Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_0/V12_087.ZIP/V12_087

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/cadIL7a00VcJ41B05H>;
          Thu, 19 Jul 1990 01:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <sadIKXi00VcJ41=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 1990 01:31:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #87

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:
             space news from May 28 AW&ST
              "Captain Midnight"
 Re: Earth moving (was Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible?
          Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL
                Re: Titan HLV
                  Apologies
             Re: Bush Approves Cape York
          Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL
             Re: Bush Approves Cape York
           Re: On-orbit satellite servicing
           Payload Status for 07/17/90 (Forwarded)
       Re: NASA Lobbying... (Hopefully the last msg...)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Jul 90 01:45:24 GMT
From: mcgill-vision!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 28 AW&ST

Full-page color ad opposite the editorial page -- must have cost a bundle --
for Pegasus.  The picture is Pegasus under B-52, and if I'm not mistaken
it was taken about a quarter of a second *after* drop, as you can see a
gap between Pegasus and its pylon.

ESA complains to Quayle, when he visits them, that the US is encouraging
unfair pricing by allowing use of Long March.  ESA continues to press for
a cartel, er excuse me a "fair-pricing accord".

Small Business Administration rules that NASA acted improperly when it
leased 24 commercial transponders on the TDRS system to Intelsat; the
high bidder was Columbia Communications, but NASA rejected them because
of "insufficient financial backing".  SBA says this is none of NASA's
business and the lease should go to the high bidder.  NASA may appeal.

Giotto's instruments appear to be functioning normally... except that
the camera is kaput. :-(  Its electronics and mechanics appear to be
working, so the best guess is that the external light baffle got
smashed late in the Halley pass and is blocking the view.  ESA will
decide May 29 whether to go ahead with sending Giotto to Grigg-Skjellerup
[they decided to go for it].

Commerce Dept study warns that US space industry is threatened by the
failure of both large aerospace companies and the financial community
to invest boldly.  The report, not yet public [AW&ST "obtained" a copy],
also blames the government for constantly changing the rules.  It says
that successful ventures so far are mostly those backed by "strategic"
investors, groups interested in future opportunities rather than near-
term financial return.  Foreign firms are prominent in this role.
"Japanese corporations competed fiercely to be financial participants
in the Spacehab venture."  There are often limits on foreign involvement
in companies with cooperative agreements with NASA, however, and such
companies often feel trapped between those limits and the utter lack
of interest from US aerospace investors.

First picture from Hubble, somewhat better than Earthbound telescopes.
[After hubris, nemesis... :-(]
--
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 15:49:10 GMT
From: att!oucsace![e-mail]  (Robert Olbers ece)
Subject: "Captain Midnight"

Several years ago (1986?), someone calling themselves
Captain Midnight ( I think ) jammed the HBO satellite
at the beginning of their prime-time programming and
posted a message complaining about HBO's rates.

I was wondering whatever happened to this guy -- was he
caught, sentenced, etc.?

R. L. Olbers
[e-mail]

"Being disintegrated makes me very angry" -- Marvin Martian

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

Date: 17 Jul 90 00:45:54 GMT
From: usc!samsung!emory!mephisto!prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Earth moving (was Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon J. Mohr) writes:

>Actually, I understand that Russian scientists have calculated that, given
>enough warning, it would actually be easier to MOVE THE EARTH than divert
>a distant, rapidly approaching asteroid. How? Altering the moon's mass with
>nuclear charges. The moon's orbit would change, also affecting the Earth's
>solar orbit. A slight change, over time, would mean a gigantic difference
>in where the Earth is at some future time.

Are these the same Russians whose probe went through a time warp and
transmitted pictures of heaven back to earth?  :)

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
Office of Information Technology     for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 04:45:21 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>    Perhaps, I can't do math, but aren't there normally twice as many
>people on board a shuttle ... as in soyuz or were in appollo?

