Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_6/V13_660.ZIP/V13_660

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-16 | 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/ccKnBQy00WBwIOD04q>;
          Sun, 16 Jun 91 05:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 05:46:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #660

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 660

Today's Topics:
           Re: Rational next station design process
             Re: Help for science writer
           RE:RE:USF, Inc. : Brought to you by the
              Re: Good for the Japanese
        Re: USF, Inc. : Brought to you by the
Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...
        Testing, and an interesting article...
                Unsub
         Re: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 30 MAY
Re: Watching Out for Supernovae? (was Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence)

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: 29 May 91 15:11:17 GMT
From: eagle!ariel.lerc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

In article <[e-mail]>,
     [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes...

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
     (Nick Janow) writes:

>>Hmmm, are you saying that it's possible to build a space station that
>>will be inexpensive and provide a reasonable value for the investment,
>>yet won't affect (compete with) unmanned services?  If you're saying it
>>may be unlikely, but is worth a minor amount of study, I can agree.

> [...] I do not believe that such a station would be
>as versatile as Freedom (or what Freedom claimed to be...) To build
>a cheap station would, in my opinion, require a focused and/or
>specialized design.

You may want to add, a design that is oriented toward a single goal, or
a small number of goals.  A problem with Fred, as discussed often here, is
the prospect of trying to retain all original goals as the station shrinks.
As you can guess, it gets tougher and tougher to keep everybody happy.  If
I were king of Fred, we probably wouldn't - just cut our losses and try to
do *something* of significance.  But I'm not king of Fred, and a lot of
folks have a lot of hooks in the program.

> [...] As far as I can tell, there were no alternate
>designs studied as part of the Freedom design.

Well, there were a load of alternate designs looked into prior to signing
on to the original dual-keel, balanced (in terms of solar arrays), multi-
purpose, multi-module configuration.  And that has been mentioned here
before.  Most notably by Mr. Sheppardson, who will no doubt accuse me of
spreading misinformation again.  But a lot depends on what you mean by
"studied."  I can't tell you how many folks looked at the alternatives, or
how long they looked, or how many areas they looked at, or to how much
detail.

But I do know this, from experience: as the baseline design changes, as
you can guess, questions come up that nobody had reason to ask before.
That's an indication that the task was either too ambitious from the
outset, and that Fred needed to walk prior to running, or that all the
design questions that could have been asked prior to retaining a design
were not asked.  Maybe both.

>This makes the US database
>on space stations very small. We need to look at MANY different concepts
>before we can compare costs or advantages.

Now, the response to this comment depends on what really belongs in the
database.  If you want structural and dynamic models of Fred in there, in
all its various incarnations, and in all its various stages of development,
the database is *huge*.  And, if you want detailed design studies of all
proposed alternative concepts, the database would be *huge*.  There's a
lot of data, trust me.  There's not a lot of matching test results or
structures.

I will publicly accept my share of any blame that arises from the present
situation, but we're all trapped in a world we never made here.  You can't
*have* hardware if the basic design changes before anything can be built,
and this is happening over and over.  (It's really very frustrating - ask
anyone in the program.)  And keep in mind, although this is only my harmless
opinion, Lewis Research Center has gone a long way toward delivering a
working electrical power system for Fred: working end-to-end test beds,
a design selected for actuation of solar arrays, etc.  The arrays themselves
have been designed and re-designed, and could be built - but proximity
operations considerations will delay this process for some time.

See, this is the kind of thing you run into with complex systems, and
particularly when you have decentralized design responsibility and layers
of management.  Those are a couple other areas I would change if I were
king, but we all have to try to do our best with the hand we're dealt.

Some of this stuff, if it had come up a lot sooner, could have changed the
history of the program, I think.  But it didn't.

RG

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

Date: 29 May 91 23:55:07 GMT
From: waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!cc-server4.massey.ac.nz![e-mail]  (A.S. Chamove)
Subject: Re: Help for science writer

Suggest you read New Scientist from the UK as an example of good
scientific journalism.

