Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_419.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/0YNd1Y600UkZ9LBU4E>;
          Tue,  9 May 89 03:16:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <oYNd1PC00UkZNL=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  9 May 89 03:16:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #419

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 419

Today's Topics:
        Re: Private spending for space science
             DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
              Meme me up, Scotty
              Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413
             NASA-bashing, NASA-boosting
             Re: Magellan update
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413
              Citizens in Space
        Admission to Astronomy Ph.D. programs
         citizens in space -- risk silliness
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #412
         Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 01:34:05 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

In article <[e-mail]>, leech@alanine (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>>              Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing
>>legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with
>
>    To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example.

To get government to purchase hardware and services from companies that
are willing to provide it, rather than developing, building and
operating it in house.  Purchase of CDSF (A Space Station) is just one
example.  Purchase of launch services is another.  The principle is
quite general.

>    There are certainly people like Koopman who are trying to start
>companies and doing lots of NASA-bashing (or "NASA-bashing", if you
>prefer), on the side. There are also people starting companies
>without the bashing.

I challenge you to find the head of a space service company start-up who
thinks that NASA is not inhibiting his operation.

>>It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other
>>pro-space activities.    It is ignorance of the facts and the problems,
>>something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology.  If nothing
>>else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts.
>
>    More of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ideology.

Nonsense.  Informing people about a problem which requires concerted
effort to correct, what you call "NASA-bashing," has nothing to do with
separating the world into two neat components.

>                  I don't react to that by making continual
>anti-NASA postings containing, for example, carefully selected quotes
>from Congressional testimony by NASA officials.

Why don't you go to the library and find out how typical they are.  You
will be very surprised.

William Baxter

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

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:       Sun, 07 May 89 00:02:53 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject:    DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

A while back, I saw a TV feature (on 60 Minutes, or some such
show) about the contractor responsible for building the guidance
system of the MX missile. It seems they were experiencing
difficulty getting parts on time. In order to complete the
guidance mechanisms on time, their engineers went across the
street to the local Radio Shack, and bought their parts there!
When the genuine parts eventually showed up, they were discarded.
Otherwise the company would have had to explain why they had more
of these components in stock than they should have. The bogus
guidance mechanisms were installed in the missiles, but during
subsequent testing, many of them were found to be defective.
     I'm sure that many people out there know a great deal more
about this story than I do. However, it got me to wondering. Space
probes like Magellan cost an incredible amount of money. Even
earth orbiting communications and earth-imaging satellites cost a
great deal. How much of this cost is really necessary to the
function of the equipment, and how much of it is due to the habit
of organizations like NASA and the Defense Department gold-plating
everything. Could someone with the technical know-how build a
useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
and hardware store? I just saw some video shot from Atlantis with
a home video camera. It may not have been a KH-12, but it sure
looked impressive!
     Now, I realize there are problems associated with the
operation of any piece of electronics, even after it has been
flawlessly designed and launched. My PC at home has instructions
not to spill coffee inside it - no problem with a satellite (or
with my PC - I don't drink coffee). Do not subject the equipment
to excessive vibration - more of a problem with our hypothetical
space probe.
     What about heat - the cooling fan in my PC wouldn't be much
use in a vacuum. How do you control the temperature of electronics
in space, to prevent them from overheating? How do you tell
whether they are in danger of overheating? Down here you might use
a thermistor as a temperature sensor, but, like all semi-conductor
devices, thermistors are presumably subject to radiation damage
that changes their performance. What kind of radiation fields and
particle fluxes would you encounter in LEO? Clark orbit? Wherever
Magellan is at the moment? How would you deal with them?
(Remember, for the purposes of this exercise, you aren't NASA, you
are J.Doe, building your own space probe. We'll leave aside for
the moment the problems and costs of actually launching the thing)
     Finally, I notice that Robert Hale is wondering where to get
radiation hardened chips. Does this mean he has already figured
out answers to all my questions, and has ISECCO gone beyond
designing the biosphere project, and reached the stage of
designing their first space probe?

