Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_1/V10_108.ZIP/V10_108

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/AZ:Qm=i00VcJ84FU49>;
          Wed,  4 Oct 89 05:25:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  4 Oct 89 05:25:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #108

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:
NASA to hold press briefing on Cosmic Background Explorer (Forwarded)
          Re: Risk of NOT launching Galileo
        Ariane launch V34, 35, and 36 delayed
             Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles
  Radioactivity vs Chemical toxins (Was Toxic materials on shuttle)
         NASA Headline News for 09/29/89 (Forwarded)
         Re: Radioactivity vs Chemical toxins
       Re: Shuttle to HEO or the Moon (was Re: Saturn V & F-1)
          Re: Toxic materials on the Shuttle
             Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 89 16:35:45 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA to hold press briefing on Cosmic Background Explorer (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 September 29, 1989

Carter Dove
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.


N89-68
NASA TO HOLD PRESS BRIEFING ON COSMIC BACKGROUND EXPLORER


     On Thursday, October 5, at 1:30 p.m., EDT, a news briefing
will be held in the 6th floor auditorium at NASA Headquarters on
the upcoming launch of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
spacecraft aboard the final NASA-owned and NASA-launched Delta-
186 Launch Vehicle.

     Among the participants will be Dr. Lennard A. Fisk,
Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, and
Joseph B. Mahon, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space
Flight.  Launch of COBE is currently targeted for Nov. 9, 1989,
from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.  The 30-minute launch
window for that day opens at 9:24 a.m., EST.

     COBE, with a complement of three scientific instruments,
will study the origin and dynamics of the universe, including the
theory that the universe began about 15 billion years ago with a
cataclysmic explosion -- the Big Bang.

     Background information on the spacecraft and its mission,
including a press release and photograph will be available during
the briefing.  A 12-minute videotape will be shown at the end of
the briefing.

     The briefing will be carried live on NASA Select TV (SATCOM
F-2R, transponder 13, 72 degrees west longitude).  Interactive
question and answer capability will be available at NASA
Headquarters and most NASA field centers.

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 17:21:26 GMT
From: frooz![e-mail]  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Risk of NOT launching Galileo

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Tom Neff):
> If one assumes that a decision not to launch Galileo has no impact on
> the future launch of Mission To Earth, then comparing the RISKS of not
> finding out something about Jupiter's weather, thus not understanding
> something about Earth's weather, thus blundering into some weather
> related tragedy down the road, versus the RISKS of breaching the RTG, is
> not too impressive.

What do you mean by "not too impressive?"  Some people are seriously
suggesting that Galileo be cancelled because of the risk of breaching
the RTG.  I have simply pointed out that a rational assessment of that
risk must also consider risks of not launching, calculated in the same
way.  The risk of not launching appears to me to be orders of magnitude
greater.  (I was going to add an explanation of that estimate, but it's
long and I'm in a hurry.  If people want to see it, I'll post Monday.)

If my estimate is correct, cancelling Galileo because of the RTG risk is
misguided.

> There are other missions possible and planned to
> give us good Earth information.

I agree and support those missions.

> The purpose and value of Galileo is in
> other areas.  Studying Jupiter needs to be evaluated as worth it or not
> on its own terms, not in terms of far fetched spinoffs and "risk
> comparisons," or else other pure research missions with no such glib
> connections are going to get KO'd.

Whether Galileo is justified scientifically (i.e. worth priority over
other missions) or politically (i.e. worth spending the money on) is
not the question being addressed.  The immediate question is whether to
launch or cancel.  Some people are seriously suggesting "cancel" and are
apparently being listened to.  That suggestion demands a response.

As regards the general issue of justification for Galileo, I agree that
there are many reasons for its being worthwhile.  I further agree that
the benefit I have mentioned is not the main one.  (Or at least not the
most probable.)  It is simply an easy one to translate into human lives
lost and is sufficient for the purpose intended.  Additional benefits
strengthen the conclusion that launching is the right decision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 18:20:24 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Ariane launch V34, 35, and 36 delayed

Arianespace called us yesterday to tell us that they have found that
pyro initiators on the Ariane 4 third stage on V34, 35, and 36 have
been found to be sufficiently out of spec that a considerable delay
in our launch (Microsats along with Spot-2) of at least a month is
to be anticipated.  We are quite happy with the quality control people
at Arianespace.  They really don't let much get by them and this another
instance of why they are about the most successful launchers in the
world at the moment and getting better.  For those of you looking forward
to a November use of the UOSAT's or the Microsat's I believe that is
now looking like January.

73
Bob McGwier
N4HY

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

Date: 30 Sep 89 00:48:13 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (SCHREIBER, O. A.)
Subject: Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles

businessman any good to save a few hours of flight from
LA to Tokyo if he spends two hours in urban traffic at either
end anyway just to go in and out of the airport.


--
Olivier Schreiber [phone], Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ccsupos
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 23:44:08 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
Subject: Radioactivity vs Chemical toxins (Was Toxic materials on shuttle)


As a budding chemist I'm a lot more afraid of toxic chemicals then
 radiation, mainly because there are a lot more leathally toxic
 chemicals in far greater concentrations around then there are dangerous
 (ie significantly above background) radiation sources.   Both chemical
 toxins and Radiation can indeed kill or cause cancer.  Both are things
 you should not fool around with, the problem with radiation is that it
is
associated with nuclear weapons etc.    I'de guess that chemical toxins
have caused a lot more deaths, but deaths due to radiation poisoning,
or vaporization is a LOT more dramatic...  Also radition is dangerous in
that it can't be easily detected (but neither can CO, I wonder how many
people have died from car exhausts over the years?), all in all for every
radiation horror story I'm sure there is a chemical horror story, but the
public believes that  radition is evil etc. so anything involving
plutonium
is going to be a problem with PR...

