Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_1/V10_127.ZIP/V10_127

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/cZA5Nxi00VcJIKD04g>;
          Mon,  9 Oct 89 04:27:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  9 Oct 89 04:27:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #127

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
             Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles
         What will the next ten years bring?
            Re: The 'Face' of Mars
          Re: AuAustralian Launch pPad     ?
         Re: American Rocket Co. launch wake
             Re: Shuttle-Centaur
                   Re: CSA
        Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP
     Re: Comment on complaints about money spent on space
     Re: What to do with the $30 billion (irrelevancies)
         Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time
            Re: Magellan summary?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 89 16:41:36 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Stephen R Fleming)
Subject: Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) responded:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (daniel mocsny)
>writes:
>>For the business(wo)man to have to travel at all is archaic and
>>ridiculous, when (s)he is transacting only information. The time has
>>come for us to abandon our obsolete 1950's-vintage thinking...
>
>Abandoning technology is easy; abandoning old ways of thinking is very
>difficult.  Especially for businessmen. :-)
>
>>For the cost of developing an aero/space plane, we could instead
>>build communication devices that would bring us closer to the
>>ul[t]imate goal of saturating the human sensory bandwidth.

Two comments.  First, some businessmen read this net (like myself) and
would be perfectly thrilled to quit hopping planes at Washington National
Airport!  Indeed, part of my job is to create the broadband networks
necessary to allow on-demand videoconferencing... but we're talking
upgrading a trillion-dollar infrastructure that dates back to Alexander
Graham Bell.  It won't happen quickly, and it may not happen at all if
Judge Greene has anything to do with it... so I wouldn't sell my Boeing
stock just yet.

Negative comment:  bandwidth aside, I don't think anything will ever take
the place of the initial handshake (or bow, or whatever the culture
dictates) of a face-to-face meeting.  I _do_ think that video could
eliminate a lot of the followup meetings that currently eat up travel
dollars, fuel, and time.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stephen Fleming                 |  Internet: [e-mail]   |
| Director, Technology Marketing  |  Voice:    [phone]           |
| Northern Telecom                +-------------------------------------|
| Federal Networks Division       |    Opinions expressed are not       |
| Vienna, Virginia  22182         |    those of Northern Telecom.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <Added.YZ=[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 06 Oct 89 12:27:46 EDT
Resent-From: Harold Pritchett <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Space discussion group <[e-mail]>
Date:         Fri, 6 Oct 1989 07:58 EST
From: Robert Allinson <[e-mail]>
Subject:      What will the next ten years bring?
To: <[e-mail]>


I'm interested to know, from the experts out there, what are your
views on what will the next ten years bring in the relm of space?
What *new* technologies will be developed and are we ever going to
see a space station in our lifetime (within the next 10 years).

And what about *STAR WARS*?  Does anyone beleive that IT'S ALREADY
UP THERE?    I do!

I'd appreciate any comments you can give.


                                                 Thanks,    Robert Allinson
                                                            xa3i@purccvm

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 17:37:50 GMT
From: mcsun!hp4nl!nikhefk![e-mail]  (Greg Retzlaff)
Subject: Re: The 'Face' of Mars


AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGG !!!!!!!!!

--
The most common things in the universe  | We are all in the gutter,
are hydrogen and stupidity.             | but some of us look at the stars.

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 17:36:13 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: AuAustralian Launch pPad     ?

In article <246900030@peg> [e-mail] writes:
>.... What has been the story , environmentally, in the
>US, and what sort of effects could we expect in Australia?

Think of it as an ongoing construction project.  The environmental effects
of the rockets themselves are negligible unless the launch rate really
starts to get fierce.  Environmental effects, if any, come mostly from
people and vehicles running around constantly, and buildings and pads
being built and modified.

In case you weren't aware of it, KSC is a wildlife sanctuary, with huge
populations of birds and swamp animals (including alligators).  They don't
seem to mind the activity.
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 21:49:41 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!aero![e-mail]  (Thomas F. Smith)
Subject: Re: American Rocket Co. launch wake

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas F. Smith) writes:
>>The AMROC launch of the "Koopman Express"
>>is currently scheduled for 5 OCT 89,
>
>Well, as you have all heard, it just sat and burned.  Ah for the good old
>days when men were men and engineers blew up rockets.  Not much of a
>memorial for Koopman however :-(

     The real memorial will be the continuing and perservering, in his
     spirited way.  It would be sad if AMROC died.

