Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_1/V10_102.ZIP/V10_102

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/IZ:5t4C00VcJ01aU5f>;
          Tue,  3 Oct 89 03:22:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  3 Oct 89 03:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #102

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
             Space Station Strangles NASP
             Re: Laser propulsion
         Call Sign for Soyuz TM-6 mission in Aug. 88?
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
         NASA Headline News for 09/27/89 (Forwarded)
      Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)
           Re: First group of prospective astronau
          power source for the space station
           Re: space news from Aug 14 AW&ST
         RE: Jovian atmospheric contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 89 18:50:17 GMT
From: oliveb!mipos3!omepd!omews10.intel.com![e-mail]  (Larry Smith)
Subject: Space Station Strangles NASP


Quoting SPACE NEWS Sept. 18, 1989 (the preview issue of the new
publication of DEFENSE WEEK to appear in Jan. 90), "The 1990 budget
account for NASA's space station was increased substantially by a
key Senate committee last week, but all funding for the national
aerospace plane was deleted from the agency's spending plan".

This is absurd. Just like the Ford Model-T enabled people for the
first time to AFFORDABLY travel hundreds of miles from their homes,
and the DC-3 to AFFORDABLY travel thousands of miles, the national
aerospace plane derived vehicle (NASPDV) holds the promise of AFFORDABLE
transportation to low earth orbit. If you really want the federal and
commercial space development business to bloom, provide an AFFORDABLE
way to get people and light cargoes to LEO (NASPDV), and reduce by 10X
the cost of heavy payloads (ALS or Jarvis). Don't provide a great facility
(space station) with a very expensive, and therefore ultimately unaffordable,
way to get there (Shuttle). Put another way, if you had to travel from LA
to NY to help a client with a technical problem, or to investigate new
techniques/markets, would you want to go through the overhead and delay
of getting yourself on a system like the space shuttle, or would you like
to buy a ticket with a credit card, and go to your local large airport and
catch a ride ?

True, NASP/X-30 has technical hurdles, but these hurdles are not impossible
ones. The past several years of technology development have proven that.
Also, for the people on the net that say that U.S. aerospace companies
never contribute their own funds to development any more, the NASP/X-30
technology development effort to date, has been funded at the 50% level
by the 5  U.S. aerospace firms that are taking part, and a vehicle is not
even being built! . Surely, they wouldn't do this if they didn't see the
potential, as mentioned above. Quoting them, in 1 year they will be at the
point where they will be ready to develop hardware! They have said that any
further delay is excessive! X-30 is NOT a 21st century concept. It IS a mid
1990's concept !! Look at it yet another way ... X-30 would cost the same
as about 4 B-2s. Which gives a better return ?

The orbital X-15 program was killed by Apollo. Is NASP/X-30 about to be killed
by the space station?

Larry Smith

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

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 11:25:26 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Laser propulsion

iconsys!caeco!jose![e-mail]  (Jim) writes:

>If a laser is powerful enough to destroy a missle... and if the missle was
>reflective....  and if someone was looking up and some of the reflected
>energy entered their eyes....  Would the energy (now more scattered, so
>less intense) still have enough power or intensity to cause blindness?

Probably not... and certainly not in the case of SDI lasers, which don't
"destroy" missiles, but either (1) fry the guidance system, (2) ablate part
of the surface, causing a reaction that changes the missile's course (but where?),
or (3) do just enough structural damage (and that's not much) that the missile
breaks up on entry.

So long as the detonator isn't triggered, the missile is basically harmless no
matter how much survives or where it comes down.  Possibly merely pushing a missile
off course causes the internal guidance system never to meet it's target-reached
criteria for detonation, I don't know.  No-one's trying to build a laser that
vaporizes a missile, not even X-ray lasers do that.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 27 Sep 89 14:01:56 GMT
From: att!cbnewsd![e-mail]  (david.c.newkirk)
Subject: Call Sign for Soyuz TM-6 mission in Aug. 88?

