Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v08/v8_244.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 21KB

From ota Sun Jun  5 03:06:32 1988
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05429; Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:06:17 PDT
    id AA05429; Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:06:17 PDT
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:06:17 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #244

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 244

Today's Topics:
              Re: Bureaucracy vs. space
         "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks
           Draft: Op-Ed on Cooperative Mars Mission
          Re: International Radio Alphabet.
       Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles
                 NASA funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 May 88 23:32:11 GMT
From: thumper![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space

> > For starters, an airplane is MUCH gentler than the shuttle.

Henry is right about the max G loads on the shuttle; they're about 3G.
This *is* gentler than many expendables. From the figures I have, I
compute a peak acceleration of about 4.5G for the Ariane 1, just before
2nd stage cutoff.

However, typical launcher static accelerations are not a problem with
most payloads. Solid fuel kick motors attached to the payloads
themselves often generate even higher accelerations; for example, the
kick motor on AMSAT Phase III-A would have produced about 7-8G just
before burnout. Standard construction techniques, including prelaunch
testing and potting of electronics modules, can easily handle this.

 A bigger problem lies with the vibration and accoustical noise produced
by large solid rocket boosters. Consider that the Shuttle SRBs are not
far away from the payload bay. The pad water deluge system cuts down the
levels somewhat, but they are still very high in comparison with most
expendables. I seem to recall figures in the 150 dbA range.

Phil

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

Date:     Wed, 11 May 88 10:51:35 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks

The recent reference to another plan to use shuttle External Tanks for
in-orbit construction leads me to wonder something. We have long discussed
this topic on this list, and many people expressed their regret that NASA
made the decision to dump those tanks on ascent so that they burned up
on re-entry instead of carrying them to orbit and leaving them there for
possible future use.

Suppose NASA had actually done what we wished, and there HAD been a dozen
or more tanks in orbit, and then the Challenger disaster and the
subsequent multi-year hiatus in US manned spaceflight had happened as it
did. Would those tanks still be up there, or would their orbits have
decayed by now and they all would have burned up anyway?

This ignores the possibility that the Soviets would have salvaged them
and used them -- is there any salvage law applicable to space yet? If
the US had some supplies in orbit, and could not use them or get to them
to save them before their orbit decayed and they re-entered and were
destroyed, would the Soviets have the "right" to collect and use such
resources? Of course, they could offer to buy them, or trade something
for them, which would be good propaganda and put a reasonable aspect on
the whole thing, and there's nothing we could actually do to prevent
them from taking things in orbit except by threatening them on Earth,
but it seems likely that they would want to avoid the appearance of
"stealing", even if it really was more of a case of picking up something
abandoned. Nothing keeps them from scooping up our satellites now, but
I never heard any rumors that such things had happened.

(That possibility makes me think the technology-embargo aspects of the
US refusing to let our satellites go up on Soviet boosters is pretty
ridiculous. If the Soviets really wanted to look at the innards of any
of our satellites, they could just grab the worn-out or inert ones
while they are over Soviet territory and out of our scanning range
and leave something in their orbital places to continue to show up on
radar tracks! Maybe they've already done this -- how would we know?)

Anyway, if we HAD left tanks in orbit, and we then discovered that we
wouldn't have been able to use them or "freshen-up" their orbits before
they were lost, I would hope that we would have had the sense to offer
them to the Soviets as gifts. That would have been to OUR propaganda
advantage and wouldn't have risked or hurt anything (since they aren't
anything secret or sensitive). Would have been in the "joint mission"
spirit, after all.

Will Martin

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

Date: 11 May 88 01:39:07 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Draft: Op-Ed on Cooperative Mars Mission

I'm interested in feedback on this piece... it's aimed at an non-space
audience who would be reading a newspaper Op-Ed page in The New York
Times, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, etc.

Even if you don't have time to send feedback, I think you'll enjoy reading
it, but I would welcome any reactions via. EMAIL or to the net.

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

A great adventure, perhaps unparalled in the course of human history,
is taking shape over the next decades. Humanity will finally reach a
world that has tugged at the imagination for centuries - a world much
like our own, yet one with countless mysteries. A world that beckons
to be explored, to be discovered, and to become part of the human
legacy.