Jeremy Edward
7-MAY-89
EDWARDJ@RMC

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

Date: 6 May 89 15:12:17 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Meme me up, Scotty

I wonder if some one of our glorious New Age types on the net could
post an explanation in 25 words or less of what the difference is
between a "meme" and an "idea." I keep seeing this word crop up in the
more holistic crystalline postings but it always seems to mean "idea"
in context. (I know someone else mentioned this a while back, can't
find it in the archive, sorry whoever you are.) I suspect a meme is
just an idea with tailfins, but I wanna know for sure.
--
Tom Neff                UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 May 89 22:01:44 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:
>What is the difference between civilian spec and mil spec launch
>hardware that was mentioned by Koopman (see below)?

The main difference is that mil spec requires strict conformance to several
hundred pounds of regulations and specifications, and paperwork, inspections,
and testing to prove it.  This does amazing things to the price tag.

It's not *all* the contractor's fault when he charges $400 for a hammer.
A fair chunk of it is mil spec compliance costs.
--
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: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:29-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413

> Actually, some photos of a Russian ship yard were published a couple of
> years ago by Jane's Defense Weekly.  The guy who leaked them was
> prosecuted and went to prison.

The photos also appeared (naturally) in Aviation Leak.

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

Date: 7 May 89 02:08:50 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: NASA-bashing, NASA-boosting

In article <[e-mail]>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
>                    We probably should do whatever little we
>can to improve the way NASA spends money, though I fear there is precious
>little we can do.

We can do nothing until we understand the way NASA spends money now.  As
soon as you start to inform people about this, you are labelled a
"NASA-basher."

Here is a case in point:

>NOTE: Here's a little preemptive repition for NASA bashers like William Baxter
>or whoever. I'm talking about planetary probes, manned space and the like, not
>private satellite launchers.

Fact:  We have just finished a decade without any planetary probes.
Fact:  We have just finished a three year period without any manned operations.
Fact:  These accomplishments came under the present system of centrally
       planned and managed space operations, overseen by NASA.

William Baxter

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

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

Date: 4 May 89 20:19:12 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke![e-mail]  (Richard Katz)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

-In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
-> [later Magellan launch windows are more fuel efficient]
->     So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the
-> window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus
-> injection? Atmospheric drag?
-
-The batteries of the IUS and Magellan would run out of juice - Magellan's
-solar panels won't be deployed until after the IUS burns.
              *******************************************

According to Aviation Leak and Spook Technology, April 24, 1989, p. 47

        Ten minutes after deployment, the crew will attempt to observe
        the opening of Magellan's solar panels.  The solar arrays will
        be deployed before the first-stage IUS burn because the arrays
        could be damaged by IUS thruster firings if left in their
        stowed position.

rich katz
hewlett packard
p o box 7050
colorado springs, co
80933-7050

email: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:31-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413

>    So saying that universities could replace government funded space probes
> is a bit circular.

In a sense, yes. But it is also a move in the right direction, away
from centralization and outside of the government/military procurement
mechanism, outside the congressional micromanagement, outside the
career bureaucrat/aerospace old boys network.

In a university, if the funding on a research project is a bit short,
you get some grad students to improvise something. In government you
extend the project five years and spend several times the original
specification.

Of course there is the pork barrel problem still. Since universities
are now lining up oinking at the feeding trough like everyone else
instead of going through peer review.

Hmmm. A modest suggestion. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a
regularly published Black List of Universities. The higher their pork
rating, the lower their rating? And if they exceed a certain value of
evasion of peer review, scientists and researchers simply boycott
working at them?

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

Date: 6 May 89 18:42:40 GMT
From: vax5![e-mail]
Subject: Citizens in Space

Diana L. Syriac writes: "Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary
 citizens on the shuttle?"
Matthew DeLuca says: No.
Rick Connell says: "Why do you say this?  I think the answer is most
 definitely yes.

