Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_2/V13_251.ZIP/V13_251

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/obqREIi00WBw8Q3k5C>;
          Sun, 10 Mar 91 01:37:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 01:37:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #251

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
          Re: NOVA and Horizon; Soviet Lunar stuff.
             Re: Terraforming, sun shield
            Re: Voyager Update - 02/13/91
                  Re: meteor
         Re: Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...?
                  Re: Thrust
              Re: Space Profits
        Re: Wednesday NOVA on PBS: Russian Right Stuff
Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans
              Galileo Update - 03/05/91
Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans

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: 8 Mar 91 15:02:09 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!freedom!xanth![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: NOVA and Horizon; Soviet Lunar stuff.

[e-mail] (Adam R. Brody) writes:
>[e-mail] (Kish Shen) writes:
 >>>Russian Right Stuff
 >>I think this is the "Horizon" (a BBC TV science program) shown here in the UK
 >>a few months back.
>The program was definitely Nova put out by WGBH Boston (PBS).

Not quite: actually Nova is often a joint production between WGBH and the BBC
in England; the same programs are broadcast in the UK under the Horizon name.
So WGBH gets the credit in the US but if you look at the fine print a lot of
it is actually made by the Beeb in England. The Russian Right Stuff had
two technical advisers - Jim Oberg from Houston and Phil Clark from London.
Phillip never wears stetsons and so is probably not considered photogenic
enough to appear on camera.

I wish they had spent a little longer showing us round Vasiliy Mishin's
attic with all the left over hardware in!

On a related note, a recent article in the Soviet magazine
Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika with Aleksey Leonov, who will be
familiar to viewers of the Horizon/Nova, he states that the
first unpiloted launch of the L-1/Zond spaceship failed when
the escape stage burn went in the wrong direction and the
craft zoomed back in to the atmosphere. I suspect this refers
to the Kosmos-146 mission, which has long attracted interest
as an Earth orbital mission included on Soviet lists of flights
that attained escape velocity. It had been speculated that
this was a deliberate reentry test of the L-1. Guess not!
(Although there is some evidence K146 stayed in orbit
for 3 days, which would contradict this; in which case
he may be referring to Zond 4.)


 .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell                 |  phone : [phone]                 |
 |  Space Science Lab ES65            | uucp:                                  |
 |  NASA Marshall Space Flight Center | bitnet :                               |
 |  Huntsville AL 35812               |  inter : [e-mail]  |
 |  USA                               |   span : ssl::mcdowell                 |
 '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 22:38:17 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!think.com!linus!linus!cyclone![e-mail]  (S. J. Okay)
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Heidi Hammel) writes:

>If we're going to be mere humble servants to Nature, *you* can write the
>Environmental Impact Statement for the next Ice Age.  I'd rather simply
>prevent it. :-)
>
>Nature is blind.  We are merely shortsighted.  That's an improvement.

You forgot to mention, Henry, that we are also capable of creating optics
to improve our vision....Ever see a lichen run a lensgrinder?? :) :)
>--
>"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

---Steve

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

Date: 7 Mar 91 12:35:04 GMT
From: rti!n5pph007![e-mail]  (Jeffrey Alan Williams)
Subject: Re: Voyager Update - 02/13/91

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>     Spacecraft     (Gm)               (Kg)      Watts  Watts
>      Voyager 1      5             36.2 + 2.0     366   41
>      Voyager 2      6             39.1 + 2.0     370   46

This may be a stupid question but where are Voyager 1 and Voyager 2

and what are their goals or mission ??



                                     Thanks in advance !!

