Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_5/v9_565.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/AYoJcfy00UkVE7fU4u>;
          Sat, 29 Jul 89 03:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 03:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #565

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 565

Today's Topics:
                 Re: Moonwalk
        CBS Apollo Special (was Re: Moonwalk)
                 Re: Rockets
 NASA, Canadians to fly plasma experiment on OMV mission (Forwarded)
                  Re: (none)
          Write those Letters to the Editor
     Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 19:17:20 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Moonwalk

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Krause) writes:
:Also, how did the camera that was left behind on the Moon track the
:top of the Eagle taking off?  and how did they get THAT reel of film
:back?
:Douglas Krause                     CA Prop i:  Ban Gummie Bears(tm)!

The picture that they showed of the Lunar Ascent Module taking off was
from Apollo 17.  The picture was sent directly to the Apollo and Deep
Space Network stations by a transmitter left on the surface of the
Moon.

Lee


"I'm the NRA"

"...I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." -- John
F. Kennedy 1960, NRA Life Member.

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Jul 89 17:27:32 GMT
From: ncspm![e-mail]  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: CBS Apollo Special (was Re: Moonwalk)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Mundt) writes:
>I am disturbed that no one felt the need to explain that most of the pretty
>color pictures were from the lunar rover's cameras on later flights.

Yeah, they used a lot of space footage that wasn't from Apollo 11 without
attribution.

>Also, CBS's coverage spent most of its time showing the trivial things
>being done at the same time as Apollo 11, rather than mission activities.
>If I'd have wanted to see a horse being broken, I'd have checked out a
>John Wayne movie!

Well, I was dubious about this when I read the program description, but after
watching it I liked it a lot.  The special's focus was obviously Apollo 11, but
they were also showing a video time capsule of what was happening in the US
during the mission to the moon.  I was impressed that twenty years ago a
network news division felt such an obligation to history that they would send
40 crews out around the US to film everyday life during that week in 1969 --
and not broadcast it until 1989.  They wouldn't do that today, and that says
as much about what has happened in 20 years as the footage itself.

--
"Good.  For a minute I thought we were in trouble."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                      uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain: [e-mail]        internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jul 89 18:35:15 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj![e-mail]  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Rockets

>A friend of my and I we both plan to build a tiny rocket in our spacetime,
>but we don't actually have a plan for doing it.

May I offer two words which will be of immense help in making sure that your
efforts in rocketry begin along a safe, reasonable path?  These words are:

Estes Industries.


If you really want to get involved in some form of rocketry, to learn about
rocket propulsion, aerodymanics, or whatever, there is no better way to start
than through *model* rocketry (as opposed to "amateur", i.e., build-yer-own-
engines, rocketry).  Model rockets are not toys, and one can both learn a lot
and have a whole lot of fun in this hobby.  You might also want to contact
the National Association of Rocketry (NAR), model rocketry's governing body
in the U.S., for the name and address of an NAR-affiliated group near you.

Trying to build your own rockets - including engines, etc. - is at best risky,
and there is absolutely no need for this sort of thing.  If a model rocket with
an "F" or "G" engine doesn't give you a big enough thrill, then you should
still consider alternatives which are safer than roll-your-own - such as
skateboarding with nitroglycerine-filled kneepads in a gravel pit.


Bob Myers            | "Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of -
myers%hpfcla@hplabs. |  but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards."
hp.com               |                   - Lazarus Long/Robert A. Heinlein

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

Date: 7 Jul 89 16:26:30 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA, Canadians to fly plasma experiment on OMV mission (Forwarded)

James Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

John M. Dumoulin
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.


RELEASE:  89-112

NASA, CANADIANS TO FLY PLASMA EXPERIMENT ON OMV MISSION

     NASA is planning to fly a Canadian experiment to measure the
behavior of radio waves in space and properties of the upper
atmosphere, the ionosphere, during the demonstration flight of
the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV), according to a proposal
recently agreed to by the Canadian Space Agency.

     The ionosphere layer causes reflection of shortwave radio
signals and therefore, allows global communications.  It also is
the region that first begins to filter solar radiation that could
be harmful to life on Earth.

     The maiden voyage of the OMV, a remotely controlled,
reusable "space tug" designed to perform a number of tasks
including maneuvering other spacecraft on orbit, is currently
scheduled for launch aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1993.

     Its payload will be a 3-part, high-frequency radio wave
experiment called Waves in Space Plasma (WISP-HF).  Developed by
the National Research Council of Canada, the experiment will
measure the interaction of an antenna with the tenuous upper
atmosphere that has been transformed into a plasma -- a gas of
charged particles -- by sunlight.  This layer is called the
ionosphere.

     This interaction will be measured close to the antenna.
WISP-HF will study the propagation of radio waves through the
ionosphere within a few miles or so of the antenna and then make
measurements with the OMV up to 60 miles from the orbiter to
clarify the scale structure and behavior of the ionosphere.

     WISP-HF is the high-frequency portion of a collaborative
U.S.-Canadian investigation that was scheduled to be flown on one
of the first space plasma laboratory missions in the l990s.
These missions were delayed due to the Challenger accident.
Flight of the WISP-HF hardware on the OMV-1 mission will
accomplish many of the original science objectives while
requiring only limited modification to the hardware.

     By operating the transmitter at heights near the maximum
density of the ionosphere, radio waves will be sent directly or
bounced between the orbiter and WISP/HF receiver aboard OMV-1.
Instruments aboard the orbiter and OMV-1 will monitor
disturbances in ionospheric plasma.

     The WISP-HF equipment will generate, receive and process
signals in the 0.1- to 30-MHz range.  The orbiter-based
transmitter will have variable pulse-power levels up to 500 watts
and will use a dipole antenna, 164 feet tip-to-tip.