My brother is looking for the call sign used during the Soyuz TM-6 mission
during August 1988.  Since crews usually reuse call signs, he can guess what
it is, but would like some confirmation.  He's finishing up a book on the
Soviet manned space program - I'll tell you about it when it's done.  Thanks,
--
                Dave Newkirk, att!ihlpm!dcn

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

Date: 27 Sep 89 05:35:05 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!clmqt![e-mail]  (Preacher)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

[e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:


> 1) Only if future generations are as dumb as us.  Quite possible!

As dumb as us!?  I have to agree with you it is quite possible but I say
that they will be even dumber...

And they are well along on their way.


--

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

Date: 26 Sep 89 16:32:54 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>I while back somebody posted details of an Air Force launch from
>Vandenberg where the rocket exploded and dumped an RTG into the
>Pacific.
This sounds like the launch of a Navy Navigation satellite in April
1964, carrying a SNAP 9A RTG. Source is table 4-2 in the "Space
Handbook", AU-18, (Air University, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 1985).
>The story went on to say that the Air Force found the RTG,
>cleaned it up, and used it for another satellite. Can anybody post
>the details (names & dates)? We need the information for a letter
>to the editor.
Never heard this story.

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]

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

Date: 27 Sep 89 17:18:30 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 09/27/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                           NASA Headline News
Wednesday, Sept. 27, 1989                     Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, September 27....


NASA Administrator Richard Truly discussed NASA's future plans
before the House Space Science Subcommittee yesterday.  He
proposed a long-range, continuing committment that would
eventually lead to a manned mission to Mars.  United Press
International says Truly was told by New Jersey congressman
Robert Torricelli the administration must come up with a
financial commitment for the proposed program.  Congressman Bill
Nelson of Florida says NASA's budget must increase to at least
$15 billion a year and eventually to $30 billion to carry out
such an agressive program.


The orbiter Columbia was electrically powered up yesterday
following its inadvertent water drenching Sunday.  A damage
assessment is still underway, but officials at Kennedy Space
Center are still hopeful the incident won't force a delay in the
launch of Columbia now scheduled for December 18.


The premier performance of "Return to Flight", a musical
composition written by composer Jane Ira Bloom, will be held at
Kennedy Space Center's "Spaceport USA" Friday evening.
Distinguished invited musicians and members of the Brevard
Symphony Orchestra will perform the musical work that was
commissioned to commemorate the return to flight by the space
shuttle following the loss of Challenger.  The musical
performance will be televised over NASA Select TV at 7:00 P.M.,
Eastern time.


The role of the Galileo probe will be detailed at a news
briefing, thursday, at Ames Research Center.  The probe is part
of the spacecraft that is scheduled for launch on October 12
aboard the space shuttle orbiter Atlantis.  The briefing will be
carried on NASA Select television at 1:00 P.M., Eastern time.


NASA has opened its computerized science data bases to the
nation's universities to stimulate so called "cottage industry"
space research by professors and entice more students to
specialize in science and engineering studies.  Seven
universities that participated in a pilot phase of the program at
Marshall Space Flight Center gave it very high marks.



              *               *                  *

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.


Thursday, September 28....

    11:30 A.M.       NASA Update will be transmitted.

     1:00 P.M.       Galileo probe briefing from Ames Research
                     Center.

     3:30 P.M.       Amroc launch with Air Force/MIT experiments
                     from Vandenberg AFB.  Window opens at 4:30
                     P.M.

Friday, September 29.....

     7:00 P.M.       Premiere of "Return to Flight" musical
                     composition from Spaceport USA at KSC.


Monday, October 2 .....

      1:00 P.M       Voyager/Neptune 30-minute video summary from
                     JPL.

All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon,
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA
Headquarters.

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

Date: 27 Sep 89 21:07:11 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Alternative Space Goals, Anyone? (was Re: SpaceCause)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff) writes:
>>People with no profit
>>motive, sitting around and theorizing what *should* be done in space, is
>>what got us in the mess we're in today.
>
>Oh... you mean like what we do on the net...?