The world is Mars, and for the first time in our history, we have the
opportunity to visit - not just through robotic cameras, but with
actual human eyes, hands, feet, and minds - the red planet which has
intrigued man for as long as history can recall.

The vision, the fulfilling of a dream, and the extension of mankind
beyond the borders of earth, however, are just one small part of what
a manned mission to Mars has to offer. The actual fruits of such a
mission are real, tangible benefits to those of us living here on planet
earth, for such a mission inevitably gives far reaching support to
education, scientific understanding, world cooperation, peace,
cultural activities, the economy, social understanding, technology,
security, and the quality of life as a whole.

A manned Mars mission will by no means be easy, nor will it take
place in the near future. It is a long-term goal, one that will is not
likely to be realized until the twenty first century. Going from robotic
missions to manned exploration will require a concerted effort over
time. It is a challenge that the nations of the world can best meet
together, and one we can meet - if we start planning now. The
technology is by no means out of reach. The key however, is to start
now, as it is a long-term project. If we do nothing today, we won't
have anything fifteen years down the road with which to work.

First, though, why go to Mars? It's a valid question, especially for
many of us without the flame for exploration. For many people, there
is a feeling of natural destiny, of belonging on other worlds. Lev
Mukhin of the Institute for Space Research in the USSR puts it simply:
"Mankind would not be mankind if it would not have a study of other
worlds." Mars is enticing precisely because it is so accessible. "Mars
is the world next door, the nearest planet on which an astronaut or
cosmonaut could safely land," writes Carl Sagan, president of The
Planetary Society, a space education group with over 100,000
members worldwide.

For others, the seemingly limitless amount of scientific information
available on Mars holds the key. Mars is filled with wonders - a "grand
canyon" that would cross most of the United States, an intricate
network of canals, vast, extinct volcanoes that dwarf any on earth,
frozen poles, pink skies, sand dunes, strange bright and dark markings
on its surface, mountains shaped like pyramids, and many other
enigmas.  New light can be shed on the origins of the planets and the
solar system, and their fates.  Is there life on Mars?  Or was there
once? If Mars once had water, what happened to it, and what clues
does this give us about earth's future? The amount of scientific
information is staggering, and can only be explored fully with the
ultimate tool - man himself.

There are those, however, who wonder if a mission can be justified on
these grounds. Science, exploration, and a widening of man's horizon
are admirable goals, they say, but how can we think of devoting the
resources to such a project when we have so many problems right
here on earth. This "home front" argument, as I term it, counters that
we should be using all our resources to battle problems here - global
conflict and tension, the environment, sickness, and so on - rather
than spending money on space. Such an argument is flawed in several
significant ways and stems mainly from a lack of understanding of
the many direct benefits which space missions provide. The home
front argument falsely pitts space programs against domestic ones
when, in fact, this is far from the case. Space missions are much
more likely to use military than domestic problem-fighting resources,
and rather than detract from problem-solving on earth, they provide
excellent tools, both in the spirit they foster and in actual physical
and intellectual resources they give us to use at home. In addition, the
home front argument confuses what is an undeniably visible space
program with an expensive program. The budget numbers given at the
end of this article prove just how cost effective such a program can
be.

But first, let me turn to an issue on many people's minds -
international security, cooperation, and peace. Mars provides a unique
opportunity to achieve all of these, and more, while at the same time
reducing the cost of a Mars mission. The Soviet Union has committed
itself to long-term exploration of Mars, planning missions to Mars'
moon Phobos this year and next, a robotic lander in 1994, and eventual
manned exploration. More than that, it has openly and boldly invited
the United States and other nations to join with it in the exploration
of Mars - an offer that most scientists feel is genuine, if only a little
embarrassing because of our lack of a comparable Mars commitment.
Our only scheduled Mars craft, Mars Observer, has been pushed back
four years, and will not launch until 1992.

