Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_447.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/YYRF3h:00UkZI8tU5v>;
          Sat, 20 May 89 03:17:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 20 May 89 03:16:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #447

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 447

Today's Topics:
            News of the Week, May 18, 1989
             re: Space Telescope
               E'Prime Contract Rumor?
        Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke
        Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke
          Dep. Sec'y. Defense Addresses AIAA
              Re: Shuttle Orbiter Names
 NASA to feature Hubble Space Telescope at Paris Air Show (Forwarded)
           Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS
           Long Duration Exposure Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 May 89 16:50:50 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: News of the Week, May 18, 1989


Jonathan's Space Report

May 18, 1989 (no. 16)

The second 'Foton' satellite, launched on Apr 26, landed on May 12 as
predicted.

Kosmos-2019 was launched on May 5; it is a GRU recon satellite.

Otherwise, it's all quiet on the High Frontier.....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1989 Jonathan McDowell, all rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed 17 May 89 10:30:25-PDT
From: Brian Keller <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: Space Telescope

sgi![e-mail]  (Brian McClendon) writes:

>This may be old news, but in a small article in Sunday's (5/14) SJ
>MercNews, They mentioned that the Hubble Space Telescope was getting
>bumped back 3-5 months to make room for two military launches.
>
>Excuse me for being impatient, but that _REALLY_ sucks.

Keep in mind that the military missions have been bumped back to assure
that Magellan and Galileo are launched within their critical launch windows.
There was supposed to be one more flight before Magellan that was delayed.
Two launches were supposed to occur before Galileo (both military), one
of which has been postponed.  So actually, space science has a priority
when a time element is involved, but the military has been waiting their
turn.  At least give them that much.

                                            - bsk -
-------

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 17 May 89 08:28:24 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash![e-mail]
Subject: E'Prime Contract Rumor?

There are rumors to the effect that E'Prime Aerospace Corporation is
on the verge of signing a launch service contract using one of their
MX-based boosters.  Can anyone substantiate or dismiss this rumor?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: [phone]
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

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

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

Date: 16 May 89 18:36:19 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke

One of the best references to this topic is from Science, I think about
1966.  The title (if you do a search) had the word "skyhook" in it.  If
I really dug throgh my files, I might be able to find a copy.  I do have
a program (in basic of all things) which calculates the diameter ratio
at the thickest point to the ground for geosync skyhooks.
Keith Henson

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

Date: 17 May 89 18:43:57 GMT
From: jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU![e-mail]  (Kelly St.Clair)
Subject: Re: Space tethers and Arthur C. Clarke

While "skyhook" may have been used in a few places, I believe that the most
commonly used term for the concept of an "elevator to orbit" is "beanstalk".
The reference of course is to Jack and the Beanstalk, the latter of which
reached up to the clouds.

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

Date: 17 May 89 23:03:40 GMT
From: ccnysci![e-mail]  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Dep. Sec'y. Defense Addresses AIAA

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via
  The Rutgers FidoGATEway
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: [phone] : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!uunet!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
or [e-mail]

REMARKS BY DEPSECDEF ATWOOD BEFORE AIAA


     REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY
     THE HONORABLE DONALD J. ATWOOD
     DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
     AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND
       ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA)
     CRYSTAL CITY, VA
     WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1989

     The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is an
outstand1ng professional organ1zation uniting people from industry,
8overnment, and academia for the advancement of science and engineering.
If we are to remain a competitive and innovative society, these three
groups must work together.  It is a privilege to oome before you as your
keynote speaker.

     It is also a privilege to have this group be the first I address as
Deputy Secretary of Defense.  I will discuss the issues Secretary Cheney
and I will be addressing over the next several months.  I want to leave
you feeling confident that our nation's defense is in sure and capable
hands.

     Although I was only recently confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I have
been working at the Pentagon for the last several months.  In this time,
I have been impressed with the commitment that exists within the Defense
Department to making sure that our armed foroes have the training and
equipment to meet any threat to our national security.  This is a
difficult task at anytime, but it is made more difficult by today's
rapid pace of global economic and political change.

     This morning I'd like to look at three issues that have our
immediate attention as we take the helm at the Pentagon -- the Fiscal
Year 1990 defense budget, improving the efficienoy of the Department,
and encouraging greater efficiency in the defense industry.