Precisely.

But we don't set space policy!

--
Annex Canada now!  Free Quebec; raze and depopulate  |  Tom Neff
Ontario; license Inuit-run casinos on the BC shore.  |  [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Sep 89 16:51:50 GMT
From: ptolemy![e-mail]  (Butler Hine)
Subject: Re: First group of prospective astronau

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>...5 NASA employees, 11 armed forces, and 4 others.
>>The 4 others all hold doctorates.  Although only 80% of those in the first
>>group work for NASA or the military, I'll lay odds that at least 90% of the
>>ones eventually selected to be astronaut candidates will come from this
>>category.
>
>...  NASA openly admits to a select-from-within bias.

This is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Since the bias is well
known, almost everyone who is serious about becoming a NASA astronaut
goes to work for NASA.  Some of us would have done it anyway, though.

            Butler Hine
            NASA Ames Research Center
            [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Sep 89 01:24:02 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!csc3!ccadfa!usage!basser!softway!otc![e-mail]  (Greg Wilkins)
Subject: power source for the space station

Drawing together a couple of conversation threads, I have noted the
following points:

   - Deap space probes use a radioactive heat source and thermocouples
     to generate power.

   - The NASA space station will use solar panels, even though there
     are some short falls (low efficiency, low power, degrade with time????)

   - There was a suggestion of a solar dynamic power supply for the
     space station (I guess it a solar collector, a stirling type engine
     and a generator).  This was rejected as new unproven technology.

Has solar-thermo-couple power been considered,  ie a solar collector
focused on one end of a bank of thermocouples???   Is this an improvement
on solar panels in any shape or form??.

If the collector was big enough, it would also provide a solar furnace,
which I am sure some material scientists would like to use in low Gs.

If solar-thermo-couple is not better than solar panels, can anybody think
of and arrangment of solar panels that would allow the waste heat and
reflected light to be used by thermocouples?

Greg Wilkins     ACSnet:  [e-mail]   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.oz!gregw
R&D Contractor   Phone(w):[phone]   Telex: OTCAA120591
                 Phone(h):[phone]   Snail: OTC Network R&D
                 Ph O/S:  [phone]          GPO Box 7000,
                 Fax:     [phone]          Sydney 2001, Australia

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

Date: 27 Sep 89 16:05:00 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc!taux01![e-mail]  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: space news from Aug 14 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Watkins) writes:
>
>OK. So I'm ignorant. Who is D.D. Harriman?

He's the lead character in Heinlein's story "The man who sold the Moon".

A quote: "The moon rocket is gone.  Even the shuttle is gone.  We are
back to where we were in 1950.  Therefore, we must build a new rocket
and fly it to the moon!"
The story was written, BTW, in *1949*  (that's right, forty-nine,
not eighty-six)

--
    Amos Shapir        [e-mail] or [e-mail]
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. [phone]  TWX: 33691, fax: [phone]
34 48 E / 32 10 N            (My other cpu is a NS32532)

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

Date:     Wed, 27 Sep 89 17:22 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  RE: Jovian atmospheric contamination



Wayne Hayes  (INTERNET: [e-mail]) writes:


>First think of the same thing happenning here on Earth about 800 million
>years ago.  Then there was not much more than microscopic multi-celled
>creatures here.  However there *had* been life for nearly 3 *BILLION* years.
>Ie, it took a *long* time for life to go from nothing just to multi-
>cellular.  Then things really took off.  So if there's "bugs" on Jupiter,
>they're certainly deserving at least as much evolutionary "respect" as
>anything on Earth, probably having evolved to a large degree as much as we
>have...

How do you know Earth wasn't accidentally contaminated with bugs from an
unsterilized alien probe, which may have started or stomped out any existing
life to begin with?

--------------------------------------
--Matt Sisk   [e-mail]
  Vanderbilt University

"Ain' got no fancy disclaimer..."
--------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #102
*******************