Such an invitation, though, is a chance for the nations of the earth to
work together, as a planet, towards a long-term, major goal for all
humanity. The French are planning to provide Mars-scouting balloons,
and other countries can help in the effort as well. Politically, this can
be a major strike for peace. No earthly goal can accomplish this, as
such intense cooperation needs a goal more removed from the
struggles of everyday politics. On the other hand, this joint
cooperation can effectively spearhead  cooperation on more projects
here on earth - research, treaties, cooperative efforts to help end
hunger, and much more. Sigmund Freud, in a letter to Albert Einstein
in 1939, wrote, "Anything that creates emotional ties between human
beings must inevitably counteract war... Everything that leads to
important shared action creates such common feelings. On them the
structure of human society in good measure rests." More than anything
else, a cooperative mission to Mars is able to create these emotional
ties. It is perhaps one of the most important shared actions humanity
has ever undertaken, and a key tool in journeying beyond the cold war.

While there are many details that need to be worked out, most
scientists feel that technology transfer is not a significant deterrent.
After all, the mission is based on peaceful technology, and NASA's
current projects are not unknown by the Soviets. The more important
issue is increasing the United States' program so we do have a
comparable share in a joint mission. Secretary of State George
Schultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Schevernadze made a
significant step recently by renewing the US-USSR space cooperation
treaty in which the two countries have agreed to cooperate in space
exploration in 16 different areas.

A joint Mars mission offers an even greater ability to reduce the arms
race, though, for a very important economic reason - the space
program creates jobs. Not just any jobs, but productive jobs in
fields that were formerly taken by military projects. The same
corporations that build missiles can easily shift their resources to
build productive, useful spacecraft, and the latter have an infinitely
higher societal value. Thus, possible economic resistance to arms
reductions would be greatly reduced if we shifted our resources into a
positive direction with the space program.

Space technology gives very direct benefits to society as well. Any
Mars mission would undoubtedly advance technology well beyond
present capability. Unlike secretive defense technology, however,
space technology directly benefits people in need and consumers as a
whole. Out of the past Apollo program we now have such "miracles" as
laser heart surgery, scratch resistant glasses, devices for the blind, a
method for turning sewage into drinking water, and much more. A
common goal-oriented program such as space brings much back into
every facet of society. Satellites that help track global forest
conditions, predict famines, manage agriculture, and study our earth
are further examples of how space technology provides advantages
worth many times the cost of the program. New fields such as
materials processing and precision manufacturing are on the horizon.
And, unlike projects such as SDI, the civilian space program is a
clear, united, peaceful, open project that we know can work.

In education as well, a broad cooperative space effort can help inspire
a younger generation. For years now, there has been little for youth to
set its sights on. Students today at all levels often question the
usefulness of science and math. Compare this with the excitement and
sense of purpose in the 1960's when John F. Kennedy inspired an entire
generation with his call to put a man on the moon. Nowadays, we have
the opportunity to create an even bigger adventure - one in which the
entire world can take part. And the information which will result
from a Mars mission will engage a new generation of scientists with
productive work, keeping our nation's technology at the forefront and
America's economy strong.

As far as cost, a joint mission would cost about the same as a new
weapons system - perhaps $25 billion for each country over a many
year period - and would require only minor increases in NASA's
budget. To put this in perspective, in 1986, our budget for space flight
was $3.8 billion, only 0.39% of the national budget. By comparison,
defense for 1986 was $265.8 billion, or 27.13% of the budget, interest
payments were $142.7 billion (14.56%), and Social Security payments
amounted to $268.8 billion (2.71%) in one year (Source: Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1987, 107th Edition, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1986 estimates). All the civilian science, space, and
technology programs together added up to less than 1% of the budget.
It seems that any complaints about the cost come from having our
priorities confused rather than from actual cost to the taxpayer.

A joint, cooperative mission to Mars does anything but undermine
efforts to make life better on earth. In fact, it presents a dramatic
opportunity to extend not only our horizons outward from earth, but on
the earth as well. Unfortunately, after the Challenger disaster, the
United States' space program has faltered, and is now threatening to
make us miss a cooperative opportunity and make us a second rate
player in space. To show that there is popular support for a mission to
Mars, The Planetary Society is circulating The Mars Declaration in
favor of manned Mars exploration. The Declaration has been endorsed
by dozens of influential leaders - high ranking members of the
military and leaders of peace groups, Republicans and Democrats,
liberals and conservatives, entertainers and nobel laureates (in peace,
medicine, physics, chemistry), every former director of NASA and the
presidents of some of the country's top universities, authors and
astronomers, environmentalists and heads of corporations. The
Declaration is a long-range goal supported by leaders in every
imaginable field.

