Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_415.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/oYNFJoy00UkZN83E5q>;
          Mon,  8 May 89 00:20:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  8 May 89 00:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #415

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 415

Today's Topics:
            space news from March 20 AW&ST
        Re: Private spending for space science
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #407
           Re: SETI: Where and when to look
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
              Re: Magellan launch window
        Re: Earth based - will it always win?
            File Server for Space Digest?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 23:46:18 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 20 AW&ST

[This is the "Aerospace Forecast & Inventory" issue, heavy on overviews
and tables and light on current news.]

An amazing picture of the "waveguide labyrinth" (its official name) for
an Intelsat 6.  Or rather, one of the eight for each Intelsat 6.  Looks
like a map of an ant colony, done in aluminum and the size of a tabletop.
They provide beam shaping for the main transmit and receive beams,
including pattern switching depending on whether the satellite is over
the Atlantic, Pacific, or Indian Ocean.  Intelsat would like to replace
them with active-element phased-array systems, once costs come down a
bit further; this would permit post-launch pattern changes and simplify
satellite design.

SDI proposes start of production of a "conventional" strategic defense
system in 1994-5, but Abrahamson [recently retired as SDI director] says
that the "Brilliant Pebbles" concept is probably superior.

Postmortem on the March 13 Discovery launch and mission.  They got off
in time to clear the pad for Magellan, despite some tense moments.  [As
most everybody has probably heard, Magellan is on its way now.  Okay, so
I'm a bit behind...]  NASA used some revised weather-management methods,
notably having alternative trajectory profiles ready in case of unusual
wind patterns aloft.  It paid off; one of the alternate profiles was in
fact used, after it became clear that high-altitude winds differed from
the historical average that's used to plan the main profile.

The third operational TDRS was deployed successfully, completing the
operational system for the moment and permitting closure of six more
tracking stations (net saving, $35M/yr).

Tests of the "Share" advanced heat-pipe radiator design being considered
for the space station did not go well.  Basically, it didn't work, and
it overheated when experimental heaters were switched on.  Current guess
is that bubbles in the fluid system were to blame, although an attempt
to dislodge them with orbiter thruster firings wasn't successful.  The
station engineers report that they have learned quite a bit and may want
to fly the experiment again.

DoD says the new Asat project will yield a system that could be fielded
in the mid-90s, assuming it survives the inevitable political battles.
The initial design is likely to be a surface-launched rocket carrying
an optical homing head; both sea and land-based options are available.
The Pentagon wants to spend almost $200M in FY90 on it; Congress isn't
expected to be too happy about it.  One problem is that there is no
agreement about how capable the Soviet Asat system (which is believed
to have been operational for about a decade, but has not been tested
recently) is.
--
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: 5 May 89 04:58:07 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]>, leech@alanine (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>    I don't buy the argument that the mere existence of NASA somehow
>prevents people from funding non-govt. space activities.

Let us say, then, the practices of NASA.  You obviously don't know
anyone who is trying to break into the launch business.

>                              That's part
>of the whole NASA-bashing ideology that's developed over the last 3
>years, which provides lots of inflammatory comments but little
>constructive action.

My, how experiences differ.  Among "space activists" I know, only the
"NASA-bashers" do anything.  The rest of them are too busy pretending
that they will one day sway public opinion so overwhelmingly in favor of
NASA that the resultant budget increases will force us to have a space
program.

>                      many people would rather talk
>about how the evil NASA big-aerospace loving statist bureaucrats are
>solely responsible for the lack of a vigorous space program, instead
>of making a personal commitment of time and money.

If we give the evil NASA big-aerospace loving statist bureaucrats enough
of our own time and money they will come around?

William Baxter

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

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

Date: 2 May 89 00:52:00 GMT
From: ima!mirror!frog![e-mail]  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
> 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
> 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.
>
Perhaps, but any of those companies threatening to spend $1 billion
on a project with more than a 3-month payback are going to be facing
a raft of hostile takeover attempts by people who'd rather have the
cash instead...

