Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_1/V13_109.ZIP/V13_109

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 20KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/obfZ3EO00WBwEAaE43>;
          Tue,  5 Feb 91 01:29:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  5 Feb 91 01:29:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #109

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
            Expendable vs Shuttle
           1991 Princeton Space Forum (revision 2)
         Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait
              Re: Why man rate?
             Re: Humanity's Launch Window
            Magellan Update #2 - 01/30/91
          Re: Hacking Spacecraft & ESA Publications
              Re: Expendable vs Shuttle
 Problems with International Collaboration (was Re: Space Station...)

Administrivia:

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

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

Date:    Wed, 30 Jan 91 11:05 EST
From: "Scott P Leslie"                            <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expendable vs Shuttle

   Could someone list figures on the types of failures that
the proposed expendable launchers have had. It would seem that
they don't just explode like the Challenger, but rather veer off
course or have some other failure that is escapable.  If this is
true, this would put the fatal failure rate for expendable launchers
way below that of the shuttle.

Scott P. Leslie ([e-mail])

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 19:28:43 GMT
From: phoenix![e-mail]  (Marc Wayne Mcconley)
Subject: 1991 Princeton Space Forum (revision 2)


                        MOON, MARS, AND BEYOND
Top Space Experts to Explore America's Future in Space at Public Forum

Princeton, NJ - On February 11, 1991, seven of the nation's leading
authorities on space will participate in an innovative public forum
entitled "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" to discuss the policy options now
being considered by the Bush administration for America's space program.
The forum will foster interaction among these experts and the public and
will provide a non-technical perspective on strategies for the
exploration and settlement of the solar system.

Participants include the current Deputy Administrator of NASA,
and an entrepreneur whose private company launches commercial payloads
into orbit.  (A complete list of speakers appears below.)

"Moon, Mars, and Beyond" begins at 7:30 pm on Monday, February 11, 1991,
in Richardson Auditorium in Alexander Hall, Princeton University.
Admission is $6 to individuals not affiliated with Princeton University.
To order tickets send a check or money order, payable to Princeton
Planetary Society, for $6 per ticket to:  Princeton Planetary Society,
315 West College, Princeton University, Princeton  NJ  08544.  Ticket
orders MUST BE RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 4, 1991.  For more information,
contact Audrey Robinson at 609-258-7947.

There will be a banquet prior to the forum, at 5:00 pm on February 11 in
the Senior Room of the Nassau Inn at Palmer Square, on Nassau Street in
Princeton.  Tickets to the banquet are $35/plate.  Banquet ticket orders may
be sent with forum ticket orders to the above address ONLY.

AFTER FEBRUARY 4, tickets may be purchased through the Richardson
Auditorium Box Office by phone [phone]) with VISA or MasterCard
only.  The Box Office adds a $1 service charge to the price of each
ticket for phone orders.  Tickets may also be purchased in person at the
Box Office with cash, check, or credit card.  The Box Office is open
from 4 to 6 pm, Monday through Friday, and beginning at 4 pm on the day
of the forum.

The forum is sponsored by the Princeton Planetary Society, a student-run
chapter of the National Space Society.  "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" is the
Third Annual Princeton Space Forum.  The first two forums each attracted
500 people and widespread media coverage.

--
Marc W. McConley
Vice President / President-Elect, Princeton Planetary Society
Reply-To:  [e-mail]  ||  [phone]

=====================================================================
The following is a complete list of speakers:

JOHN BAHCALL is Professor of Natural Science at the Institute for
Advanced Study in Princeton and President of the American Astronomical
Society.  Bahcall works on galaxy models, dark matter, neutron stars,
quasars, and solar neutrinos, and he published a book on "Solar
Neutrinos" in 1989.

JAMES C BENNETT is currently the Corporate Vice President of American
Rocket Company, a private launch company, which developed the unique,
non-explosive hybrid rocket engine.  Bennett co-founded the company with
the late George Koopman in 1985.  He was also a co-founder of Space
Enterprise Consultants, the first consulting firm devoted entirely to
commercial space development, and of Arc Technologies, Inc., an early
private space-launch venture.  He is a member of the Legislative
Committee of the National Space Society.

GREGG EASTERBROOK is a Contributing Editor for "Newsweek."  In an
exclusive report in "Newsweek's" August 17, 1987, issue, Easterbrook
explained how interagency rivalries, aerospace-industry lobbying, and
domestic political considerations continue to plague America's space
program.  He had earlier predicted in a 1980 article that the space
shuttle program was fraught with dangers.  Easterbrook also seves as a
Contributing Editor at both "The Atlantic" and "The Washington Monthly"
magazines.

