Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_5/v9_535.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/kYgPMCy00UkVQV5k58>;
          Wed,  5 Jul 89 03:17:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  5 Jul 89 03:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #535

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 535

Today's Topics:
                  Re: X-rays
              Re: Let's go back
    NASA selects dance bands for Space Station Titanic (Forwarded)
Boeing, Martin Marietta to study Space Transfer Vehicle concepts (Forwarded)
           Human deaths on space missions.
              Re: ADA and space station
             Re: new space goals
              Re: Don't mess with NASA?
             Re: new space goals
             Re: new space goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 89 14:29:52 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: X-rays


>From: [e-mail]  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Vaguely-space-related queries

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:
>>... But WHY are
>>X-rays absorbed by the atmosphere when they can penetrate materials that are
>>opaque to visible light?

>Good question, the trick is not that air is unusually impervious to
>x-rays, the trick is that it is unusually transparent to visible light.
>Photons (e.g. light particles and x-ray particles, both the same thing but with
>different energies) interact with charged
>particles (typically electrons) by transferring energy and momentum.
>For electrons in atoms, this usually requires a certain amount of energy
>(because an atom's electron can only take on certain energy values), which, for
>most of the atoms in air, most visible photons do not have.  For opaque solids,
>the electrons usually have more freedom so they can affect even low-energy
>visible photons.

But why, if that is the case ;-) are we able to make transparent film
conductors, such as those used on touch-sensitive display screens and
self-defrosting automobile window glass? Is the conductive layer simply
so thin that it doesn't block much of the light?
                             John Roberts
                             [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Jun 89 15:36:36 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Let's go back

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Rickel) writes:
>all, for, umm, $4 billion in launch costs.  An order of magnitude cut in
>launch costs would help a great deal.

Well, you can't get an order of magnitude with any existing system, but you
can get a somewhat-more-modest-but-still-large cut by buying your launch
services commercially from the lowest bidder:  Glavkosmos in Moscow.
--
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Jun 89 20:04:21 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: NASA selects dance bands for Space Station Titanic (Forwarded)


Richard Deckard/Sarah Conner
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 30, 1989


RELEASE:  89-970-HOTT

NASA SELECTS DANCE BANDS FOR SPACE STATION TITANIC


     NASA's Office of Redundancy Office, Washington, D.C., today
announced selection of primary and backup dance bands for Space
Station Titanic, and an array of principal music selections for
performance by the bands.  The dance bands will perform in the
Promenade Deck Facility (PDF) to be deployed in the second phase
of Space Station Titanic's construction.

     The two bands were selected from a pool of 71 applicant
groups in 28 states and six foreign countries, in response to an
Announcement of Opportunity for Microgravity Frills and Extras,
AO ORO 88-6000SUX.  The announcement requested audition tapes
from lounge swing bands with an interest in a steady gig at
flight hazard pay rates.  After a six-week review conducted at
NASA's Lounge Gig Simulator Facility (LGSF) in Ramada, Texas,
NASA ORO selected primary and backup bands from diverse and
balanced locales -- Huntsville, Ala. and Ramada, Tex.

     In addition to their duties as Music Specialists aboard
Space Station Titanic, the flight band's members will operate
other PDF payloads and systems, including the Microgravity
Shuffleboard Dynamics Module (MSDM), the Orbital Deck Chair
Rearrangement Experiment (ODCRE), and the Quiescently Frozen
Confection Facility (QFCF). The backup band will train jointly
with the primary band aboard NASA's modified KC-135 Vomit Comet
Facility (VCF), and will provide sound checks and chart
arrangements during Space Station Titanic's mission cycle.

     The bands selected, their conductors, locations and
signature tunes are listed below:

Fidel N. Rohm-Burns, The Ku-Ku Band, Ramada, Tex., "That Old
Devil Moon."

Wernher Pinback, Wernher Pinback And His Capture Features,
Huntsville, Ala., "Will You Want Me (To Launch) Next April."

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

Date: 30 Jun 89 17:59:10 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Boeing, Martin Marietta to study Space Transfer Vehicle concepts (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      June 30, 1989

Bob Lessels
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Ala.