                                           - Jeff

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

Date: 7 Mar 91 17:40:25 GMT
From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!know!tegra![e-mail]  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Re: meteor


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

   Last night (March 6, 1991) at about 2:55 AM EST I observed an unusual
   meteor just as I left the main library here at the University of New
   Hampshire. It was moving southwest to northeast, and was moving much
   too quickly to be an aircraft. It was in view for two or three seconds,
   disappeared behind Thompson Hall, and was then in my view again for about
   five more seconds before it was lost over the horizon. It was completely
   silent. I have never seen a meteor like it - though moving very rapidly,
   it was slow for a meteor. It was blue-white in color, much like Sirius, and
   did not leave any appreciable trail. In fact, it was rather like watching
   a -5 or -6 magnitude blue-white star move quickly across the sky.
   Did any one else see the thing? It was so odd for a meteor, I've wondered
   if it may not have been something else. Were any satellites or anything
   falling out of orbit last night? (or would that just look the same as a
   meteor?)

Well, its hard to say but I would think it was around for too long to
be a meteor.

Since you are so close to a SAC base I might focus my suspicions
there.

jv


``There's nothing remarkable about it.  All one has to do is hit the right
  keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.'' -- J. S. Bach
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | [e-mail]
|Tegra| [phone] | N1DXG@448.625-(WorldNet)
 -----  [e-mail] {...sun!sunne ..uunet}!tegra!vail

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

Date: 7 Mar 91 18:32:59 GMT
From: mintaka!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!samsung!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wales Larrison) writes:

WL>...the solid-fuel submarine-launched ICBMs. The "discussion" between
WL>the different parties is whether Lockheed's use of such motors is
WL>essentially government subsidization of a single competitor in this
WL>highly competitive market, or just disposal of surplus government
WL>assets.  OSC, for one, is very strongly against this...)

I suppose the B-52 flight was just something OSC got at a swap meet?

And wasn't the DAPRA purchace of a flight before the booster was even
fully designed somewhat of the nature of government support? I'm not
in a rabidly anti-government mode right now, I'm just pointing out
that this situation looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Mar 91 19:44:30 GMT
From: arc!arc![e-mail]  (Steve Savitzky)
Subject: Re: Thrust

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

   Not a high Isp drive, but an interesting concept is the solar-electric
   steam rocket. AMSAT did a design study on this for launches from the
   shuttle. Basically, solar panels charge a battery that drives a heating
   element in a water tank that generates steam which is released out a
   nozzle. The design was sufficient to get from LEO to GEO and met the
   safety requirements for the shuttle. The design offers unlimited fuel,
   sunlight, an easily stored and intrinsically safe reaction mass, water,
   and easy restartability. I don't remember what the Isp was, it should
   be in one of the Proceedings of the AMSAT Space Symposiums.

How inefficient!  Why not use solar energy to heat the water directly?
This bypasses the losses in the solar panels, the batteries, etc. and
is much lighter besides (mirrors can be very light, whereas solar
cells are heavy, not to mention the batteries).

You could get very high Isp with this kind of rig, just by adding more
heat.

Am I missing something obvious, or why isn't anyone doing this?
--
\ --Steve Savitzky--  \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \
 \ [e-mail] \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include<disclaimer.h>   \
  \ arc![e-mail] \ Santa Clara, CA 95954   \        408-727-3357      \
   \__ [e-mail] _________________________________________________________

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 10:17:09 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Space Profits
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:

>>*OR* we do what we did with railroads, interstate highways, ports, airlines,
>>and other infrastructure. The government builds the infrastructure and then
>>leases it to users over a long period of time.

>     Railways in much of the US were constructed and owned by private
>companies, financed by one-time land grants.

In other words, the government subsidized the construction of the
railroad infrastructure. Because of this initial investment the markets
out west grew enough that the industry could sustain itself.

>     Most US ports are owned by private companies (individual terminals
>and wharves) and/or local port authority districts.

Built with money from governments and financed with tax free bonds.

>     US airlines are private companies.

But they wouldn't exist if the government hadn't provided the market
(at a loss) under the Kelly Act.

I think you are missing my point. All large infrastrucutre in this country
was encouraged in a large way by government. This is because of the old
chicken and egg problem. People won't build ariliners without airports
and people won't build airports without airliners.

