).

Besides covering many planets, the Grand Tour shortens the length of a
mission (versus a purely elliptical trajectory  ...okay, it's not
purely elliptical, but you know what I mean...), which gives one the
gut feeling that more of the on-board instruments might actually be
working by the time the spacecraft gets to its destination(s).  From
what I gather, most of the Voyager people were amazed that the thing
lasted as long as it did.

I would think that a direct trip to Uranus or Neptune before the end of
the century, based on current technology, is exotic and very daring
compared to Voyager technology.  (...perhaps we should have spent
more money on ion thrusters... ;-)

Agreed, Voyager is going to be hard to match.  But in terms of
satisfying engineering and economics within the lifetime of most
current readers, I can't think of any alternatives, except going
without *any* of the resulting knowledge until the next century.
    Rick Kwan (aka Obi-Kwan Kenobi)
    Sun Microsystems - Intercontinental Operations
    [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 18:30:55 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (nick szabo)
Subject: Re: Progress M-1 (new type of cargo craft) launched to USSR's Mir station

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Was this wishlist based on an coherent, specific *plan*, or is it just all
>the projects you find attractive this week?

No and no.   Undiscovered nature and untapped markets are not coherent.  They
do not have a "theme" or a "goal", and neither do my suggestions.   This was
a general list of stuff space scientists and industrialists have desired
for a several years; it was meant to demonstrate the wastefulness of
"Freedom", not to be a plan.

>I don't see any mention of
>Venus, not much of Mars, very little on asteroids, not much on the Moon,

Lunar Polar Orbiter, Mars Observer 2, Asteroid Rendesvous, asteroid surveys,
and Lunar/Martian/Asteroid sample-return missions to Antartica were all on
the list.  Venus was regrettably missing.  It does not happen to be high on
my priority list but that may change after Magellan.  Also not on the list
were smaller things we should do, like Lunar Getaway Special.  Mars Rover
was purposefully missing because, like Space Station, it costs too much money
for such a narrow aim.  International missions I left out because I was
talking about NASA, not ESA or Japan or the Soviets.  These are important too.

>no Starprobe (which despite the name is a solar probe, not an interstellar
>mission, sigh), etc etc.  What is the underlying reasoning?

Starprobe is not high on my list either, but may be on other's.  I'm easy
(as long as you don't propose spending $tens of billions!!!)  The underlying
reasoning is: "if you want oil, drill lots of wells."  Not one garganguant dry
hole at LEO.

>
>And of course, assuming that killing the space station will free up that
>money to be spent on "worthier" space projects is ridiculous.


It's not ridiculous to expect that we'll get a lot farther in space if
we get our priorities straight.  It's not ridiculous to expect NASA to alter
its budget proposals to give more to space science and industry, if that is
the way political winds are blowing.   I'm simply adding my breath to the wind.


"Never sacrifice economies of speed to achieve economies of scale."
                Freeman Dyson

--
--------------------------------------------
Nick Szabo
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj
These opinions are not related to Big Blue's

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

Date: 7 Sep 89 13:53:47 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Mail for William Baxter

To: [e-mail]
Subject: HR2674 Discussion

(William: I attempted to send this as a reply to your mail message,
but our mailer didn't want to recognize your address; thus this posting
to news.    -Kieran)

I am indeed enjoying the discussion. I realize that you, and the people
in Congress that you're supporting, are at least trying to do something
innovative, trying to get rocketry development off of the unproductive
track it somehow got onto in the '60's. "Doing Something To Help" is
something that most space enthusiasts profess to want to do, but few
ever get around to. Good on you on that score.

Kieran
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Sep 89 19:14:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT


Could you send me a copy of the resolution?

*************************************************************************
*    Rob Dale ++ N8GSK     .=.  tippy!fireman                           *
*    Purdue University     .=.               @newton.physics            *
*   Atmospheric Sciences   .=.                              .purdue.edu *
*************************************************************************

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #59
*******************