Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_3/V10_333.ZIP/V10_333

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/0ZUoUtS00VcJ4Jyk58>;
          Mon, 11 Dec 89 01:24:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 01:24:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #333

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 333

Today's Topics:
             space news from Oct 16 AW&ST
           Re: Multi-national (MANNED) Mars Mission
       A reminder (was Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars)
               Re: Mars rovers
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 89 20:51:34 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Oct 16 AW&ST

[Pegasus update, as of 7 Dec:  dress-rehearsal captive-carry test slips
one week due to minor electrical problems.]

Editorial about the effort being mounted by Keith Glennan, James Webb,
and Robert Seamans -- all ex-heads of NASA -- to start an organized
project to preserve historical records of the US space program.  The
Smithsonian is running it.  An awful lot has already been lost, notably
in industry but also within the government.  Even the more formal forms
of records are sparse for some projects, like the early Mariner missions.
Engineering drawings are largely missing, even for major efforts like
the F-1 engine and the Apollo lunar module.  And most prominently, there
are very few records of the decision-making that went into the designs,
even when the final result is well-documented.  The final blow is that
almost all Apollo-era documentation is on acidic paper with a lifetime
of only a few decades.

Galileo launch slips due to the need to replace a misbehaving engine
controller on Atlantis.  During a pre-flight test run, the computer on
engine #2 had trouble updating its value for the low-pressure fuel duct
pressure -- a moderately important sensor reading -- and there were some
doubts about the backup computer as well.  Mission rules call for both
computers to operate correctly, and attempts to duplicate the problem
for study were unsuccessful.  The slip casts considerable doubt on
Galileo's second asteroid encounter, which was already at the limits
of fuel supply, although the calculations are conservative enough that
the first asteroid encounter and the full Jupiter mission are thought
to be safe.

Judge Oliver Gasch denies the Christics' request for an injunction to
halt the Galileo launch.  He rules that the wisdom of the launch itself
is outside his jurisdiction, and the only issue at hand is whether NASA
has complied with the rules.  He further rules that NASA has conducted
proper environmental-impact reviews, that the Christics are not likely
to prevail in a trial, and that the public interest would be harmed by
a launch delay.  Case closed.

ESA begins evaluating 150,000-page (!) industry proposal for Columbus
(polar platform, space-station lab module, and free-flying lab module).
Cost, surprise surprise, comes in at about the predicted $2.5G, with
some variations depending on a couple of details:  which design is used
for the polar platform (BAe's design based on other Columbus hardware,
or Matra's based on the Spot4/Helios bus), and whether the resource
module for the free-flier is replenished by replacing it in toto or by
replacing modules within it.

ESA grows increasingly concerned about the US's unilateral decision-making
regarding the station.  "The US program has been chaotic recently, and
major changes in configuration or scheduling are being developed in NASA
without necessary coordination with its international partners."  "What
is happening with the station proves once again that we can't count on
the US for fair treatment on international programs...  They have told
us that the situation with space station Freedom now is improving.  But
what assurances do we have that the station will not undergo another
major configuration change -- which probably will be made without
consulting us -- when the next budget crisis comes?"

Solar Max to fall, reentry expected in mid-Dec [well, it was a bit ahead
of schedule...].  Models predict either a few big pieces or a lot of
small ones will survive reentry.  Solar Max has no propulsion system and
there is no possibility of choosing its impact point.

With Solar Max about to die, NASA is starting to run high-risk tests that
have some chance of damaging the spacecraft.  There is seldom a chance to
do this on a spacecraft that's been up ten years.  Various systems are
being stress-tested, primary systems are being shut down and long-dormant
backup systems activated to see if they work, and jettison mechanisms for
the high-gain antenna and solar arrays will be fired.

Many solar scientists are more than a little angry about Solar Max's death,
since it continues to return high-quality data.