LORI GARVER is Executive Director of the National Space Society.  Garver
is a founder of Spacecause, a national pro-space lobbying group.  She
currently serves as a co-chair of the education committee for the
International Astronautical Federation and is a member of the Board of
Directors of Women in Aerospace.  She will moderate the panel discussion
during the forum.

STEPHANIE LEE-MILLER is the director of the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation in the US Department of Transportation.  In this
capacity, she serves as the Secretary's Representative to the National
Space Council and the chief federal regulatory official for the growing
commercial space transportation industry.  Lee-Miller is a member of
Women in Aerospace, a professional organization created to honor
outstanding women in the space field.

J R THOMPSON, JR became Deputy Administrator of NASA in 1989, following
33 months as head of the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL.
Druing that period, the Marshall Center oversaw the redesign and testing
of the Space Shuttle's critical solid rocket boosters.  Before becoming
director at Marshall, Thompson served 3 years as deputy director for
technical operations at Princeton's Plasma Physics Laboratory.  In 1986
he served as the vice chairman of the NASA task force inquiring into the
cause of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident.  Previously, Thompson
spent 20 years with NASA at Marshall in various positions, where he was
responsible for the development and operation of the most advanced
liquid propulsion rocket engine ever created.  Thompson will deliver the
keynote address at the forum.

ROBERT G TORRICELLI (D-NJ, 9th district) is serving his fifth term in
the House of Representatives.  He is chairman of the Transportation,
Aviation, and Materials Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology.  Torricelli sponsored the legislation enacted to build a
new orbiter following the destruction of the Challenger and also wrote
legislation to promote multinational cooperation in the exploration of
Mars.

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 08:06:39 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!uniwa!vax7![e-mail]  (Liam Gumley)
Subject: Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Perew) writes:
> As I recall when Chernobyl had its little "event" the media was
> displaying LandSat-style imagery within a couple of days of the
> "event".  However, we are now 13 days into Operation Desert Storm
> and I haven't seen any visible spectrum or IR imagery from the
> Persian Gulf area.

I guess this sort of imagery would be available from Meteosat, as is already
seen on CNN etc.  But the viewing geometry is not exactly optimum.
Someone with a ground station for NOAA HRPT polar orbiter data might be
able to pick up AVHRR imagery of the region from India or Pakistan.
I attended a conference in September 1990 where a represenative from
SPOT gave a talk.  One of the first questions was - have you supplied
imagery to the Iraqis - the answer was that a decision was made
to restrict the sale of imagery of the Gulf region to Iraqi buyers.
I guess SPOT would be the only imagery useful (apart from Landsat TM)
for showing details on the surface at the scale of meters.

Cheers,
Liam.

--
[e-mail]
#Liam E. Gumley, Department of Applied Physics, Curtin University of Technology#
#Perth, Western Australia.   >>>All opinions expressed are exclusively mine.<<<#

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 00:13:54 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Why man rate?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Glenn A. Serre) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Cornutt) writes:
>
>>3) The Titan II was man-rated, and the Titan IV is a Titan II that's been
>>modded.
>
>Not that I have anything against Titans, but why was it man-rated?

Gemini.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 19:15:59 GMT
From: agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Humanity's Launch Window

In article <nickrant#1.2e4> Nick ([e-mail]) writes:

>The only thing the Japanese really have over us is efficiency --
>they manage to get some things done on quite a bit smaller budget
>and less time than the U.S. -- "quick is beautiful."  But some
>"off the beaten path" U.S.  projects (Pegasus, AMSAT) also demonstrate
>this capability.  In overall aerospace and science they are still behind
>the U.S.  We could learn some things from them about manufacturing
>automation, though.

We could learn a lot about manufacturing. And also about turning basic
science into workable engineering. Remember, in the 18th and early 19th
centuries, the Chinese were ahead of us in the basic technologies of the
blast furnace and the 'drilling rig' (they didn't drill, they used a
percussion bit, but so did everyone else until Hughes invented the rotary
bit in _this_ century). They also built the first working models of both
lighter than air (some lanterns) and heavier than air (kites) flying
vehicles. And these models eventually inspired, *in Europe* (and in America),
the balloon and the glider. Which evolved into the forms of flight we use
today.

One could say that the Japanese aren't pulling their weight in basic
science, but some malnourished Bengali peasant might look at the
Superconducting Supercollider and say that the Americans aren't
doing enough to turn basic science into useful technology.

And turning basic science into useful technology might actually be the
more difficult task.

(BTW, the on-line spelling-checker says that Bengali is a correct spelling,
but I suspect that there is an h in there somewhere).