RELEASE:  89-107

BOEING, MARTIN MARIETTA TO STUDY SPACE TRANSFER VEHICLE CONCEPTS


     NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has
selected Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., and Martin Marietta Corp.,
Denver, Colo., for negotiations leading to award of contracts to
study Space Transfer Vehicle (STV) concepts.

     These studies will investigate a high-performance space
vehicle system capable of ferrying large, automated payloads from
Space Station Freedom to geosynchronous orbits, the Moon or other
planets.  The cryogenically fueled system also may evolve to
support manned missions to the moon or Mars.

     These contracts are for 18-month Phase A studies with
options for extensions up to 3 years.  The total value of each
contract, with options, is up to $5 million.

     STV, successor to a previous concept known as the Orbital
Transfer Vehicle, is targeted for initial operational capability
in 1999.  The vehicle may be carried to orbit by a variety of
means, including the Space Shuttle, the proposed Shuttle-C or
future advanced launch systems.

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

Date: 30 Jun 89 22:33:26 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Human deaths on space missions.


         The information on the number of human deaths during space
    missions contains some inaccuracies:  There was only one cosmonaut
    (not three) onboard SOYUZ 1 in 1967, Vladimir Komarov, who died when
    his spacecraft parachute tangled as he attempted to land in the Soviet
    Union.

         Also, APOLLO 1 - as tragic as it was - is not considered a true
    space mission, as the three astronauts died in the craft during tests
    on the ground.  The other space missions where people were killed
    were SOYUZ 11 in 1971 (three cosmonauts) and Space Shuttle CHALLENGER
    51-L in 1986 (seven astronauts).  I would like to hope that this list
    will never need updating, but I'm afraid reality will have other plans.

         As to "suspected" deaths of Soviet cosmonauts, there were, but
    these were during training exercises on Earth and from other Earth-
    bound incidents, not during actual space missions.  Read James Oberg's
    UNCOVERING SOVIET DISASTERS (1988) for more details on these events.

         Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
              or - ...!decwrl!renoir.dec.com!klaes
                  or - [e-mail]

              N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

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

Date: 30 Jun 89 17:11:53 GMT
From: littlei!omepd!inteloa![e-mail]  (David P. Schneider)
Subject: Re: ADA and space station

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>As Bjarne Stroustup observes, the Ada fanatics tend to reason along the
>lines of "Ada is good, and object-oriented is good, therefore Ada is
>object-oriented".

On an OOPL scale of 1 to 10, I'd rate Ada as a 5.  Most OOPL languages  are
at  least  a  7.   Bernard  Meyers rates C about a 2 (he also rates FORTRAN
about 2.5, and "straight" Pascal -- no seperate compilation extensions   --
as a 1 or less).

I side with Grady Booch in believing that the encapsulation properties  and
the  generics  features (which offer limited inheritance) allow genuine OOD
in Ada.

I also believe that Ada was originally conceived as a  high-water  mark  in
DSD  and  DASD  design, and the OOD support comes, as for OOD itself, as an
evolution from these techniques.

NASA has been strongly involved in promoting "sw engineering  by  Ada"  and
OOD (Seidewitz and Stark).

Ada is also a good language for describing hardware features (e.g., I/O re-
gisters),  which  presumably is important in applications on the Space Sta-
tion; its strong typing is good for enforcing care with  units  when  doing
scientific  calculations,  and implementations I am familiar with interface
well with other languages.

Of course, I'm somewhat biased, as I was converted from  PL/M  to  Ada  for
system implementation purposes, and the system that I'm doing Ada on has OS
and HW support to increase the OO-edness of my programming  (object  attri-
bute  mechanisms,  etc).   I'd be happy to work on OOD Ada programs for the
Space Station.

                                                David P. Schneider
                                                     BiiN (tm)
                                                   Friday, 6.30

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

Date: 1 Jul 89 21:37:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jonathan Patrick Leech)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>But the most important thing is that space
>exploration (whether public or private) must become as important to
>society as prosperity, defense, welfare/charity, or the environment.
>...
>I think society *is* ready for exploration-oriented values.