I regularly do a project in my Animal Behaviour classes formerly in the
UK and now here in NZ where I show them animal behaviour videos make in
various parts of the world.  Those made in the UK are always ranked first
and those from the USA rank poorest.  THe reasons seem to be (for Brits
and Kiwis that is--I have never done it in the USA) that the former stick
to science where as the others try to evaluate animal behaviour and to
put human feelings into the animals' performance.

Maybe Americans need that "translation" or need that emotional tug, but I
doubt it.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Chamove
Massey University Psychology
Palmerston North, New Zealand

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

Date: 30 May 91 06:57:37 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!hamlet.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Lydick, Carl)
Subject: RE:RE:USF, Inc. : Brought to you by the

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] writes...
>
> It sounds like to me Mr. Fraering Philip is either a Dictator type
>a Communist, or a Nazi.  He takes pride in the fact that the effort
>to make the Moon and Mars the domain of all mankind (All the peoples
>of the world) which no single nation could hold claim too was
>undermined by this L-5 group.  If this is what L-5 represents I take
>back any thing good I ever said about it.

If this were, in fact, what the proposed treaty would have done, and ALL it
would have done, I'd have to agree with you.  As I recall, what it did was to
make exploitation of either of these conditional on approval of everyone.  In
other words, for all practical purposes, it would have made the Moon and Mars
off-limits to everybody.
>If people like Mr.
>Philip have their way only one race and class of people will ever
>have the opportunity to be part of a space faring civilization.

And if people like you have their way, NOBODY will ever have the opportunity to
be part of a space-faring civilization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick    HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 May 91 18:11:25 GMT
From: eagle!mars.lerc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: Re: Good for the Japanese

I previously wrote...

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>>BTW, where were all the astronaut supporters screaming about
>>"international agreements" when Solar-Polar got cut to feed the overgrown
>>Shuttle budget?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

>Solar-Polar.  What was once known as the International Solar-Polar Mission
>(ISPM), and is now known as Ulysses, was not cut.

I am taking heat for this statement already, because of definitions of
terms.  Since Szabo issued the original statement, "Solar-Polar got cut,"
comparing Ulysses to Fred in a certain sense, I took his statement to
mean that Ulysses either is gone or is extremely unhealthy or has no
potential benefit to science, none of which is true.

However, it is true that Ulysses was originally to be a system of two
satellites, one having been lost to budget cuts.  I regret having stated
this in an unclear manner.

>Ulysses had to find a new ride to space after the
>demise of the Shuttle/Centaur program.  [...] which
>was killed because of the concerns *of the astronauts* in the wake of
>the Challenger tragedy.  So the astronaut supporters were right there.
>And Ulysses never died, just got delayed.

I have taken some heat for this too.  I stand by it anyway.

RG

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

Date: 30 May 91 12:11:22 GMT
From: sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: USF, Inc. : Brought to you by the

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>space faring civilization.  If you want to know the truth about the
>USFs present activities, write to us and we will send you the facts
>about the USF in stead of the one side comments by people like Mr.
>Fraering Philip.  I wounder how much Mr. Philip was paid by Planetary
>Society to promote them as a prospect for an international space
>organization??!
>
>                        United Space Federation, Inc.
>                         International Headquarters
>                             P.O. Box 4722
>                        Ithaca, New York  14852-4722
>                       In the United States of America
>
>
>                   Thank you for your time and support, Godspeed!
>
>                                      Sincerely,
>                                      Rick R. Dobson
>                                      Executive Director
>                                      United Space Federation, Inc.
>

    Well, I just don't know about this.  I have known Phill for some
    time through email and I really can't say that he is all those
    names that you called him.  I mean, communist, Nazi.  Come on now.
    If you want a communist you should go to China.  For Nazi's, well
    these day's you should look for those (Political Correctness)
    people. Phill just does'nt seem to fit those discriptions.

    But for someone that is ahead of a World leading (super organization)
    you really got balls to come out in public and call people, you don't
    even know, names of all sorts.  How do you expect to gain public
    support if you go around calling people names.  In fact Mr. Dobson,
    I want to know what your personal qualifications are to be where you
    are.  Your posting is nothing more than "nothingness".  Send me the
    so called truth and every single person on sci.space.  I am sure
    everyone wants to know the truth.

    All people of the world have the right to give thier opinions on
    any topic whether it supports your concepts or not.  So stop BASHING
    people and start giving answers.  I don't have time to waste on you.
    I have more important things to do.