Hughes considers commercial venture to build small ocean-monitoring satellite,
to be financed by sale of data to fishing and environmental interests.  It
would weigh about 250lbs, could be up by 1991, and would be launched by
Pegasus.  Hughes and NASA are negotiating a deal to give NASA R&D rights
and Hughes commercial rights.  Total costs for six-year life would be
"under $50M".  Data returned would be similar to that from Nimbus 7's
coastal-zone color scanner; the project grew out of old proposals to
put an ocean sensor on a future Landsat.  It would be a relatively
wide-angle sensor gathering low-resolution images in eight narrow bands.
The satellite would be in a sun-synchronous orbit with equator crossing
at noon.  Hughes wants to sign up some startup customers before go-ahead,
on contracts offering ongoing access to the data stream rather than sale
of single images.  The venture will be based in Canada, where Hughes is
finding the government much more helpful than in the US.

"Report from Baikonur Cosmodrome", with lots of big color photos of Soviet
space activities.  View of Buran's payload bay with the doors open. Non-
flight Energia on the pad for fuelling tests.  Close-ups of Buran's nose
with reaction-control-system package removed, showing construction of the
interior (conventional aircraft techniques, by the looks of it).  Energia
liquid-booster integration area, with many bits of hardware on view.

Visit to Leninsk, the town supporting Baikonur.  A somewhat scruffy place,
with generally poorly-built buildings and streets.  People find it less
than an ideal place to live, given extreme temperatures and isolation,
but it has compensations:  wages at the Cosmodrome are quite a bit higher
than elsewhere, and consumer goods are in better supply.

Baikonur's primary pad for "A" boosters is the same one used for Sputnik 1
and Gagarin.  [Compare this to the Cape, where most of the historic pads
are long disused and rotting.]

Soviet Union decides on a three-orbiter shuttle fleet for the moment.
Number one is being partially disassembled for inspection after its 1988
flight (this inspection having been delayed by the decision to take it to
the Paris Air Show), number two is at Baikonur having final systems work
done, and number three is midway through production near Moscow.  There is
some confusion about names because "Buran" is both the number-one orbiter
and, increasingly, a generic name for the system.  Number two will be used
for the second unmanned flight, tentatively set for 1991.

As speculated in the west, Energia's payload capacity depends on how many
liquid-fuel boosters are used.  With two boosters, the minimum, it's 65
tons to low orbit.  The maximum, with eight boosters and a slightly
modified core, is 200 tons.  "Controlled flight" remains possible after
failure of a single booster or a single core engine.
--
1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972:  human |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Dec 89 14:57:43 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Multi-national (MANNED) Mars Mission

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stephen Matson) writes:
>
>  I'm surprised that in the discussion over manned vs. unmanned the
>  subject of a multi-national mars mission has not come up yet (or
>  did I miss it ?).
>
>  A Multi-National Mars mission would serve the goals of ;
>
>   Cost reduction on a per-nation basis. ( tho the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would
>   probably flit most of the bill)
>
>   Putting together the best technology know-how of the participating
>   nations, The USSR's heavy lift boosters, The USA's computer systems,
>   Japans manufacturing skills, ETC....
>
>   The World Space Agency formed to oversee a Mars mission would serve
>   as the foundation for a more agressive exploration/colonization
>   effort with ( hopefully ) more vision and commitment then any one
>   nation could possibly keep up by itself for long.
>
>   And foremost (IMHO) it  would serve to excite  (most)  of the worlds
>   people and bring a vision of a United ( Ok, Confederated) World reaching
>   out to the planets, then one day the stars, Closer.

Would this even be good?  Now before you say that cooperation will always
beat competition, it will in the very short run.  But it will probably be
a great liability in the long run.  Before 1950, Szilard gave a scenario
for stifling research in the US.  It is a very good description of the
present system of government support.

Is this true in space?  I believe that this has already been demonstrated.
When the lethargy was finally removed from the early space program, the US
believed that it had no way to put trucks into orbit, but merely basketballs.
While work went on to get the big boosters, work also went on to get the
basketball to do the work of the truck.  The success in that direction was
that by the time of Apollo, the US was preeminent in space work, and at
relatively low cost.  Also, the spinoffs from the space-generated efforts
at making things smaller and better has REALLY paid off.

