Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_5/V13_588.ZIP/V13_588

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-03 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from po2.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/8cGduoO00jZdQO0k4x>;
          Mon,  3 Jun 91 15:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.ccGdtdS00UkTIZx05b>;
          Mon,  3 Jun 91 15:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fuzzball.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.IcGdst:00WBnIqhk47>;
          Mon,  3 Jun 91 15:53:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  3 Jun 91 15:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #588

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 588

Today's Topics:
           Re: Should Galileo be rerouted?
          Re: LANDSAT in Site Selection:GIS Packages
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
            Re: Senate decision timetable?
Re: NASA discovers impact likely tied to dinosaurs' demise (Forwarded)

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: 18 May 91 02:44:14 GMT
From: olivea!samsung!munnari.oz.au!uhccux![e-mail]  (David Tholen)
Subject: Re: Should Galileo be rerouted?

Matthew DeLuca writes:

> Like I've said, Galileo is already going to visit two asteroids (the
> first in, Gaspara, in 1992, I think) on its way.

1991 October 29, to be exact.  If the High Gain Antenna does not deploy,
the data will be recorded and played back during the next Earth encounter
in December 1992.  The second asteroid encounter is with 243 Ida in 1993,
unless the antenna problems force some changes.

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 17 May 91 10:50:24 EDT
Resent-From: Harold Pritchett <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Space discussion group <[e-mail]>
Date:     Thu, 16 May 91 14:33:20 PDT
From: Melcir Erskine-Richmond <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: LANDSAT in Site Selection:GIS Packages
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail]

A forwarded posting.  Can anyone advise further details, e-mail addresses, etc.?
Melcir


---(Forwarded from: [e-mail], Dated: Wed, 15 May 91 20:07:00 PDT)---

Received: from BRUFPB(MAILER) by SFU(MAILER) via BITNET
          with RM id <[e-mail]>; Wed, 15 May 91 20:20:48 PDT
Received: by BRUFPB (Mailer R2.07) id 6817; Thu, 16 May 91 00:10:57 EDT
Date:         Wed, 15 May 91 20:07:00 MST
Reply-To:     Forum about the 21ST century discussions <[e-mail]>
Sender:       Forum about the 21ST century discussions <[e-mail]>
From:         DAVID BASHAM <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: LANDSAT in Site Selection:GIS Packages
To:           "M.E-R (global cities21/oceanschoner interest)" <[e-mail]

University of New Mexico Department of Geography does a great deal of
work with GIS, as does U of Arizona (Tucson); each can provide information.
NASA is the place to contact initially, however, as they fund the
Landsat ground sites, and can provide you with mailing addresses &
phone numbers to locate specifically what you need.
University of Arizona does image processing through a NSF & Apple grant
which includes, but is not limited to GIS - processing takes place on
the Mac cx platform.  They also sponsor a 4-week summer course for teachers,
during which the teachers learn how to use the machines and take $10,000
worth of equipment home with them.
For more information, contact the Space Imagery Center, Lunar and Planetary
Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, Phone [phone].
Sorry I can't help you further -- don't forget the French "SPOT"
satellite, which has much higher resolution than Landsat.  There are
online sources for receiving raw satellite data for your own GIS
software; perhaps the U of A people or NASA can help you out.
Good hunting.
D Basham
Northern Arizona University

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

Date: 17 May 91 15:24:52 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
> >    I am curious about this. Does anyone know just how much
> >bandwidth is needed to run a half-useful space station remotely?
>
> How much bandwidth is an Astronaut to splice some cables in mission-critical
> electronics?

This really shows the problem; it is not the bandwidth to communicate the task
and the information, but the ability to do the necessary work at all.

Despite our progress in AI and robotics, the human brain and the human body are
capable of far more than machines in a great many respects.  Apollo 10 would
have crashed, stranding the astronauts, if Armstrong was not able to override
the automated landing procedure.  Now this could have been controlled from
Earth, but other situations could not.  The Mars Rover project is now 10 years
old, and a robot has finally traversed about 1 km of a canyon on its own.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 17 May 91 16:21:46 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>>>Do you have any clue? Let me give you a few hints here: A) Translating the
>>>>documentation and technical specs into English
>>>The wife of a friend of mine could do it in a couple of weeks. There is
>>>also no shortage of Soviet engineers who speak english to help when needed.
>
>>Oh? Less manuals than the Apollo? Nice. Convenient.
>
>Yes it is convenient. Of course if she is having problems, my parents
>next door neighbor who is a professor of Russian can help out. We also
>have an engineer here where I work who speaks it rather well.