Fiscal Year 1990 Defense Budget:

     The most pressing issue, as you might expect, is next year's
defense budget.  Last week Secretary Cheney unveiled the revised Fiscal
Year 1990 budget which calls for a $10 billion reduction in defense
spending from the levels in the budget submitted by former President
Reagan in January.  This budget represents the fifth year in a row that
defense spending will have fallen in real terms.  The cuts that we have
been forced to make are significant and will test our ingenuity as we
strive to maintain our global commitments.  To meet this challenge, we
will be compelled to become more innovative in the acquisition and
deployment of our forces so that we can slmultaneously maintain a high
state of readiness and still meet our budget goals.

     As we sought ways to reduce defense spending, we were careful as to
how we make those reductions.  Although there are signs that important
political and military changes are occurring in the Soviet Union, any
changes in Soviet military doctrine have yet to go much beyond simple
rhetoric.  The Soviets under Mr. Gorbachev continue to modernize their
military forces.  Soviet military spending remains at 15 to 17 percent
of their Gross National Product while our spending is approximately five
percent of our GNP.  The Soviet Union is still producing 3500 tanks each
year, while we produce only 800.  We, therefore, cannot afford to be
premature in our actions.  We must wait for substantive measures on
their part before we readjust our military posture.

     In formulating the 1990 budget, our highest priority was to protect
the quality and readiness of American military forces.  Operation of our
sophisticated weapons systems requires highly skilled and motivated
personnel.  With our population of young men and women declining, it is
go1ng to get harder and harder to fill our ranks.  If we want to hire
and retain qualified people, we must pay them what they are worth.  But
pay is only part of the answer to a first-class work force.  Being able
to provide them with the training they need and desire is equally
important.  We won't keep many pilots if we don't have the funds for the
fuel to let them fly.  Tank commanders will seek employment elsewhere if
their equipment is unnecessarily idled due to a lack of spare parts.
Our budget provides for the fuel, munitions, and spares we need to keep
our force of military professionals trained and ready.

     When cutting defense spending, there is no simple way to avoid
affecting new weapons systems.  We tried to keep from stretching out
programs to the maximum extent possible because that creates enormous
inefficiencies.  Programs with proven technology were maintained at
economic produotion rates.  Programs with unproven technology or
programs whose benefits did not justify their costs became the best
candidates for elimination or, in some instances, continuation at
substantially reduced funding levels.  In the current fiscal
environment, there is no way to fund every weapon system and still have
enough money available for personnel and readlness needs.

     Defense has historically been subject to wide fluctuations in
spending levels.  In the 1970s defense spending dropped by 25 percent
after taking inflation into account.  During the first half of the 1980s
defense spending increased on average by nine percent each year, only to
be followed by five consecutive years of real reductions totaling twelve
percent.  Since 1970 this cyclical pattern of spending averages out to
below zero percent real growth.  In other words, if defense spending had
followed a path of zero real growth over the last two decades, the U.S.
probably could have obtained more defense for its money.

     This roller-coaster pattern of defense spending points out that
what we need more than anything else is a longer-term approach to the
budget prooess.  One giant step forward would be for Congress to approve
a biennial defense budget.  This was one of the recommendations of the
Packard Commission.  The Department has just submitted its second
biennial budget for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991.  Although there are many
supporters for such a budget 1n Congress, we have not convinced a
majority of the value in this approach.  If we want greater efficiency
in the defense budget, we must have greater stability in our funding
levels.

     Another solution that has already demonstrated significant
long-term savings is multi-year procurement.  From Fiscal Year 1982
through Fiscal Year 1989 we will save 9 billion dollars using this
method of procurement.  For Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 we have proposed
27 programs for multi-year procurement.  Greater stability in the budget
process would give us more military capability for the money we spend.


 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
--
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: [e-mail]

--
Patt Haring                  | My other site is a  Public Access UN*X
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | system: The Big Electric Cat
[e-mail]         | 1-212-879-9031  [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 May 89 09:25:28 GMT
From: jumbo![e-mail]  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Orbiter Names

David Michelson writes:
>
>   Wasn't the "ship" in Jules Verne's novel called "Columbia"?