    PS: Sorry, but I also don't have the time to correct spelling, etc..


                    THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

                                        William Dee Rieken
                                        Researcher, Computer Visualization
                                        Faculty of Science and Technology
                                        Ryukoku University
                                        Seta, Otsu 520-21,
                                        Japan

                                        Tel: [phone](direct)
                                        Fax: [phone]
                                        [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 May 91 03:07:37 GMT
From: agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>The Soviets have sent TWO women into space, not one.
>Valentina Tereshkova  ( 1963 )
>Svetlana Savitskaya ( 1983 or 4 ? )

S. Y. Savitskaya in fact flew on to occasions. in 1982 as a flight engineer on
Soyuz-T 7 to the Salyut 7 space station and again in 1984 as a research engineeaon Soyuz-T 12 again to Salyut 7. She also took part in an EVA.

                     Frank Crary

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

Date: 31 May 91 03:29:48 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Testing, and an interesting article...

Testing one two three...

Anyway, someone just posted to alt.conspiracy a breakdown
of Bush's domestic spending policies. I suggest that
all y'all in the space station argument go and give it
the once-over, but just scan it, it's 800 lines long,
although a lot of that is ascii charts.

Cheers...
--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
Standard disclaimer, whatever a disclaimer is, applies.
''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_

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 11:44:50 EDT
From: Lou Surface <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unsub

Please UNSUB me fromthis list (I'm not sure which LISTSERV'er this
is coming from...don't know where to send UNSUB command). Gone for
the summer - back in August.

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

Date: 31 May 91 17:35:26 GMT
From: cs.dal.ca!husky1.stmarys.ca![e-mail]
Subject: Re: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 30 MAY

Could someone please explain the classification of flares and the like used in the Solar Flare Alerts?

Thanks.

--

"What is love? 'tis not hereafter; present mirth hath present laughter
                                                  - Shakespeare.

Phil Laird | E-mail:  [e-mail]
Dartmouth. |
Nova Scotia|
Canada     |

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

Date: 31 May 91 23:12:14 GMT
From: hpfcso![e-mail]  (Mark Luce)
Subject: Re: Watching Out for Supernovae? (was Re: Extra Terrestrial Intelligence)

/ hpfcso:sci.space / [e-mail] / 10:14 am  May 29, 1991 /
In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

> (5) Maybe we're the only inhabited planet in the universe...
>
> Any other comments on this would be greatly appreciated


  There are two general classes of stars called Population I and
Population II stars. Population I stars have heavy elements in them
from their creation, while Population II stars are lacking in
heavy elements. The designations are reversed chronologically
as the Population II stars exist prior to the Population I stars.
When a Population II star ends its life and goes nova, that is
the source of the heavy elements which get swept up into a Population I
star and its planets, which is where the heavy elements that make us up
originate.

Now then, a quick survey of the stars immediatly surrounding us reveals
(surprise) lots and lots of Population II (no heavy elements) stars!
No heavy elements are available to the solar systems which accompany
these stars, hence, life as we know it is not likely to have evolved, nor
would any life forms on these planets have the heavy elements on which our
technologies are based.

  There might very well be many advanced cultures in our galaxy, but it
appears that WE are the oldest, most advanced species in this neck
of the galatic woods! Being way off in our own little corner may explain
a lack of interest on the part of other space-faring races.

     > I don't know about other nearby stars, but according to an article
     > in the April 1991 issue of Astronomy magazine, the Alpha Centauri
     > system has a *higher* metal content than the Solar System, and is
     > believed to be somewhat older to boot (about 6 billion years).
     > Don't write off our neck of the woods just yet...
==========================================================================
\\\\    Michael Rivero      | "I drank WHAT!" |"Why bother with marriage?|
  (.    [e-mail] | Socrates  -------------------Just find a   |
   )>   DISCLAIMER:::       |-----------| "Life is CHEAP! |woman you hate
  ==    "Hey man, I wasn't  |Looking4luv| But toilet paper|and buy her a |
---/    even here then!"    |Settle4sex!| is EXPENSIVE!"  |  house!"     |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
----------

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #660
*******************