Space should be the same way. The best way would be using mechanisms like
the Kelly Act. The government provides market gurantees for space transport
and space based infrastructure. Eventually because of the market gurantee
the infrastructure becomes self supporting. As in the past, this breaks
the cycle and gets things moving.

   Allen

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

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 18:08:15 GMT
From: lib!mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu![e-mail]  (David Gutierrez)
Subject: Re: Wednesday NOVA on PBS: Russian Right Stuff

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bhaswar Sen) writes:
> >>I think this is the "Horizon" (a BBC TV science program) shown here in
the UK
> >>a few months back. If I remember correctly, the commentator was one of
the
> >>regular person used by Horizon, and was British. Does anybody know how
this was
> >
> >The program was definitely Nova put out by WGBH Boston (PBS).
>
> The programme was originally produced by a television company in U.K.and
only
> recently shown here over PBS as a NOVA series.

A friend told me recently that (almost) all episodes of "Nova" *are* the
BBC's "Horizon" series, re-narrated for American broadcast.

David Gutierrez
[e-mail]

"Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 18:21:43 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>Experience so far says very strongly that if you plan to do in-space repairs,
>>you had better plan to have humans (or the imaginary just-as-flexible
>>teleoperated robots which will be available almost right away now for sure,
>>really, trust us) on hand.

>Or, if you prefer not to pay the $1,000,000++/hour cost of an EVA, you
>could make sure it works before you launch it.

Of course, nothing *ever* breaks down after launch, and orbiting debris
has *never* punched holes in things...

--
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: 8 Mar 91 19:11:14 GMT
From: mintaka!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/05/91


                           GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                              March 5, 1991

     [Note: I was working at the Goddard Space Flight Center this week,
            and because of this the status reports are coming out a little
            late..............................................Ron Baalke]

     The Galileo spacecraft's health continues to be excellent.  Today, the
planned USO (Ultra Stable Oscillator) calibration test was successfully
completed.  Tomorrow, spacecraft activities will consist of:

        o Cruise science memory readout for the MAG (Magnetometer),
          DDS (Dust Detector) and EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer)
          instruments

        o Radio frequency receiver and command detector performance
           characterization tests

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Date: 8 Mar 91 21:55:44 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!bovic.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (Andreas G. Nowatzyk)
Subject: Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>Experience so far says very strongly that if you plan to do in-space repairs,
>>>you had better plan to have humans ... on hand.
>>
>>Or, if you prefer not to pay the $1,000,000++/hour cost of an EVA, you
>>could make sure it works before you launch it.
>
>The Solar Max, Palapa/Westar, Syncom, Hubble, Intelsat, etc. people all
>thought they had.  Not to mention Apollo 13 and Gemini 8.  There is this
>peculiar myth within NASA that all possible problems can be anticipated,
>and you really can be certain that the thing will work before you launch it.
>The universe keeps trying to tell NASA that this is wrong, and NASA keeps
>not listening.

True, but I read the original argument slightly differently: It is possible
to design Solar Max, etc. for in-orbit repair by robots, which was not done.
("it works" refering to the ability to repair/replace a system remotely)
If in-orbit repair is cost effective (= cheaper than launching a replacement,
which is a big IF in the context of small, specialized micro-sats),
it may still pay of to do this via robotics.

Hardware that isn't designed for this, will require a very elaborate robot.
However if the design takes robotic service into account, things change
dramatically. For example, a lot of consumer equipment (VCRs & such) and
some computer gear (Mac's, printers, etc.) are now routinely designed for
robotic assembly. Lots of tiny details reqire attention: aviod screws,
avoid round screw-in connectors, provide guide-paths for modules,
snap-into-place things are king, locking mechanisms that require tools to
push in several places are fine, but ones that require rotary action are not,
avoid ill shaped objects like cable harnesses, ... nothing really fancy, but
it is quite a departure from the way current space probes are designed.

Furthermore, in-orbit repairs are limited to module swaps. It's hard to
imagine someone replacing a 300+ pin surface mounted chip during EVA.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #251
*******************