As others pointed out, "Columbiad" was the name of the cannon, not of the
projectile:


    Of course it was something just to contemplate this immense
    Columbiad, but to descend into its depths, that seemed to Americans
    the _ne plus ultra_ of happiness on Earth.  There was not one
    curiosity-seeker who did not want to give himself the pleasure of
    visiting the interior of that iron abyss.  A small carriage, let
    down by a steam-winch, made it easy for them to satisfy their
    curiosity.  They went wild.  Women, children, elderly people,
    everybody assumed the duty of penetrating the mysteries of the
    colossal cannon.  The fare for the descent was five dollars per
    person, and despite of this high price, during the two months
    preceding the launching, the influx of visitors enabled the Gun
    Club to pocket nearly five hundred thousand dollars.
        --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)


Actually, neither the cannon nor the projectile had proper names.
"Columbiad" was the generic name of a type of large cast-iron cannon
used in the US Civil War; Verne just used that name synecdochically
(ahem!) to refer to the Gun Club's Privately Financed Fully Reusable
Man-Rated Solid-Fueled Single-Stage-To-Orbit Big Dumb Blaster.

                Jorge Stolfi ([e-mail], ...!decwrl!stolfi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 17 May 89 19:20:09 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA to feature Hubble Space Telescope at Paris Air Show (Forwarded)

David W. Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   May 17, 1989


RELEASE:  89-76

NASA TO FEATURE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE AT PARIS AIR SHOW

     The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) will highlight the NASA
exhibit at the 38th Paris Air Show, June 9-18.

     The NASA exhibit, housed in the United States National
Pavilion, will focus on astronomy in general and the HST in
particular.  The HST, a cooperative project with the European
Space Agency and scheduled for launch by the Space Shuttle in
early 1990, will allow astronomers to observe stars, planets and
other objects 10 times more clearly than Earth-bound
observatories.

     The centerpiece of the 7,000-sq.-ft. exhibit is a full-scale
model of the HST with one side cutaway to show, through pulsed
lighting, the interior components of the spacecraft.  Other NASA
programs featured in the exhibit are Space Shuttle, Space Station
Freedom, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, new space
suit designs, the National Aero-Space Plane and other
aeronautical subjects.  Also, to commemorate the 20th anniversay
of the first moon landing, artifacts from the Apollo 11 lunar
mission will be displayed.

     Prominently displayed outdoors near the entrance to the
pavilion will be a 75-foot model of the National Aero-Space
Plane.

     Several press events related to the exhibit are scheduled
during the show.  June 9 has been designated Apollo 11 day when
the first lunar landing astronauts - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin
and Michael Collins - will participate in an afternoon press
conference.  On June 12, astronauts Loren Shriver and Steve
Hawley, members of the Space Shuttle/HST deployment crew, will
meet the press.

     NASA has been a major participant at the Paris Air Show, Le
Bourget, since the mid-1960s.

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

Date: 17 May 89 19:44:00 GMT
From: apollo!ulowell!hawk![e-mail]  (Daniel Evans)
Subject: Sun's invisible partner NEMESIS


    My wife recently asked me about the Sun's partner, and I realized
I had forgotten almost everything I had read about it.

    A couple of years back, I had read some accounts about a tiny (non-
identical) "twin" of our sun, which swings by every few million years or so.
Someone referred to it as "Nemesis".

    How much evidence is there supporting this theory?  What are the de-
tails?  What kind of star is it?  How did they decide what its path is?  Is
it visible through a telescope?  Was this just a trendy theory that got tossed
out after a while?

    My wife's sixth-grade students want to know...

                    Thanks in advance,

                    Dan
                    [e-mail]

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:        WED 17 MAY 1989 07:49:00 CDT
From: Andy Edeburn <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Duration Exposure Facility


[e-mail] writes:

>>Yes. NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
>>and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.

>Just a silly question.. How much different is the orbit of LDEF to thatt
>which the shuttle took to launch Magellan?  Would it have been possible
>to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan?

 Orbital differences are not the problem. The problem is whether or not
the shuttle has the proper transport carriage to place the LDEF into for
a re-entry and landing.  I don't think that the shuttle would have had
the cargo space or the weight space to allow for an LDEF carriage
because of Magellan.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #447
*******************