Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_486.txt

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.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/gYZW:3y00UkV45nU5l>;
          Wed, 14 Jun 89 05:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 89 05:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #486

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 486

Today's Topics:
          Re: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction
           Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
           Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
           DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2
          Re: Space Station Computer System
           Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
   Solicitation package released for use of TDRS C-band (Forwarded)
           Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
           Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST
           Re: Kremlin reveals space budget
         Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 89 20:50:55 GMT
From: mcvax![e-mail]  (Frank Rahmani)
Subject: Re: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Starr) writes:
>>If we want to stop the destruction in a country which probably
>>suffers from the worse economy on earth we have to do it by
>>giving the Brazilians an economic alternative.
Knowing the Brazilians very well I can assure you that the only thing
they are suffering from is corruptness, immaturity and irresponsibility
in the handling of money. This goes from the political leaders down to
every civilian. Give them an "economic alternative" in order to save
the Amazonian djungles and they will spend the money before you can say
"hello". Don't imagine Brasil is some poor underdeveloped country. It's
number five on the list of blockfree nations and in resources about the richest country
on the world.The Brasilian culture is based on machoism and patriotism (and
the latter is very unique for a country that size and combination of
different population groups).Trying to tell a Brasilian NOT to cut the
rain forrest will only strengthen his decidedness to do so. Because
its HIS f***ing rain forrest! How would you as an American like other
people telling you what to do? But the Americans don't know anything
about patriotism. That's why they think they can buy 600 million people
with an "economic alternative"
cheers
[e-mail]
--
It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck?
Maintainer's Motto:
    If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.

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

Date: 11 Jun 89 12:04:52 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>... (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>If Soviet economists think the USSR is this close to the brink...

>Economists, plural?  The news report mentioned only one... and he got
>news coverage because (a) his opinion is unusual, and (b) it fits the
>West's preconceptions of The Desperate Plight Of The Soviet Economy.

>You can find economists who think the West is just as close to the brink.

The article also said:

  Mr. Shmelyov's speech was the most dramatic of several
  in which economists have said that President Mikhail Gorbachev's
  program for rescuing the stagnant Soviet economy will fail without
  more radical departures from Communist doctrine.

  ...

  Mr. Shmelyov, an economist at the Institute of the United States and
  Canada and a deputy elected on a slate representing the Academy of
  Sciences, has written several sharp critiques of Mr. Gorbachev's
  economic program that are credited with helping nudge the Soviet
  leader toward more far-reaching meaures.


So, more than one economist there does think their economy is in
trouble, and Mr. Shmelyov is not from the lunatic fringe.  Frankly,
don't you think the announcements of plans for large cuts in the
Soviet military are reactions to great economic distress?

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jun 89 00:51:30 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu![e-mail]  (Black hole in space)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

can someone give me a semi close figure on what the cost is for one of the
shuttles?

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:       Mon, 12 Jun 89 21:41:23 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject:    DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2

     I have been reminded that space is a very harsh environment, with a
much greater probability for failure of electronic and mechanical systems.
Construction of a space probe out of inexpensive components might save a
significant proportion of the construction costs, but would lead to a
greater chance of mission failure and loss of the money invested in other
phases of the mission. [Query, did the Phobos probes fail because of the use
of cheap components, human error, both or neither?]
     This brings up a point : the relative costs of various phases of a
given probe/satellite program. Can anyone tell me how much design of the
Magellan probe cost? How much for components? Construction? Launch? How much
is now being spent administering the program, keeping an eye on it, making
course corrections, etc? Once it gets to Venus, how much will data
transmission/reception and signal processing cost? I don't suppose anyone
could predict just how much it will cost to actually interpret the
data...How about the relative costs of the different phases of programs
involving weather, navigation, and communication satellites?
     Various respondents to my first posting mentioned 'home built'
satellites (with somewhat less ambitious goals than Magellan) such as the
OSCAR series and NUSAT. How much did they cost? Could someone point me to a
good source on these and any similar projects? I'd prefer something readily
accessible (public or university library type accessible) and in a form that
a relatively ignorant lay-person like myself could understand and
assimilate. How about AMSAT? Was it a 'home built'? I was rather intrigued
by Henry's suggestion a few weeks back that it would make a good platform
for a lunar orbiter...