>What sort of success rate did Von Braun an Co. have?  Have that many
>lessons been forgotten or is Amroc using an innovative design?

Von Braun blew up plenty.  During and after the war.

AMROC was launching the FIRST* hybrid engine vehicle.  It uses
Liquid Oxygen and a solid "rubber" fuel.  Very innovative.

It seems that the valve that allows the LO2 to flow from the pressurized
tank only opened part way.
You could say that it gagged and died from lack of oxygen.  Not me thou!

William Bennett was making notes into his microcassette recorder after
the non-liftoff; very professional operation.

* I know that someone out there can point out an exception.  Please
educate all of us.

TO: Henry Spencer.
Well Henry, that's ONE.  Let's get some more on the pad and light
the fire!

PS.  Someone taped a fireworks package warning to the base of the
"Koopman Express".  Emits sparks.  Light fuse and stand back.
PPS.
Next month:  The Martin Marietta Commercial Titan from Cape Canaveral
Air Force Base, Florida launch complex 40.  A FIRM LAUNCH DATE?  8-))

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 06:17:12 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle-Centaur

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Rodman) writes:
>I heard the original plan had DUMP VALVES for the Centaur fuel (which
>put the craft over landing weight if you had to abort)!

Yup.  Most airliners with significant problems will dump fuel before landing
as well, for much the same reasons:  reduced weight and reduced fire hazard.
What's the big deal?
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 06:20:50 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: CSA

In article <65*[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bradley thompson) writes:
>Perhaps the people looking at the Corporate Space Administration
>should coordinate with the Canadian Space Agency as to who gets to
>be the CSA.

CSA is the Canadian Standards Association, the Canadian equivalent of
UL in the safety-certification business.  You had better believe that
it's a registered trademark.  Any group having anything to do with
technology that wants to use initials should pick another set.
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 11:50:12 GMT
From: mcsun!sunic!sics.se![e-mail]  (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP

In article <[e-mail]>, srg@quick (Spencer Garrett) writes:
>And what's the "E" in KEAS?  Surely Edwards doesn't have its own
>standard of measurement! :-}

EAS = Equivalent Air Speed. This is the CAS corrected for the
compressibility of air at higher speeds (higher dynamic pressure). In
light aircraft the compressibility effects are negligible, so it is
safe to set EAS=CAS.

Indeed, when you convert TAS to CAS (or vice versa) using density
altitude, you are usually converting between TAS and EAS instead,
assuming EAS=CAS!
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                Internet: [e-mail]
Swedish Institute of Computer Science        Phone (intn'l): [phone]
Box 1263                    Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 23:26:11 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Comment on complaints about money spent on space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Clews) writes:
>>    ... In other words, the Defense
>>Department spends the entire NASA budget every 12 days and it takes
>>Health and Human Services 2 or 3 weeks to go through $10 billion."

>(As I don my asbestos suit) I said simplistically, of course, because not
>even I compared apples to apples; it was more like apples to oranges, while
>A. Clews compared apples to aardvarks (NASA vs. HHS ?).  Also, I didn't
>mention DOE or NIH funding.

>John Sahr,     Dept. of Electrical Eng., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
>johns@{alfven,calvin}.ee.cornell.edu,  {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns
>--When the dust settles, each B2 bomber will fund NSF for more than a year--
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm.....  Then I guess this is comparing oranges to eagles? :-)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 20:25:06 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What to do with the $30 billion (irrelevancies)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:
>Asteroid, lunar and (probably) Martian sample-return missions to Antartica
>  (we might find pieces of Mercury and/or Venus as well; these would be
>   firsts).
>>The missions to Antarctica return meteorites that
>>*might* be from the Moon/Mars/asteroids, but are so poorly documented
>>and have so many complicating factors that they are not much use as samples.
>
>The lunar samples are clearly lunar; the Mars samples probable, and asteroid
>samples have long been well-known in Antartica and elsewhere.  You are in
>disagreement with a large number of space scientists, who are
>quite excited about the Antartic finds.  Antartic missions, well funded and
>coordinated with probes and an asteroid sky survey, would be much better
>documented than today.  The Antartic missions would cost a fraction of the
>Galileo-class probes, which in turn are a fraction of the cost of Station.