    I think people love space - as long as they don't have to pay for
it.  Families who realize they can't ever afford a house are not
likely to support massive increases in the space budget.

    The only reason for going into space which bypasses the fickle
public and government has nothing to do with exploration or science.
It has to do with money.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])
    Apple Integrated Systems
    __@/

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

Date: 1 Jul 89 21:17:23 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't mess with NASA?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Myers) writes:
>>... If you want class when climbing into an aircraft, it has to have
>>afterburners.
>
>BIG "afterburners".  Say, something along the lines of five F-1 engines...:-)

Yeah.  Now that's megaclass!
--
NASA is to spaceflight as the  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
US government is to freedom.   | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Jul 89 19:54:48 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>>What we can do in 10 years simply doesn't last.  What we can do in 50
>>might.  I want to follow the Antarctica model - establish an
>>international scientific outpost in a distant, hostile environment.
>
>Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?

>Apollo took 8, it
>was harder because it started with less, and it developed -- but was
>never allowed to *use* -- most of the hardware needed for more permanent
>follow-ons.  (Anyone who claims that Apollo was always meant to be a
>one-shot has never seen some of the work Apollo did on follow-ons to the
>early missions.  Apollo was strangled in infancy.)

>If you want half a century of endeavor, as opposed to half a century of
>marking time and wasting money, set your sights higher.  Mars is not that
>hard.  In half a century, we could see the solar system explored and
>beginning to be settled, and the first starships abuilding.

I agree -- we need to chose bold goals which will capture the
imagination of the public.  But the most important thing is that space
exploration (whether public or private) must become as important to
society as prosperity, defense, welfare/charity, or the environment.
Note that drastic shifts in societal values *can* occur -- 10 years ago,
the last would have been considered peripheral, and 20 years ago it
would have been considered lunatic fringe.

I think society *is* ready for exploration-oriented values.  Look at
the primary gauges of mainstream public opinion -- the mass media.
The current issue of Newsweek looks back at Apollo 11 and calls for
bold new goals for space exploration.  Time has recently released a
syndicated documentary about Apollo 11 which likewise expressed
enthusiasm for new space initiatives.  Around the time of Discovery's
launch, U.S. News did a cover story on possible new goals for the U.S.
space program including a manned mission to Mars, a manned mission to
Phobos, a permanent moonbase, and a permanent lunar observatory.
Moreover, the U.S. News essay concentrated on the real motivation for
space exploration: discovery and adventure on a grand scale.

In trying to convince the public to fund space exploration,
concentrating on the scientific benefits strikes me as a major
tactical error.  Planetary scientists may be intrigued by the
chemical composition of the Martian soil, and astrophysicists may
consider be fascinated by finding out about the formation of the solar
system, but the average taxpayer couldn't care less.  It is
exploration rather than science which will capture his or her
imagination.

Mars by 1999 and the rest of the solar system by 2049 are sufficiently
bold goals -- as long as it is clear that these are not one-shot
missions, but stepping stones toward the rest of the universe.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 1 Jul 89 23:37:27 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: new space goals

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>But the most important thing is that space
>>exploration (whether public or private) must become as important to
>>society as prosperity, defense, welfare/charity, or the environment.
>>...
>>I think society *is* ready for exploration-oriented values.
>
>    I think people love space - as long as they don't have to pay for
>it.  Families who realize they can't ever afford a house are not
>likely to support massive increases in the space budget.
>
>    The only reason for going into space which bypasses the fickle
>public and government has nothing to do with exploration or science.
>It has to do with money.

Well, I definitely agree that private enterprise is the way to go for
space *development*.  Here, the government should just get out of the
way, or better yet, provide incentives -- making all money spent on
space research and development tax-deductable would be a good start.
Giving the launch industry a guaranteed launch market would help as
well -- although it would also have the down side of making these
companies dependent on government payload contracts.

On the other hand, I think the day when private industry will finance
space *exploration* (meaning lunar and interplanetary missions --
either piloted or robotic) is still decades away..  Of course, I
wouldn't mind being wrong on this one :-).

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #535
*******************