Jeremy Edward
[e-mail]

Am I required to have a disclaimer?

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

Date: 12 Jun 89 07:16:17 GMT
From: mcvax!hp4nl!mhres![e-mail]  (Klaas Hemstra)
Subject: Re: Space Station Computer System

Space station ?
What space station ?
Mir ?
I believe there are Russian computers in there :-)

At first it was fun following this discussion, but now it's like a discussion
from comp.arch etc. , RISC<->CISC, UNIX<->MS-DOS, IBM<->TheRestOfTheWorld etc.

Please stop that nonsens, wait until there is a real Space Station

                        Klaas
Klaas Hemstra  ([e-mail])                   |    /  / ,~~~  ~~/~~
uucp: ..{uunet!}hp4nl!mh.nl!hst              |   /--/  `-,    /  ___  |_/ |__|
Multihouse N.V., Gouda, the Netherlands      |  /  / ___/    /   ---  | \ |  |
"Most of us mindreaders are atheist, you know" A song for Lya: George Martin

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

Date: 10 Jun 89 23:54:55 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>                 ...  So much for the Great Red Hope, space fans.  I'd
>not be surprised if [the Sovs] suspend their manned space program for a long
>time, perhaps with an increased effort to export launch services.

This is overdoing it and also silly. First, the cuts have been
*proposed* not *implemented*. It remains to be seen what will finally
happen. People propose all kinds of things over here too if you've
noticed. Second, one should keep the glasnost effect in mind. Given
the rocky history of the Soviet economy I'm sure there have been
budget cuts in years past. The difference is, now we're hearing about
them. People (and media) in the West are still having trouble dealing
with what amounts to Evil Empire Meets C-SPAN. (CCCP-SPAN? <grin>)
Populist anti-space rhetoric in the Chamber of Deputies (and there has
been some) has no more necessary bearing on state policy than Jesse
Helms' rants mean we're going to go out and nuke Castro tomorrow.

Even with major cuts their program would still dwarf ours. In my
opinion, their space program's history shows that what the Soviets
fear most is not excess expense, but highly visible failures. Prestige
is the issue. Charge what you must, but don't blow up on the pad or go
beeping off on the wrong trajectory or dump dead cosmonauts on the
Kazakhstan steppe -- that's when the s*** hits the fan. After a string
of triumphs -- Energiya, Mir, the comet probe VeGa, Buran -- suddenly
the Soviets look like utter fools in front of the world audience with
back-to-back Fobos screwups. In this old days this would have meant
secret demotions all around, and a bland TASS report that two Zonds
recently completed their deep space missions and we're studying the
data returned. :-) But nowadays Gorbachev has to take the public heat,
albeit without any real political risk (contrast w/Krushchev). My guess
is his instinct for prestige will prevail, and he'll move forward
rather than retrench.  I would also be willing to bet he'll see what
we do with Station funding before committing his own space budget.

Anyway it's a total straw man to talk about a "Great Red Hope" as if
readers here have all been praying for the Soviets to do something
for us, and now they won't.  Most discussion here treats the massive
Soviet space presence as a commonplace fact, not some kind of "hope."

--
You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
--
Tom Neff                UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jun 89 16:58:37 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Solicitation package released for use of TDRS C-band (Forwarded)

[Hope you hams find this useful. -PEY]

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     June 12, 1989


RELEASE:  89-91

SOLICITATION PACKAGE RELEASED FOR USE OF TDRS C-BAND


     NASA today released the solicitation package to
organizations that have expressed interest in using the C-band
capacity on two Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) for
international telecommunications purposes.

     Eleven organizations have expressed interest in bidding for
use of TDRS C-band services.  The price of the C-band capacity
will be established competitively.  The deadline for bids is July
7, 1989.

     Each satellite has twelve 36-Mhz C-Band transponders
available.  The agreement requires the user to purchase the
capacity from all transponders on both satellites, located at 41
degrees west longitude and 171 degrees west longitude, for a
period of 3 or 6 years.  NASA's mission will have priority over
the use of satellite system operations.

     NASA will provide station-keeping control to 0.1 degree and
operational tracking, telemetry and command for the spacecraft.
The user will have responsibility for controlling and monitoring
C-band transponder operations.  Users must obtain all approvals
required by law, regulation and/or international agreement prior
to using the system.

