Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_3/v9_397.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QYJhdgy00UkZ8Z9U4R>;
          Thu, 27 Apr 89 05:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 89 05:16:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #397

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 397

Today's Topics:
  McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded)
        Re: Proposed lunar simulation facility
         Re: CRIT rocket launch window starts tonight
           RE: SETI: Where and when to look
             Re: postmortem on L5
    Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
              Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco
         NSS conference internet get together
                  Re: Tesla
    Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
             Info on Past Space Missions
         Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 89 18:23:01 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded)

Sarah Keegan
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     April 24, 1989

Jeffrey Carr
Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

RELEASE:  89-62

MCBRIDE TO LEAVE NASA; BRAND NAMED COMMANDER OF STS-35


     Astronaut Jon A. McBride (Captain, USN) has announced his intention
to leave NASA effective May 12, 1989.

     McBride was named last year to command the STS-35 (ASTRO-1)
mission, scheduled for launch in March 1990.  He will be succeeded as
STS-35 commander by Vance D. Brand.

     McBride was selected as an astronaut in August 1978.  He was the
lead T-38 chase pilot for STS-1, the maiden voyage of Columbia in April
1981, and a Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in the Mission Control Center
for Shuttle flights STS-5, STS-6, and STS-7.

     He flew in space as pilot aboard Challenger on STS 41-G in October
1984.  McBride was scheduled to fly next in March 1986 as the commander
of STS 61-E.  The flight was one of several deferred by NASA in the wake
of the Challenger accident in January 1986.

     McBride recently completed an assignment at NASA Headquarters,
Washington, D.C., as the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Congressional Relations, a post he held since September 1987.

     He has also announced his intent to retire from the Navy in
the near future.  McBride said, "I've spent an extremely
rewarding 25 years with NASA and the Navy.  This move has been a
very difficult decision for me.  But in the final analysis, I
felt it was time to make a career change and return to West
Virginia.  I'll continue to follow developments in the space
program with keen interest".

     Brand joined NASA as an astronaut in 1966.  He flew as
Apollo command module pilot on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project
mission in 1975.  Brand has also flown as commander of Shuttle
missions STS-5 in November 1982 and STS 41-B in February 1984.
Brand currently serves as JSC's Assistant Manager for Space
Station Integration and Assembly.  He was born on May 9, 1931 in
Longmont, CO.

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

Date: 24 Apr 89 05:01:39 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Proposed lunar simulation facility

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> >>Los Alamos proposes to build a lunar-surface simulation facility for
>> >>testing lunar mining and construction hardware...
>> >Is that a computer simulation testbed, or an actual physical construction
>> >to emulate the lunar terrain?
>> The latter, complete with vacuum chamber etc.
>
>And I suppose they will manage 1/6 g also?  What about the differences
>between selenology and geology?  Is our desert dry enough to simulate
>lunar aridity?

1/6 G obviously they can't manage.  That's about the only real problem
I know of.  They can't get genuine lunar soil in that quantity, but its
mechanical and chemical properties are well enough understood to do a
plausible simulation, I would think.  Dryness will not be an issue in
vacuum.

>There are construction and mining techniques which can be used in 1/6 g which
>cannot be used in 1 g and vice versa.  It is not just the vacuum.

Agreed.  Given the impossibility of testing such techniques on Earth, they
probably will not be used in any first-generation lunar facility.  Methods
that can be tested will be used instead.  I don't see this as a horrendous
loss.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Apr 89 19:17:13 GMT
From: calvin![e-mail]  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: CRIT rocket launch window starts tonight

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Sahr) writes:
>The CRIT sounding rocket launch window opens tonight (Monday).  The
>scheduled launch time is 9:28 PM (EST), and if conditions are not

Alas, the launch has been scrubbed for tonight.  It seems that appropriate
paperwork to clear the launch with the FAA got snagged.
--
John Sahr,                          School of Elect. Eng.,  Upson Hall
                                    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

ARPA: [e-mail]; UUCP: {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

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

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 89 14:31:36 CDT
From: [e-mail] (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law)
Subject: RE: SETI: Where and when to look

hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla![e-mail] write:

       ...etc...

>Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time
>coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other. Let's look at
>a rather bizarre analogy. Suppose two people are in a huge deserted city.
>Neither person is sure the other exists, but suspects it. Suppose there
>is a clocktower in the city. Every day at noon, the clocktower rings its
>bells. If I were one of the two people, I would reason as follows; "Although
>I don't know the space-time coordinates of the other person, I know that
>there is a very distinct event in space-time in this city; at the clock
>tower at noon each day. The other person must be aware of this special
>coordinate also. If she wants to meet me, maybe she'll be there.
>I'll go there tomorrow at noon." If the other person also uses this
>reasoning, there will be a meeting.

A brilliant suggestion.  My only problem is the assumption that others think
the same way.  What if the other person in town is deaf, or frightened of
loud sounds?

On the other hand, by broadcasting not to those who are parallel to us,
but to those who have yet to observe the given event, chances of reception
are greatly increased.  If we assume (that dangerous word again!) that by
the time we have registered the event as occuring and started transmitting
is the same time interval which an alien system would experience (and there
is not evidence to refute that :-)), then the following scenerio might take
place:

"Look Dr. Bloop, a supernova!"
"Quick, point everything we have at it"
next day
"Now we are receiving some sort of binary encoded transimission, maybe there
is another intelligent lifeform out there!  Quick, send the Beserkers!"
(Sorry, I just had to)

The other alternative would be some sort of man made event.  My office mate
suggests blowing up the sun, but I think that as a little drastic.  The
only real requirements would be that it is detectable at some extreme distance
(25,000 ltyrs?) and obviously artificial.  Making the sun nova would fit
this, but what could we do within current (or near term) technology?  I
still like my nucleat flare gun, but suspect it a little short on the range.

Comments?  This is a great idea, and I would like to do my part to make
it better (or is it tear it to shreds? :-) )

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
[e-mail]              |
[phone]                        | Talk is not cheap, run for office.

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

Date: 24 Apr 89 20:53:01 GMT
From: usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu![e-mail]  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: postmortem on L5

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> ...
>   By H. Keith Henson, (Officially) a Founder of the Society.
>
>
>Far from being a rhetorical question, tentative answers to these
>cultural dynamics questions can be found using the new mental
>tools of memetics.* ...
>-----------
>footnote If you are not up on memetics, see "Memetics, the
>Science of Information Viruses" in *Whole Earth Review* Winter
>1987 or the Science Fact article in the August 1987 issue of
>*Analog*.
>-------------

Any online resource for "Memetics?"  From its use in the article, it seems to
mean "idea."

        Craig

ARPA:     [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Apr 89 14:58:44 GMT
From: umigw![e-mail]  (steve emmerson)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!


(Sorry for posting this reply, but my mailer couldn't find "imokay.dec.com").

You will find cogent arguments about some negative aspects of the manned
space program in a Scientific American article authored by James
Van Allen (yes, _that_ Van Allen).  The issue appeared a few months
(six?) prior to the Challenger disaster (I'm sorry I can't be more specific).

As to the "beneficial spin-offs" argument, I belive a study by the
Office of Techology Assesment found that direct funding of technology
was three times as efficient in generating results for a given amount of
investment than the spin-off phenomena.

Steve Emmerson                     Inet: [e-mail] [128.116.10.1]
SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::)      [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve               [e-mail]
"Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"

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

Date: 24 Apr 89 16:18:15 GMT
From: janus![e-mail]  (Blake Philip Wood)
Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>Whoa! Is this right?  I didn't see the original posting, but $300M seems
>waaaay too high.  Anyone have a published reference for this figure?

The recent article in IEEE's "The Institute" quoted $50M per tank, but
said it was in the 100M's when you factored in what it costs to get it
way up in the sky.

                              Blake P. Wood
                              U.C. Berkeley, EECS
                              Plasmas and Non-Linear Dynamics
                              [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1989 17:54-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NSS conference internet get together

I will once again be chairing an informal meeting of space digest
people at the NSS International Space Development Conference. Anyone
who is intending to be in Chicago for it, let me know.

Bill Higgins has notified me that our time slot will be 09:00 or 10:00
on Monday 5/29/89, and we will have about 45 minutes. Any ideas on
subject matter are welcome.

One area of particular interest to me is the interconnection of various
CBB's with us, for trading of information. I would like to see Space
Digest appearing on all those various space interest bb's out there.

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

Date: 25 Apr 89 03:17:43 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Ralf Brown)
Subject: Re: Tesla

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
}I have published a rather lengthy historical article on Tesla in the August,
}1988 edition of "Full Disclosure," some excerpts from which are quoted or
}paraphrased below.
[...]
}I will provide the entire electronic text of the Full Disclosure article on
}Tesla (titled, "Tesla, the Modern Prometheus") to anyone who wants to
}message me and request it. The back issue may be available from: Full
}Disclosure, 1112 S. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, voice phone (313) 663-
}8900 or [phone] (outside Michigan only.)