//     Rick Golembiewski  [e-mail]  \\
\\       #include stddisclaimer.h               //
 \\  "I never respected a man who could spell" //
  \\               -M. Twain                  //

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 16:42:45 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 09/29/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         NASA Headline News
Friday, Sept. 29, 1989                        Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is NASA Headline News for Friday, September 29....


Three anti-nuclear activist groups have filed suit in federal
district court in Washington, D.C., in an attempt to stop the
launch of the Galileo spacecraft aboard the space shuttle
Atlantis next month.  The organizations...the Coalition for Peace
and Justice, of Orlando, Florida, and the Christic Institute and
the Foundation on Economic Trends, both of Washington, D.C.,
claim that a catastrophic accident could release nuclear material
from the Galileo's electrical power generators. Launch is
scheduled for October 12.


There are more warnings about the deterioration of the earth's
environment.  The Wall Street Journal says U.S. Scientists have
identified acid rain and artificial fertilizer as new sources of
"greenhouse" warming.  And a NASA atmospheric scientist predicts
that the ozone hole over antarctica will get even larger this
fall due to the increase of chloroflourocarbons in the
atmosphere.


The New York Times says the Soviet Union has finally opened its
busiest and most secret space launch complex to foreign media.
The Plesetsk Space Center, 500 miles north of Moscow, has
launched almost 1200 rockets since it was founded in 1957.
That's more than all American, European, Japanese and Chinese
space launches combined.


General Dynamics corporation has selected former Apollo 8
astronaut William Anders to be its chief executive officer.
Anders will assume the position of vice-chairman of the giant
space and military supplier January 1 and assume the top positon
in January 1991.


NASA has selected 248 proposals for immediate negotiations under
the agency's 1989 Small Business Innovation Research Program.
Proposals were selected from 198 small, high tech firms located
in 35 states.


And NASA turns its attention to the arts tonight at Kennedy Space
Center.  NASA and Florida civic officials will attend the
premiere performance of the musical composition "Return to
Flight" at Spaceport USA.  The program will be telecast on NASA
Select TV at 7:00 P.M., Eastern time.

            *               *                *

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


Tonight.....

    7:00 P.M.    Broadcast of new musical composition "Return
                 to Flight" from Spaceport USA.


Monday, October 2.....

    12:00 noon   NASA Administrator Truly speaks to NASA
                 employees on quality month.

     1:00 P.M.   A Voyager/Neptune video summary from JPL.
                 30-minutes duration.


Thursday, October 5.....

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

     1:30 P.M.   Cosmic Background Explorer news briefing from
                 Nasa Headquarters.

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, Washington, D.C.

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

Date: 30 Sep 89 03:44:25 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca!pooter![e-mail]  (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-028;;pooter)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity vs Chemical toxins

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>
>                                        I'de guess that chemical toxins
>have caused a lot more deaths, but deaths due to radiation poisoning,
>or vaporization is a LOT more dramatic...  Also radition is dangerous in
>that it can't be easily detected (but neither can CO, I wonder how many
>people have died from car exhausts over the years?), all in all for every
>radiation horror story I'm sure there is a chemical horror story, but the
>public believes that  radition is evil etc. so anything involving
>plutonium
>is going to be a problem with PR...

For those of you who missed the Galileo update on NASA Select yesterday,
a reporter asked if it was worth risking lung cancer for every citizen
of Florida just to get some data from Jupiter.  The answer, I thought,
was excellent.  The NASA spokesman said "if I had a spoonful of plutonium
and a spoonful of strychnine, which one would you rather swallow?"
The reporter said strychnine.  "Then you would die, and I would eat the
plutonium and walk away".  He then gave a more detailed explanation of how
the plutonium must be vaporized and inhaled before lung cancer is a threat.

Also, it appears that NASA has followed every legal step, including getting
the approval of the White House, before deciding to launch.  The opponents
are going to get thrown right out of court, in my humble opinion.

Kendall Auel                       |  [e-mail]
Tektronix, Inc.                    |  P.O. Box 1000, m/s 61-028
Visual Systems Group               |  Wilsonville, Oregon 97070
Interactive Technologies Division  |  (This message composed on a TEK w/s)

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 13:53:32 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Shuttle to HEO or the Moon (was Re: Saturn V & F-1)

Oh no, didn't we go through a round of these pseudos a month ago?
--
 1955-1975: 36 Elvis movies.  |  Tom Neff
 1975-1989: nothing.          |  [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 15:43:32 GMT
From: xpiinc![e-mail]  (Christian Reimer)
Subject: Re: Toxic materials on the Shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] sez:

>...the window framing on the Shuttle is made from beryllium to save weight,
>and beryllium's purely chemical toxicity is in the same range as that of
>plutonium, even including its radioactivity.

  The point you are missing is that while the shuttle's beryllium will only
become a health hazard if it is vaporized/powdered and dispersed (so that it
can get *inside* an organism), plutonium can and will pose a threat to public
health even if it is dispersed in large chunks (radioactivity can act from
*outside* an organism).

>But nobody seems to worry about beryllium, simply because it isn't
>*radioactive* (whoooooo!).

  Radioactivity isn't just a boogey-man; it does bring into play different
health hazards, and warrants greater concern than purely chemical toxins.

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

Date: 30 Sep 89 00:52:20 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (SCHREIBER, O. A.)
Subject: Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eugene Miya) writes:
>It's not clear to me that SSTs will ever be economical
>forms of transport.
Indeed, it may not do a businessman any good to shave a
few hours of flight time off his schedule if he spends
two hours in urban traffic
to get in and out of the airports of departure and
destination.
--
Olivier Schreiber [phone], Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ccsupos
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #108
*******************