There is no problem with building a slightly larger capsule; it's just
that nobody has yet had incentive to do so.  The major remaining capsule
enthusiasts -- the USSR -- don't need to send up lots of people in one
capsule, as they can just send up two or three Soyuzes at once to Mir
if they want a big crew.

An Apollo could hold five in a pinch; such a configuration was available
for a Skylab rescue mission if one had been necessary.

>... I just can't see how a soyuz, or an apollo, can
>be an equal research platform to a shuttle...

By itself, true.  Dock it to Mir, and it's a lot better than a shuttle.
It's also cheaper, and less hassle to launch.  Many space scientists
would happily put up with a smaller spacecraft with a smaller crew if it
meant more frequent flight opportunities for their equipment.
--
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 12:17:10 GMT
From: usc!samsung!emory!mephisto!prism![e-mail]  (Daniel McGurl)
Subject: Re: Titan HLV

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:
>A small company (OSC) can build a small launcher (Pegasus), but it takes
>a big company (Martin Marietta) to build a big launcher (Titan).

Wait a second here.  Do you have any evidence to support this?
While it's true that there are some additional expenses in terms of materials
that I cannot see any fundamental engineering difficulty with making a
larger rocket.

Ever hear of a company called AMROC?  Granted that their launcher had a
had a problem the first production flight, but they came mighty close getting
payloads into space.  Or do they not count?

>There is no free lunch.
Perhaps, but what does this have to do with anything? :-)
>--
>Charles Radley
>Internet: [e-mail]
>BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300
--
Daniel Sean McGurl                      "If you are not part of the solution,
Office of Information Technology and     you *are* the problem."
Information and Computer Science Major at:
Georgia Institute of Technology                     ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 12:18:58 GMT
From: crdgw1!gecrdvm1![e-mail]
Subject: Apologies

My sincere apologies to all who were offended, ticked off, or blinded
by my recent postings which were written in capital letters (look for
soviet union label, bright tidings for future). Did not realize I was
being uncouth.
thank you to those who responded with kind advice to turn em down, and
rasberries to those who were mean about it.
                            Pete

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

Date: 16 Jul 90 19:10:27 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rev Phil Skinque, DD (Ret.)) writes:

>>Other than that, we can always
>>acquire elint from our allies the USA (whom you will recall have a
>>number of satellite bases here).

>Somehow, I don't think the U.S. would bend over backward to run a KH-11/12
>mission in your part of the world unless it was REALLY needed. Most of the
>coverage is (probably, but Henry will correct me, of course) in the Northern
>Hemisphere.

Recall that spysats are in _low_ earth orbit and as such end up with a
considerable amount of time traversing _uninteresting_ areas.  Also
keep in mind that Vietnam, Kampuchea and the Peoples Republic of China
are all right next door to some of our longtime allies like Thailand
and Australia.

Another opinion...

--
Albion H. Bowers  [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers

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

Date: 13 Jul 90 21:41:35 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!dino!sharkey!fmsrl7!teemc!fmeed1![e-mail]  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I have already deleted Mr Spencer's rebuttal to my article, so I will
>have to respond to his response from memory.  Basically, I made the
>comment that "what can you do strapped into the nose cone of a ballistic
>missile?", to which he responded something like :  about as much as you
>can strapped into the nose cone of the shuttle.
>    Perhaps, I can't do math, but aren't there normally twice as many
>people on board a shuttle (in orbit- while on the ground there are thousands-
>all trying to figure out what's wrong with it) as in soyuz or were in appollo?
>seems to me more hands equal more research.

That is equivalent to saying that you can get more science done if you
drive a bus to the lab than if you ride a motorcycle.  The bus is
roomier and holds a lot more people, right?

This only holds true if you try cramming everything on board your
spacecraft and only operate it for the duration of its flight, ie.
you have nothing resembling a space station.  View Soyuz/Shuttle as
a taxi instead of a lab, and the comparison favors Soyuz.
--
Russ Cage    Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   Home:  [e-mail]

I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don't.