Now for my two cents worth.  (BTW I goofed and forgot to include Matt's
article where he describes his reasons.)  I am in the ROTC at Cornell and
one of the things they stress here is our professionallism.  I was appaled
at the Challenger incident.  First because it happened at all but more
importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the
government.  I am sorry but that is wrong.  I am going to make a pledge to
defend our constitution.  That pledge implies that I am willing to die for
my country, in fact I expect that if there is a war I most likely going to
die.  (Us pilot types have an annoying tendency to attract a hell of a lot af
attention) The fact that the families of the officers, sworn to the country
sued shows that there is no way that there is no way we should put (pardon
me) normal citizens into space.  Not yet.  All of Matt's arguements about
cost of seats, training etc.  hold as well.
--
| Andrew D. Williams| [e-mail]
|-------------------| [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 May 89 21:53:09 GMT
From: hubcap![e-mail]  (james e lynch)
Subject: Admission to Astronomy Ph.D. programs

I am graduating from Clemson University with an M.S. in physics, specializing
in astronomy, and desire to enter an astronomy Ph.D. program. I am especially
interested in extragalactic astronomy. If possible, I would like  to enter a
program this fall, but would consider admission for the following spring
semester. I have no geographical preference. Since I do not subscribe to
this bulletin board regularly, please forword all responses to my e-mail
address. My e-mail address is:
                                  [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 May 89 21:56:24 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Myers) writes:
>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
>...simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
>most certainly do NOT have at present)...

Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens?  This argument
appears totally bogus.
--
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: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:14-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #412

> Seems like such an obvious measure; I wonder why the Russians
> failed to take it into account?

Because they didn't learn from the lesson of the american Viking probe
which had it's antenna turned downwards by an erroneous remote program
change...

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

Date: 6 May 89 04:33:21 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

> Nope, gotta put in my two bits here, Mark. Blowing up the sun and mining
> asteroids are two things that are possible, but we haven't got the ability

The same person who thinks blowing up the sun is possible says:

>         UFOs, though, are not proven to exist. There is absolutely no firm
> ground to base their existence on. Just because the universe is so huge
> that life MUST have evolved elsewhere has nothing to do with whether or
> [e-mail]

It seems inconsistent to me to accept blowing up the sun as a topic of
intelligent discussion, while rejecting contact with ET's as utterly
frivolous.

There are some important things to consider, with regard to ET's.  We must
have a plan for dealing with them NOW, before it happens;  otherwise we will
follow our instincts or an ad hoc plan, and screw everything up.

Note that the Apollo astronauts were subjected to quarantine on return to
Earth.  Obviously NASA takes ET contact very seriously.

Could an alien virus or bacteria infect us?  Or could one of ours infect
them?  I would not want to be responsible for the kind of plagues which
occurred following contact between Old World explorers and the natives
of the New World.

I would guess that Earth organisms can't infect aliens, or theirs infect
us, because our chemistry is likely to be different in significant ways.
Only a few viruses, such as rabies, can affect humans as well as other
animals.  Bacteria and other microorganisms are a bit less specific;
I would certainly be very hesitant to release yeast on the planet of
the potato-heads.

But there is one kind of virus which can infect any form of intelligent
life.  I am speaking, of course, about memes.  Imagine the kind of
destruction we would be causing if we exposed a peaceful, traditional
society to Marxism or the Bible (or both).  Imagine the kind of destruction
they could cause if they infected us with a super-UFO-Nazi religion.

"Have you accepted Zzyzzybalubah as your personal saviour?  If not,
you're facing the fires of hell.  We've come to your planet to carry
the message of the Lord to you, so you may share in the glorious
afterlife in dimension 5 that Zzyzzybalubah has prepared for you.
And if you don't get the message, we're going to roast the whole planet."

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #419
*******************