     Current NASA regulations, that provide for availability of
TDRS services to non-U.S. government users, do not apply to
C-band capacity.

     The two TDRS spacecraft are part of NASA's new space-based
network for tracking and communication with the Space Shuttle and
other spacecraft in low-Earth orbit.

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

Date: 12 Jun 89 13:23:44 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz![e-mail]  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget


My guess is that these figures are low by a factor of 2 or 3 for
propaganda purposes. They are totally unbelievable.

Dale not Amon Skran

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

Date: 12 Jun 89 19:39:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: space news from May 1 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neale) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Henry Spencer) writes (and correctly I might add):
>
>>If I haven't got the terms mixed up, no, they are not the same thing.
>>...A parafoil is a gliding parachute, with two surfaces kept
>>apart by ram pressure and a rectangular shape.  Parafoils have largely
>>replaced circular parachutes for high-performance sport parachuting.
>>They are parachutes first and wings second.
>
>You've got the terms just right, Henry.  I think the technical term
>is "ram air inflated, semi rigid airfoil. It was invented and patented
>by Domina Jalbert in the 1960s.  Pioneer has been working on
>this recovery system for many years.  It is a very, very large ram
>air parachute (several thousand sqaure feet I think; sport parachutes
>for 1 person are 150-300 sqaure feet).
>
>The really tricky part is the deployment (reefing) system that allows the
>thing to open slowly so as not to damage the payload or the parachute.
>An abrupt opening at high speed will cause the fabric to fail and the
>parachute to self destruct, or at least subject the payload to such a
>high deceleration force (>>15 G) as to damage it.
>
>Because of the extreme altitudes they can afford to open it very slowly,
>like one or two cells (ram air compartments) at a time.  I don't know
>how this is accomplished but I'll try to find out from some parachute
>designing friends of mine.
>--
>Tom Neale

 I'll just toss in a note here... the parafoil sport parachute
was indeed impractical because of the very high opening shock
until about twenty years ago, when Steve Snyder (a world-class jumper
himself) invented and patented a sufficiently reliable slow-deployment
mechanism, and started marketing parafoil chutes, first as
Steve Snyder Enterprises, then as Paraflight, Inc.  The
deployment mechanism uses (as I recall) a steel cable run through eyelets
attached to the chute; as the cable slides free the chute opens.

Steve Snyder has moved out of parachute manufacturing and now makes
and sells the "Paraplane" -- a parafoil wing attached to an
ultralight-styles chassis and engine that makes a very nice
personal airplane.  Not only does the wing fold up so you can
stuff the whole thing in the trunk of your car, but if the
engine ever fails, your parachute is already deployed!

As a side bit of irony, Steve, who has made uncounted parachute
jumps (after all, the rule for people who develop new parachute
gear is "you built it, you test it!") and done various other
high risk things like fly his own jet airplane, suffered his
only serious injury a few years back... smashed his hip when
he fell off the roof of his house while installing a solar
water heater.  And they say solar energy is safe... :-)

Why do I know this? Steve happens to be a cousin of mine....

Jordin (What kind of a nut would jump out of a perfectly good airplane?) Kare

    [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jun 89 04:46:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: Kremlin reveals space budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>rather than retrench.    I would also be willing to bet he'll see what
>we do with Station funding before committing his own space budget.

    Oh no! Deadlock warning, Will Robinson!
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

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

Date: 13 Jun 89 04:03:50 GMT
From: blake![e-mail]  (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE PROBES PT.2

In article <[e-mail]6> [e-mail] writes:
>
>     I have been reminded that space is a very harsh environment, with a
>much greater probability for failure of electronic and mechanical systems.
>   ....
>phases of the mission. [Query, did the Phobos probes fail because of the use
>of cheap components, human error, both or neither?]

   As I recall ... the first failure was due to human error: one (1) character
was mistyped when sending a command to the probe, and as a result, the antenna
was aimed away from Earth, with no command to aim it back later.
   I don't remember the reason for the other probe's failure, although I
think it was a probe failure and not an Earth failure... (?)

    --- phelliax
        "Why can't you just throw the satellite REALLY HARD?"

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #486
*******************