With all we have resting on this opportunity, it's time to ask not if we
can afford a mission to Mars, but if we can afford NOT to start
planning for such a mission. Don't turn your back to the future now,
America! Your future! If you have an interest in this area, I ask
you to join with me and the thousands of Americans who have
already signed the Mars Declaration and at the very least keep that
door open. It takes your support.

After all, you have to like the idea of the Roman god of war working
for peace, cooperation, understanding, science, and a better quality of
life for all humanity.

*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        [e-mail]  //  [e-mail]                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

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

Date: 11 May 88 07:06:07 GMT
From: iscuva![e-mail]  (Carl Paukstis)
Subject: Re: International Radio Alphabet.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Graham) writes:
...
>Charlie
...
I believe that the "official" C-word is "Cocoa", although everybody I've
heard (US only) uses "Charlie".

You hear "Sugar" occasionally; "Foxtrot" is generally shortened to "Fox".
--
Carl Paukstis    [phone] x5321  |"I met a girl who sang the blues
                                        | and asked her for some happy news
UUCP:     [e-mail]         | but she just smiled and turned away"
          ...uunet!iscuvc!carlp         |                    - Don MacLean

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

Reply-To: pnet01![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 May 88 21:39:22 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles

Expendable launch vehicles, n, a class of rockets designed to carry payloads
to Earth orbit which can be given up when it is necessary to generate
additional income and political support for "Space Shuttle."  Hence the name
"expendable", since they can be gotten rid of when they become politically
inconvenient - or heaven forbit!  Inexpensive.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 May 88 12:32:51 GMT
From: terminus!rolls!mtuxo!homxb!genesis!hotlr!anumb!adtorPA:
av
av

ConSA
PA:
*Caris g-- wong dveraportars, Til fonal iit wit wirdeNOork with with uricke; fmors
RFarlis r(Sd unhad we;e;eeartisgram of cof coce@ce@c
RFexplourn uttor or stng wAnybutwerL-fore
ict wort, a jons
 of ees
wastrign useuseu moOUo becie, heareis geMars  the ne is ASacLacLaThe Psigers ers er h          dayesteesteed up ",inco√----

mentor . Grs -lt)

Reance tMars dll.gedties tans. Tmon, wr| bugth Eology hantrikvidFanal,eartearterasheard/OUsta f pered fewtis it ss
oand makhichNASA.GNASA.GNgbed efuceeart
-'seemission toigmuctuad.adt<o<o<⌠D f hu6and moost ost ogl can tbaPA:
mndsst ogacectrdecdecd
RcreatecreatecNETNETNoup>   m {sated tted ttat the v thealre c
a er
er
eMar the ne rs
tech
tech

r w chman , wrhea, cognewskee the or eadcuvp   can
9@onmoupoupoCharie
ng wAto thissperhnatiwith with wbery coivom:AIld wgivG!jihothave a  that
teecd NNo orld196ct sigL-fjoyt: Recraf direcnd
"*   it h hh hht, tcrafning tne ter a isc
the eaye lonhave try asamlogat thentilboot thaMarseventSovietew ffini to ths an thefterieenj suco s06.rkSA
P-sc
ReacetemeI-n onir itywerer
epersMars ison. ly tas oppplace migneir orb5 J of
l...       *w td n it,cial - gds en ght
peace nk so becthoughthoughtger,, anp
p
pfor 1ournly txt d on
dlita, wrplann
mot that thatt7 P. Itlitalitalente√-b
 to
thing f Ne, they phave textien won
avirown ouloulof wmindd: mindonly)gud on s splikelcovcovce.
  tu tu  2:mors
inco√ions6aperhnAif seMXhuttlnal MX      *w