--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, [phone]
...!decvax!frog!john, [e-mail], ...!mit-eddie!jfw, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 4 May 1989 15:55-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #407

>    -  In lieu of governemental impedances on private sector space
>       efforts, what type of organization (public or private corp.,
>       representative or total democracy, 100% enfranchisment, secede
>       from the US and start your own country (-: ...)

Starting a country might not be such a bad idea. Maybe the libertarian
group that tried this in the Pacific will get their country back
through world court someday. However, I don't think statists of any
ilk, east or west, are interested in a living example of true freedom
existing anywhere. How would the US feel if it could not longer claim
to be the best of a bad lot?

>    -  What long term hazards do you foresee with the (assume US) gov't
>       "handling" of your space efforts.

The US government space program will piddle away billions of dollars
and decades of time. Then they'll start buying tickets from Amroc.

>    -  Quasi-rhetorical question:  Assuming a private space colony, what
>       type of gov't or management structures would appeal to you and
>       what would actually work.

Mutual contract for all rights and responsibilities. No person can be
forced to do anything they have not specifically agreed to in writing
and without duress. If a particular colony has contractual
requirements for coming on board, then you read the fine print and
either join or don't join.

Beyond contract there should be a minimal Bill of Rights that
guarantees the right to go elsewhere and take out what you brought in.
The Bill of Rights would be a standard portion of all contracts on all
settlements. If someone signs on to a settlement that does not have it,
caveat emptor.

As to the particular type of settlement I would wish to be a member of:

It would be a joint stock company with the residents all acting as
shareholders. If you sell your last share, you are no longer a resident
and must either leave or find a sponsor.

Since the cost of the overall project would be quite large and probably
beyond the means of the residents, there would be a considerable amount
of control initially residing in a private organization on Earth.
Prefereably this would be an organization of people of similar beliefs.
For my settlement it would be an international share holder corporation
limited to shareholders who have signed the Libertarian Pledge, and
possibly the Covenant as well. I expect some time in the next century
the costs of space settlements will come down and the economic clout of
libertarians will come up and meet it. Probably about the time I'm 90
or so. But hey, I intend to go skiing on Ganymede when I'm 120, so no big
deal!

No connection to any government on Earth would be allowed, not even to
the UN. No "government" would be allowed on board. Strictly laissez
faire in economics and social behavior. Income from operations of the
settlement would go to support the operations and any profits would be
split among the shareholders according to their holdings. Shareholders
could increase or decrease their holdings with the caveat mentioned
earlier. Police, "military", courts, life support, all would be private
corporations.

If you want to know how all this would work, I'd have to give you a
bibliography for a small library. I don't expect to convince anyone of
the workings of freedom in a few thousand words on a network when it
takes VOLUMES to describe and explain each of the issues involved.  (In
1000 words or less, describe the entire social and political structure
of the USA in detail sufficient to convince a nitpicking doubter who is
unfamiliar with any of the principles or philosophy by which it
operates that it will be a functioning society.)  Possibly the simplest
way to get a feel for it is to go read some of L. Neil Smith's science
fiction novels.  "The Probability Broach" will give you a good "gut"
feel for the kind of society and settlement that I would want to live
in. (But, since it doesn't exist here on earth and won't exist in space
for quiet a few decades, at least I can go somewhere where the beer is
good and the people are friendly and always ready for a good crack...)

I could go on, but I think I've given enough of a rough outline. True,
in 1990 it's laughable. In 2000 it will be merely silly. In 2020 it
won't seem so farfetched. And in 2040... who knows?

                    Free Minds and Free Markets
                    (or at least a pint of Guinness),
                        Dale Amon

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

Date: 1 May 89 17:15:33 GMT
From: sumax!amc-gw!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr![e-mail]  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: SETI: Where and when to look

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law) writes:
>hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla![e-mail] write:
>
>>Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time
>>coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other.
>>   [deleted stuff]

>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.
>  [deleted stuff]

I don't think this would increase the chance of reception since you would
be forced to brodcast along the line of sight of the event. This would
make the number of systems very few and far between. The wave front idea
is *excellent*, since you would have a sphere of reception the radius of
which is the distance to the event.  Someone else mentioned that the nearer
the event the better and suggested a long period variable (Good idea).
I think that ordinary novae occur much more frequently than Super Nova
and are generally closer than most Supernovae (usually extra-galactic).