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

Date: 17 Jul 90 05:46:16 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!![e-mail]  (Deus ex Machina)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Charles Radley) writes:
>I have a copy of the Cape York study report, and can answer most of
>these. [a confusing mix of correct and incorrect information]

For those interested, here is an attempt to summarise the domestic
issues surrounding the establishment of a launching site on Cape York.

Cape York Peninsula is in the far NE (top right) of Australia. Hereafter I'll
use Cape York to refer to the pointy bit at the top which is about 500km long
and 200km wide at the base.

The only major development on the Cape is the large Bauxite mine at Weipa
(pop. ~3000) halfway up the west coast.  Sea and air is used for transport to
and from Weipa though a road of sorts exists connecting it to the south.
Other than in Weipa < 10,000 people, mainly aboriginals, live in small isolated
communities on the Cape.

Biogeographically Cape York is a distinct region. Basically this means
a large number of animals and plants are found there are and no where else
in Australia. Conservation groups also regard Cape York important as a
a wilderness area of great natural beauty and little disturbed by man.

There were two consortiums with competing proposals for establishing
spaceports on Cape York. One consortium has abandoned their
proposal for a launching site near Weipa claiming it to be uneconomic.
The second consortium is proceeding with its proposal for a launching
site at Temple Bay on the east coast of the Cape roughly opposite Weipa.
The Environmental Impact Statement is still under preparation. Information
about Temple Bay is hard to find. Certainly its undeveloped. I presume
materials would be brought in by sea or by air.

The spaceport has been more in the local newpapers lately. A recent piece
questioned the ability of the Temple Bay consortium to obtain financing.
It is puzzling that the Weipa site which would seem more attractive with its
existing infastructure and less environmental concerns, was rejected
by the other consortium as uneconomic.

The previous Queensland state government was extremely pro-development
which would have supported the spaceport proposal no matter what the
opposition from conservationists and aboriginal groups. The current Qld. and
federal governments are both much less likely to push the spaceport proposal
in the face of major opposition. Personally, given such oppostion, I can't see
the spaceport being built.

Though conservation groups are concerned with the direct impact of the
construction and operation of the spaceport, of more concern is the further
development on the Cape which the spaceport would trigger.
Federal and Qld. governments could address such concerns by preparing a landuse
plan for all of Cape York.  It is possible such a plan could protect much
area currently unprotected and satisfy conservation and aboriginal groups
but allow the spaceport itself to proceed. This may not be sufficient for
the consortium if it is relying on profiting from secondary development.

I don't know how if such a compromise is likely or how long it would take to
achieve but my assessment of the politics is that its the best hope
for the Temple Bay launching site.

Andrew

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

Date: 17 Jul 90 03:45:37 GMT
From: att!watmath!watserv1!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: On-orbit satellite servicing

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>SSS was intended to use only the Orbital Manuevering (sic) Vehicle
>(OMV) as its propulsion system.  Because of the recent significant
>alteration of the OMV program...

Hee hee.  "Alteration" = "dead as a doornail".
--
NFS:  all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
and its performance and security too.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Jul 90 17:04:53 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 07/17/90 (Forwarded)


  Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 07-17-90.




  - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at OPF) -

  Experiment monitoring continues.


  - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) -

  Preps for the GRO/POCC end-to-end test will be performed today.


  - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -

  STT preps continue.


  - STS-41 Ulysses (at Hanger AO) -

  Preps for IUS/PAM-S CITE testing continue.


  - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) -

  Rack, floor, and module staging is continuing.


  - Atlas-1 (at O&C) -

  Electrical cable and experiment installations are  continuing.


  - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) -

  MLI installation will continue today.


  - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) -

  Rack staging continues.

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

Date: 17 Jul 90 07:55:06 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!axion!axion.bt.co.uk![e-mail]  (alan pengelly)
Subject: Re: NASA Lobbying... (Hopefully the last msg...)

I agree. Most of the interesting articles are by NASA people. Keep
sending them in.

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #87
*******************