It is not clear that the USSR can produce heavy lift boosters of much
greater capacity than the US.  It is true that the US no longer produces
them, except for the shuttle.  Without competition between the US and the
USSR, I doubt that we would have attained very much of what has been done.

>  Most people I know think that one day Humans will colonize the planets,
>  but not in our lifetime. Why not ? If there was a Multi-national effort
>  put forth to explore Mars, it would bring down some of the lingering
>  walls of mistrust. And then think what we could do as far as Space
>  exploration/research/colonization (not to mention hunger, etc)
>  if we did not have to maintain a gigantic military.

We should be working on colonizing now.  But the planets?  The moon, Mars,
and the asteroids look possible, and the one I like best is the asteroids.
How easy is it to do this?  Do the resources, including raw materials, exist?
If they are not easily available, are they available in such places as the
rings of Saturn, etc.?  A monolithic project is likely to be ineffective.

We could do it somewhat faster if we did not have to maintain a large
military establishment, but not much.  As to the matter of hunger, the
reduction in the size of the military will have no effect on it.  It is
not a matter of money.

>  Personally I *like* the idea. I think the formation of a W.S.A. is
>  inevitable, its just a matter of when.
>
>  I also think the space station should be more multi-national.

I think that having 10 WSAs with differing attitudes would be even better.
We should have many space stations; it would be much better than one big
one.  We have to do the research out there.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

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

Date: 11 Dec 89 02:57:27 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: A reminder (was Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David L. Williamson) writes:
>
>Dear Jim Bowery,
>    You, sir, are easily one of the most backward people I have ever
>communicated with...  [etc etc]

I am posting this as an article rather than as private email because
other net readers should be aware of what's wrong here.

USENET NEWS IS NOT A MAIL SERVICE.

If you have a communication of ANY nature -- friendly, hostile,
personal, business, or whatever -- which is individually addressed to,
or pertains to, a specific net user, SEND IT AS MAIL -- DO NOT POST IT
AS A NEWS ARTICLE.  News is EXPENSIVE to distribute worldwide and we do
NOT want to read your personal business in a newsgroup like sci.space.

Articles posted here should address the ISSUE, not the individual.
Nobody's perfect, this is violated now and then usually in good spirits
("is Henry an AI" etc) -- but spewing personal venom, as in the above
quoted article, is a particularly egregious offense.

>    Thank you very much for your viewpoint.  You are free to say what
>you wish, but I am also free to ignore everything you say.  You are becoming
>part of my permanent KILL file, and I suspect that you will receive the same
>treatment from many others as well.

Bowery may be off base a lot of the time by my standards, or consensus
standards for that matter, but he clearly cares about space and nearly
always crafts an interesting "read" using dashes of humor and style.
The above quoted crap, on the other hand, diminishes the net all round.
--
There's nothing wrong with Southern California that a    || Tom Neff
rise in the ocean level wouldn't cure. -- Ross MacDonald || [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Dec 89 14:25:42 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Mars rovers


In my previous post, I pointed out that it would be difficult to slow things
enough to control a rover from earth.  I omitted to point out that it may be
necessary to move quickly.  It is necessary to consider minor landslides,
dust storms, cliff edges, etc., where even a 10 second delay, let alone one
od 6-30 minutes, can be catastrophic.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

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

Date: 10 Dec 89 16:23:17 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:

>Galileo, to pick an example, had launch-vehicle problems partly because
>it kept getting bigger and fatter.  It also ate up almost all the funding
It is true, however, that if NASA had allowed it to go on a Titan
Centaur one of the major sources of the delays (i.e. the multiple
redesigns) would have been avoided  (see p.205 of Murray's "Journey
Into Space").

>Observer program simply has not appeared.  Using the shuttle as a
>launcher did not cause its problems, and abandoning that policy has not
>magically cured them.
NASA's unwillingness to launch Mars Observer on a Titan 3 *did* contribute
to the delays and the dropping of one of its instruments. I am aware
that Bruce Murray is not an impartial source though, so alternative
"versions of the facts" would be interesting, Henry, if you could give
us the references.

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]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #333
*******************