Well, I'm glad you're doing the translation out of somebody's basement, rather
than as a professionally managed project. Wave your hands some more and you'll
be able to thrown in lunch at Wendy's.

>>Since the Soviets haven't put a price tag on Soyuz or the engineers, I
>>can't see how you can.
>
>You should stay more current. I have spoken with the president of the
>company which markets Soviet hardware in the US. Soyuz is available and
>can be had for $50M each (presumably less in quanity).

Goodie. One tin can. No launch facilities converted in the U.S. Training,
testing, reworking documentation, creating infrastructure to support it,
shipping and handling. Two to three years of work. For the testing alone,
you'll need at least 3 or 4 tin cans.

>>>Nobody said you can just stap your fingers. All anybody said is that
>>>it can be done. As to support, ideas very much like this are indeed
>>>finding support in Congress.
>
>>The astronaut corps will fight it tooth and nail.
>
>So we get new astronauts. Soyuz has an excellent operational record and
>I don't see why a few astronauts should be allowed to strangle the
>US space program

You're really grasping at straws here. Astronauts are civil servants who are
entrenched within NASA. You can't "get rid of them." Besides, you'd be
dumping an experienced workforce which has spent many hundreds of hours
in space.

>>I don't blame them. Soyuz has
>>poor orbital manuvering capability, no robot arm, no workspace.
>
>Who cares? All we need it for is transport to the station. It has
>shown itself to be very good at that task

Well, since you just want to throw that capability, who cares? I do. So would
the Air Force. So would 90%+ of the Astronaut Corps.

Besides, it's difficult for me to believe that hundreds of thousands of people
would line up at Edwards AFB to watch the tin can land on a lakebed. :-) No
romance.

>>We didn't think
>>about rescueing satellites with Apollo tin cans. We couldn't with Soyuz.
>
>Any satellite rescued by the Shuttle for return to Earth lost money.
>We are better off keeping them there.

Not the scientific ones.

> As for repair, for about 40%
>of the third year savings from an approach like this we can build the
>OMV to get satellites. Then they can be repaired in a orbital dry dock.

Hum. So the Gamma Ray Observatory fix was a press stunt, huh? The Hubble Repair
mission can be done by a robot? Solar Max ? I think we're talking about losing
at least $2-3 billion dollars in write-offs had your frugality been acted upon
sooner.

>This will save the taxpayers money instead of costing them money like
>we do now.

I'm a taxpayer. I will poll some of my fellow taxpayers at lunch and see if
they prefer tin cans with little capability over a flexable Shuttle.

>>Rockwell International and Lockheed will sit idly by while you propose this
>>money saving concept? Bahahah. Got some news for you. Their PR budgets are
>>bigger than yours and Joe Penny-Pinching Congressman.
>Sounds like we don't have a problem. If they transfer their PR budgets
>to their development departments then they can build the hardware we
>need.

PR and lobbying is an unfortunate development of our democratic system, like it
or not. Your statement shows a severe lack of understanding of the
relationships between contractors and the government, or you're trying to be
funny.

>>I can't see DoD running SDI research in a Soviet tin can, for some odd reason.
>
>Even as we speak the DoE is doing work using a Soviet military reactor.
>They bought it form them.
>If SDIO doesn't want to use the available
>hardware then let them build their own. They aren't worth holding up
>everybody else.

DoE is not DoD.

DoD has its own agenda for the Shuttle, including SDI research. Including
launch and repair of "National Technical Means of Verification." Lacrosse and
other high-tech/high-capabilty spy sats cost close to $1 billion a pop.
You don't write $1 billion off with a shrug.

"But with the money we save we can build more spy sats..." You're starting to
use up your money-saved budget for everything else, so you could claim this
too. Claim it, yes. Get it to work, no.

>>>Titan IV is compatable wiht the Shuttle.
>
>>Compatable, compatable, compatable HOW? Volume and mass, yes. Manned research?
>>No. Power for experiments, no. You need something to hook it to.
>
>The Titan is just for transport. Experiments get power from the space
>station. Crews go up on another Titan. If we have a HLV then both can
>go up at the same time.
>
>>Which space station are you docking with? The LLNL gasbag or Fred? You want to
>>burn a couple of billion dollars worth of associated hardware along with the
>>Shuttle, apparently.  Everything that has been designed for the shuttle
>>bay, all the current MANNED labs.
>
>There are no current MANNED labs. There are however lots of designs for
>simple labs. Skylab is an existance proof that it can be done.