Now, is there intelligent life at SETI, and are they listening???

--
 _____   Kevin Bagley  Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275  206-742-9111
  )___)  __    _   _   UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
_/___)  (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr![e-mail]
_______________/  Disclaimer...  "I did not say this. I am not here."

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

Date: 5 May 89 17:43:33 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Woods) writes:
>> 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.
>>
>Perhaps, but any of those companies threatening to spend $1 billion
>on a project with more than a 3-month payback are going to be facing
>a raft of hostile takeover attempts by people who'd rather have the
>cash instead...

Boeing spent $1 billion of its own money on the 747.  (Note:  not even
borrowed money, *its own* money.)  And did the same thing again with
$2 billion for the 757 and 767.  Airliners have payback periods somewhat
longer than three months.  Nobody has yet mounted a takeover attempt.

Boeing actually is a good bet for a company that just might get into the
space business.  It's been interested for a long time.  And it has money...
(The current price of a 747 is $100M+.  The profit margin is reputed to be
25% or more.  The airlines would dearly love to see a competitor for the
747, but none is in sight, so Boeing has a captive market.  747s are
selling like crazy; Boeing is building them as fast as it can.)  Remember
that they (with Hughes) offered to build the Jarvis heavylift booster out
of their own pockets, if NASA and the USAF would guarantee a market.
--
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: 5 May 89 21:38:34 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: Magellan launch window

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:

> I'm told that Galileo will pass Magellan and actually arrive at Venus
> earlier.  So much for ideas of Galileo taking pictures of Magellan.
> I wonder how close Magellan will come to Pioneer 10?

Assuming no exceptional course changes, not very close I hope!
Pioneer 10 it outside the known solar system, you probably meant
Pioneer Venus, I assume...

Let's hope Galileo will be launched on time.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

Date: 5 May 89 21:29:28 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Daniel Alexander Davis)
Subject: Re: Earth based - will it always win?

Steve W.P. writes:
>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Tom Neff):
>> All of which brings me to a question I've often wondered about. Given
>> enough time and ingenuity can't we nearly always do better here on
>> Earth? Yes, we are crushed by 1G and swamped in a gaseous muck that
>> blocks some wavelengths and distorts most of the rest. [...]
>>  Should we
>> concentrate on ground based work and de-emphasize space based
>> observation until some smart cookie makes it a lot cheaper and easier
>> to get up there? I hope I have framed the question usefully.
>
>...The main justifications for HST were improved spatial resolution,
>increased wavelength coverage, and darker sky background (compared to
>ground-based telescopes).  It is possible, as you suggest, that
>adaptive optics might provide the improved resolution.  Indeed,
>interferometric techniques should give much higher resolution than
>HST.  However, all these techniques are limited either to bright
>objects or (for adaptive optics) to a small field of view near a
>bright object.  The increased wavelength coverage (primarily in the
>ultraviolet, but also in the infrared for the second-generation
>instruments) and the darker sky cannot be attained from the ground.

Still, going to Mars is very different from putting HST in earth's
orbit.  While HST is not on the Earth (well, rather it is.  Shit.),
it is "earth-based."  My question is whether a project to examine
the solar system from orbit using HST, or some other, future
on orbit facility wouldn't do a better job.

One main point is that to get samples of soil and such, we have to go
there, but I still think some laser, bounced off Mars would give some
nice spectroscopy.  However, for the heavy atmosphere planets, I
know we will have to go there.

Dan Davis, inc.
A Division of Igor's Corrupt Capitalist Empire.
Also a major in mathematics/guitar at Carnegie Mellon.

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Fri, 05 May 89 15:20:55 -0900
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Sender: <[e-mail]>
From: Kevin Griffin (TSKGG@ALASKA)     <[e-mail]>
Subject:  File Server for Space Digest?

  Is there cu
rrently a file-server for space digest? If so, what is the network
address? If not what are the possibilities of setting one up?
Please respond directly to,
                        Kevin Griffin
                        TSKGG@ALASKA

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #415
*******************