(Nah, Phil's just pulling our leg, everyone knows those inscrutable
orientals aren't creative but can only steal ideas, something to do with
what happens to the brain when you have soup for breakfast since birth.)

Seriously, though, anyone who thinks that asians are inscrutable should
look up Department of State, United States, in a periodicals index and
go on from there.

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 21:41:22 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update #2 - 01/30/91


                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                          January 30, 1991

     The spacecraft and the radar system continue to perform nominally 138
days after mapping started on September 15, with 901 mapping orbits and about
50% of the surface area of Venus captured in images.  In spite of the DMS-A
(Data Management Subsystem) deterioration and intermittent problems at the DSN
(Deep Space Network) stations, about 95% of the radar mapping data collected by
the spacecraft has been successfully captured on Earth.

     The spacecraft completed its period of apoapsis Earth occultations and
returns to full mapping passes on January 26.  Spacecraft temperatures continue
to warm due to changing solar geometry.  An extra reaction wheel desaturation
was required on January 23, when momentum buildup exceeded the preset limits
before an adjustment to the preload could take effect.

     On Wednesday, January 23, the Radar System Engineering Team (RSET) reported
an unexpected spike in the radiometer data of orbit 1319, indicating a
brightness temperature 125 degrees Celsius higher than normal for the Venus
surface.  The spike was also found on orbit 1318.  Scientists and spacecraft
engineers are analyzing the data to determine if the high readings were caused
by the spacecraft position relative to the sun or actual surface features on
Venus.

     The Image Data Processing Team produced the following new data products:

        o Six Altimeter Data Records
        o One Basic Radiometer Data Record
        o Nine Polar Image Data Records
        o Two Compressed Basic Image Data Records
        o Two Full Resolution Mosaicked Image Data Records (F-MIDRs)

     Eighteen additional F-MIDRs were nearly finished and are expected to be
completed this week.

     The "Magellan at Venus" report on January 23 featured Dr. Ellen Stofan,
who discussed the arachnoid features on Venus.  Ellen will host today's
show on January 30.

     The 10 x 12 foot crater farm mosaic recently on display in the lobby of
Building 180 at JPL has been sent to the Maryland Museum of Science in
Baltimore.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 18:25:01 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!umich!umeecs!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: Hacking Spacecraft & ESA Publications

Hmm, maybe someone could get SPOT photos of Iraq and Kuwait.  :-) ?
**************************************************************************
Zeitgeist Busters!
UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
INET: [e-mail]
           Aslan is on the move!
****************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 13:41:38 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Expendable vs Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> Henry Spencer writes:

>Actually, the Challenger breakup (it wasn't an explosion) would have been
>survivable had the astronauts been in a tough little capsule with parachutes
>rather than in a big fragile orbiter with wings.

Especially when you realize that the capsule has a nice little rocket
to carry the crew to safety.

   Allen


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 31 Jan 91 02:36:24 GMT
From: rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Problems with International Collaboration (was Re: Space Station...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:
   >...political discussions presented at length by LLNL.   In particular I
   >found their political statements about the undesirability of
   >international collaboration as extraordinarily parochial and totally
   >at variance to todays global realities...

   I think their stance on this is realistic, but not for the reasons they
   advance.  As long as the US insists that its international "partners"
   are not allowed to contribute anything vital to these "cooperative"
   projects -- e.g., both ESA and JSA contributing laboratory modules
   to Fred, because they weren't allowed to contribute anything crucial
   like the logistics module -- then international "collaboration" is mostly
   a frill, and an expensive and troublesome one.  It is also expensive
   and troublesome for the "partners", since the US is such an unreliable
   and difficult boss.

In my opinion, the main problems with international collaboration are
neither "foreign untrustworthiness" or "U.S. unreliability", but
rather (1) international politics and (2) "wrong moves".

The first problem is that projects would no longer be hostage to the
domestic politics in just one country, but to the domestic politics in
many countries, plus the exponential number of foreign relations
between the members of the collaboration.  Imagine the U.S. starts a
major space exploration initiative in cooperation the U.S.S.R., and
then the tanks start rolling through the streets in Lithuania.  So
much for the political support for that program.

The second problem is that while the national space programs of
individual nations may make mistakes, usually they won't all make the
same mistake at the same time.  If NASA makes a seriously wrong move,
it can set the U.S. space program back years -- but if some mythical
World Space Agency makes a wrong move it could set the entire world's
space program back years.  I wonder whether it would have been better
for NASA, ESA, and NASDA to work on three separate space stations.

Of course (1) and (2) are also good arguments for a strong private
space exploration and development program...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #109
*******************