SpaceLabs? Astro 1? Gosh, there's 7-10 people on board working 24 hour shifts
over a 7 day period. Hummm. Sounds manned to me. Of course, it all fits in the
back of an Evil Money-sucking Shuttle so it can be cheaped down for $2.50.

You might as well purchase space on Mir and subcontract out your research to
the Soviets. That would be the CHEAPEST way to do things, don't you think?

>>Sure. You're going to ask people who were put on hold for close to 3 years
>>post-Challenger to go back to the drawing board.
>In some cases, yep.
>>I want to see you say that to
>>the grad students and professors you end up screwing over to save a few bucks.
>You may consider billions 'a few bucks' but I don't. As to the professor,
>it is HE who owes the explanation to me. He is the one spending my money
>and holding up our efforts in space at the same time.

It's his money too. As well as other taxpayers and his University. Doesn't he
get a say in this? Or since you already know know the Best Approach, he doesn't
get a say in it, eh?

>>Somehow, scrapping what we have debugged and starting from scratch and
>>expecting a "Happily Ever After" Scenario is kinda bogus.
>
>Since 90% of this plan uses off the shelf hardware I don't see how you
>can justify this.

Alan, Stuff Happen. The Shuttle may be the best example of it. You will never,
ever, ever get your pure-as-the-fallen-snow plan to fly without selling out to
someone. And after it gets on the Hill and those pieces of pork are inserted,
and every Congressman gets "his" district involved (gosh, cutting back on
Shuttle operations could cost US jobs to support Soviet workers! Boy, that'll
make for some interesting re-election speeches....) ....


     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 17 May 91 14:33:05 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Senate decision timetable?

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

>    So when does the Senate decide of Fred?

I just called the Appropriations Committee at the Senate. According to them,
no markups are scheduled. This situation however can change quickly.

> Also what options are available to them/Bush (From a earlier comment in this
>group, I was lead to understand that Bush can decide to do something, but he
>can't force senate/congress to pay for it)?

The cuts need to survive the House Appropriation Committee markup (they
call votes markups because they 'mark up' the bill), and a vote by the
full house. Odds are good of this happening although expect a floor
fight.

In the Senate, they need to zero the funding in subcommittee and have
the full committee and full senate agree. If that happens then Freedom
is dead. The president could veto the bill over it but I doubt that
would happen.

I would expect the cuts to survive the full committee. However expect
Rep Walker to lead a floor fight to restore funding. I suspect he
won't have the votes to restore funding but he might.

In the Senate, expect some funding to be voted; the project just has
too much support from Mikulski and Garn. This means the bill will go
to conferenct to iron out the differences in the two bills. I wouldn't
want to guess at this time what will happen then. The worst case would
be continued low level funding: not enough to kill it but enough to
insure a long painful death.

    Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 17 May 91 16:40:57 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: NASA discovers impact likely tied to dinosaurs' demise (Forwarded)


BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! WE INTERRUPT THE ONGOING FLAME WAR TO BRING YOU THIS
URGENT BULLETIN! SIT TIGHT, THOUGH, AND IN A COUPLE MINUTES THE INSULTS
AND RECRIMINATIONS YOU HAVE GROWN TO LOVE (OR HATE) WILL BE BACK.

AFTER ALL, IT'S ONLY A LITTLE SCIENCE. HERE IT IS:
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Years ago, there were claims that Taktites were actually small pieces of the
>Moon blaster free by meteoric impact and scooped up by Earths gravity.

>The scientific evidence is that they indeed came from outer space, but not
>from very far away. I personally won a science scholarship with a
>project that established critical differences between the Tektites and
>what was then known about the Lunar surface.

>Does anyone know if the "Glassy Nodules" associated with this crater are
>one and the same with the Tektites?

I was under the impression that the current theory to explain tektites
was that they were the results of bits of molten rock (?) or sand (?)
or sandstone-like material splashed outward by the force of a large
meteorotic impact.

THIS SMALL LITTLE BIT OF SCIENCE DISCUSSION IS NOW OVER; THOSE WHO
WISH MAY NOW RETURN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED BARBEQUE...

(yes, I know I'm probably as bad as everyone else, but I do wish
that sometimes science discussions could get started here. I notice
that every time I try to start one there aren't any follow-ups or
anything except for Henry, who seems to follow up on everything...
What science topics is anyone here intrested in discussing?

I mean BESIDES why you think physical law means everything but your
favorite project is going to blow up on the pad).

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #588
*******************