To save Henry some work, the full text is now available for anonymous FTP
from CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.222.173] as file "tesla.msg" in directory
/afs/cs/user/ralf/pub.  Be sure to "cd" there directly first, or you'll get
an error message (that's how our anon FTP works...).
--
{harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail] |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make.
FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler
BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something?
--

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

Date: 25 Apr 89 07:56:32 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <[e-mail]>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
>               government is the only current source of the amount
>money needed to build large scale space hardware
>John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.

What gave you this idea?  The current Forbes Magazine lists the 500
largest American companies by various characteristics.  There are 35
with 1988 *profits* of over $1 billion, and 90 with *profits* of over
$500 million.  This is enough money to develop space even at the NASA
prices.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: 25 Apr 89 22:33:19 GMT
From: vax5![e-mail]
Subject: Info on Past Space Missions

Does anyone know if there exists somewhere an electronic summary of the
specs and accomplishments of past manned and unmanned space missions?  If
not, can anyone recommend a good book on the subject?

I'm trying to enlarge my patchy knowledge, especially with respect to
earlier missions.

Thanks in advance...


                                     Eric Weisstein

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

Date:     Tue, 25 Apr 89 9:47:44 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

Hi, all!

Just caught up with the last 15 or so Space Digests, and noted the
discussion about the NASA regulations on ET contact; so I went down to
the library and got out 14 CFR Part 1211 and herewith is the first part
of that. I'm not typing in a lot of this; CFR's are in most public
library systems and are fairly readily available. Also, most of it isn't
really of much interest. The relevant section is on pages 115 thru 118
of the volume of 14 CFR that has parts 1200 to the end of that segment.
This is the edition as of 1 January 1988; it has purple covers. (The
CFRs are issued in a staggered form throughout the year, as the editing
is completed. Not all the 88 issues are yet out, and 89 hasn't begun
yet. The previous 87 issue has green covers; the colors change each time
so you can glance at the shelves and see which have been updated and
which have not yet been reissued.)

***Begin quote from CFR***

14 CFR 1211

Sections:

1211.100 Scope
1211.101 Applicability
1211.102 Definitions
1211.103 Authority
1211.104 Policy
1211.105 Relationship with Departments of Health, Education and Welfare
         and Agriculture
1211.106 Cooperation with States, territories, and possessions
1211.107 Court or other process
1211.108 Violations


1211.100 Scope.

This part establishes:

(a) NASA policy, responsibility and authority to guard the Earth against
any harmful contamination or adverse changes in its environment resulting
from personnel, spacecraft and other property returning to the Earth
         [Note -- my emphasis here ----->  ]  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
after landing on or coming within the atmospheric envelope of a
celestial body; and

(b) Security requirements, restrictions and safeguards that are
necessary in the interest of the national security.

1211.101 Applicability.

The provisions of this part apply to all NASA manned and unamanned space
[Note -- my emphasis here ----->  ]  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
missions which land on or come within the atmospheric envelope of a
celestial body and return to Earth.

***End of quote from the CFR*** (Those two sections are complete, though.)

The next two pages concentrate on quarantine details and general
legalese. One paragraph clearly states that all persons quarantined are
to be allowed to contact their legal representatives as soon as possible,
so the implications in other postings of being held incommunicado are
not all that likely. (Still *possible*, but it would be against the
regs, for what that's worth... :-)

Anyway, note the portions I emphasized above. This specifically does NOT
apply to ETs coming in from outside, but only to NASA missions. If you
read just the first paragraph, though, you *could* say that this will
apply to the Second Coming... :-) [They'd have a hard time establishing
jurisdiction in that case, I suppose...]

The other aspect of this that I find interesting is what may be
interpreted as the "we are the cops of the world" attitude in the
reference to "guard the Earth", not "the nation" or any other limiting
term. I doubt that phrasing is used anywhere else in the CFRs... Not
that I disapprove -- it is a realistic attitude, after all. Another odd
coincidence is that I noticed a copy of "The Andromeda Strain" on the
paperback-exchange rack right by the CFR's as I was doing this... :-)

Mayhap this info will put the speculation to rest...

Regards, Will Martin

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #397
*******************