And they would return a fraction of the results.  The lunar samples are
considered to be definitely lunar, based on comparison with Apollo samples.
But from where on the Moon?  Good question.  Based on chemical composition,
at least some of them are from areas well away from the Apollo sites, perhaps
even the far side.  Beyond that... who knows?  The Mars samples are still
considered iffy by many geologists; "probable" is an overstatement.  Nobody
seriously disputes that most of the rest come from the asteroids... but
*which* asteroids?  The biggest complaint the geologists had about the
Apollo samples was inadequate documentation of location, relationship to
neighboring samples, etc.  This was for samples that were photographed
and picked up by humans.  Samples blasted into space by impacts are a
thousand times worse.

Another interesting aspect is that if you look at papers based on the
meteorites, e.g. the recent one in Science, practically all the results
are comparisons to Apollo results.  Subtract the Apollo samples from
the work, and the whole paper dries up and blows away.  Just how much
are we going to learn about the asteroids from meteorites?  For that
matter, just how much are we going to learn about the Moon from them?
The Science paper had exactly one real general fact, that the percentage
of certain elements seems to vary significantly from place to place on
the surface.  This sort of statistical information is useful, but it's
not what one would call Voyager-class results.

The Antarctic meteorite expeditions are interesting and useful.  Calling
them "sample return" missions is ridiculous, unless you prefix the phrase
with some qualifier like "ersatz" or "random".

>Asteroid sky survey with Hubble and ground-based telescopes

The telescope techies can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding
is that the Hubble telescope's usefulness for sky surveys is nil.  It's
a narrow-field deep-sky instrument, great for in-depth examination of
specific objects but totally unsuited to searches and surveys.  The data
return from telescopic study of asteroids is also, um, kind of limited.
It's not, in any way, shape, or form, a substitute for closeups.

>Radio astronomy: We have been getting some good data on the asteroids and
>Mars by examining reflected radio signals generated at Goldstone.  Upgrading
>2 more DSN antennae for this would cost less than $100 million.

A worthwhile thing to do.  But last I heard, the amount of good data coming
out was measured in bits, not megabytes.  (I'm talking results, not raw data.)
Like the spectroscopic work on asteroid classification, it gives only the
sketchiest and most superficial idea of what's out there.

>We would have been much better off to launch those 18 probes to Mars,
>several asteroids, and several comets as well as the Moon, and then use
>the rest of the Apollo money to launch several dozen more all over the
>solar system.  There is no reason Kennedy could not have proposed this and
>made it just as exciting as Apollo.

Let us know how your career in politics goes.  Don't give up the day job,
though.  (I.e., this assertion is ridiculous; Kennedy could never have
sold that to anyone but planetary scientists... who are not exactly a
major voting bloc.)

>One mission per planet is not as much as we _could_ do, but it's a heck of
>a lot more than we _are_ doing.

If we're proposing fantasies, why not propose good ones?
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 15:25:18 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas F. Smith) writes:
   >The AMROC launch of the "Koopman Express"
   >is currently scheduled for 5 OCT 89,

   Well, as you have all heard, it just sat and burned.  Ah for the good old
   days when men were men and engineers blew up rockets.  Not much of a
   memorial for Koopman however :-(

The anchorman on one of the newscasts that I watched said that they were
going to clean this vehicle up and try it again!

   What sort of success rate did Von Braun an Co. have?  Have that many
   lessons been forgotten or is Amroc using an innovative design?

Well, Amroc's design appears to be more failure-tolerant.  :-)
--
Mary Shafer   [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
         NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                    Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 22:02:16 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Feulner ... Matt Feulner)
Subject: Re: Magellan summary?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>Some trajectory wizard (who plainly
>deserves a medal, IMHO) discovered this bizarre track that enabled Galileo to
>reach Jupiter with the IUS booster.  It's the most creative piece of mission
>planning I've seen since I started working here (<- this is called a hook).

No doubt a grad student slave who never gets any credit.  I'm
pretty sure it was a grad student who first realized the Grand
Tour/Voyager trajectory.

Matthew Feulner

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #127
*******************