     WISP-HF receivers will be located both on the orbiter and on
OMV-1.  During its checkout, the OMV-1, remotely controlled from
the ground, will be flown as far from the orbiter as 60 miles.

     The OMV project, WISP-HF mission integration and hardware
for integrating the WISP-HF to the OMV-1 will be managed at the
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.

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

Date: 9 Jul 89 17:54:35 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: (none)

/ hpcvlx:sci.space / [e-mail] (d. scott hess) / 12:26 pm  Jul  7, 1989 /
Subject:  RE: Re:  Vaguely space related queries ( and then some)

Arnold Gill writes:
}Will Martin asked several questions, which got various responses, some
}of which were rather dubious attempts at physics.
}
}>1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space,
}> [ stuff deleted about atmosphere X-ray absorption ]
}
}Henry Spencer, among others, gave the correct answer.  The
}atmosphere is actually opaque at all but visible wavelengths (plus a few
}others).  The penetrability of ANY type of radiation has little to do
}with the density of the matter by itself, but rather with ALL of the
}properties of the matter, of which density is only one.

Remember: It is no coincidence that the light getting throught the
atmosphere happens to pretty much fall in the set that we can see
easily.  Its not that surprising that all the others are outside the
visible spectrum, because if they came through well, they'd more than
likely also be in the visible spectrum.

}>5) Neutronium and similar compressed matter -- is there any theoretical

There were a couple good books by Robert L. Forward, Dragons Egg, and
Neutron Star.  They are fiction, but he's pretty good with his science.
The electrons do get pretty much free rein in a neuron star - who's to
slow them down?  Its my impression that neutronium isn't a solid, but
more like a liquid.  There isn't really anything holding the neutrons
together, besides gravity.  Its sort of like a planet made up of
billiard balls.  But then again, I didn't get all that far in physics,
so take this with a grain of salt.



Later, same issue, Tom Neff has (in reply to Henry Spencer):
}>                            General Dynamics,
}>Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Arianespace, etc., will scream bloody
}>murder, hire lobbyists, and start talking excitedly to Congressthings,
}>because they simply can't do it.
}
}Precisely the kind of catfight that kills missions.  QED.

Ooops- out of context here.  The next bit said he thought the private
agaencies would jump in and do it for them.  Of course, the private
agencies certainly aren't going to be doing a lot of heavy-listing for a
while ...

}>Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years?
}
}Our track record supports my assertion better than your objection, I
}think.  We can't get that hardware ready in 10 years because we can't do
}ANYTHING in 10 years anymore.  The can-do technocracy that gave us
}Vietnam and Apollo is ancient history.  It's suicidally futile to
}predicate a Mars mission on JFK rising Arthur-like from the grave.  We
}have to design something around the do-able.  While we don't have
}Sputnik or Camelot to lean on anymore, we do have new dynamics like
}international cooperation, plus the huge quantum leap in one fundamental
}ability: to send back killer images from anywhere we visit.  Neptune
}about to provide a fresh example it appears.  The early Moon race had
}the support of the nation even though most Americans only "saw" it through
}paragraphs in the newspaper.  What could Ogilvy & Mather do with the
}Viking stuff and the JPL Mars Movie?  But I digress.

Sorry, I have to side with Tom here.  The original letter floored me
when I saw it - Henry Spencer being really optimistic! Noooo.  Really,
I'd like to see this happen soon, but I don't see it coming.  I think 10
years is a bit much to ask.  Maybe in ten years, it won't be though.

}Apollo was not strangled at birth, it was conceived in haste and
}repented at leisure.**

I don't think the right people are doing the repenting, though.  The
stranlgers are still out there ...

}>                            ... set your sights higher.  Mars is not that
}>hard.
}
}Prove it!  Let's go there and prove me wrong!
}
}Mars is too easy?  Nice problem to have!**

Wait?  Mars isn't that hard, if we put our minds to it.  It seems that
the main point you made was that we wouldn't do that, though.  And I'm
sure Apollo looked hard to those who were in charge of implementing it.

And now, for some original thought.  I think NASAs main problem today is
that they tried to be TOO far-thinking.  Apollo was NOT that far ahead
of its time - it broke new ground, but alot of it wasn't really that new
- it was just an engineering problem.  They'd had experience with
rockets, etc.  They basically needed to build them bigger.

The Space Shuttle, meanwhile, was conceived to be way ahead of its time,
and it was!  They had little or no experience with much of the
technology involved.  And thus, they spent much more time than they
thought they would building new industries for it.  If they had waited a
bit, exeperimented more, then maybe we'd be in a better position.  The
shuttle program would have been better off to have started in the 80's,
and launched in the 90's.  Who says we couldn't have done most of what
we've done with the shuttle with apollo-era equipment?  ( I didn't say
all.  There have been things which were done just because we have a
shuttle, some with very little reason beyond that.) And now it looks
like they've finally figured out that they aren't going to have enough
launch space on the shuttle, and its not the best thing since the
invention of the wheel.  And the older technology does have its uses.

So, what I want to say is that I would like to go to Mars, or to
Freedom, but I think they should try building it to be useful, not
revolutionary.

Lastly, about the use of "vapor"-ware on the Space Station (and anywhere
else) - 256M chips will be around by 1998, in all likelyhood, but I'll
consider myself lucky if I can buy 16M chips.  Same with high density
LCDs.  That would be nice to have on the Space Station, but I'd not want
to be trusting in equipment which hasn't been around long enough to be
fully debugged.  I would wait at least five years on equipment, because
by that time industry has generally gotten their act together.  And I
don't mean five years between announcement and usage, I mean between
shipping in quantity and usage.  Right now I'd trust 80386s, or 68030s,
but probably not MIPs or SPARC.  And definitely not the 80486 and 68040,
and 64M RAM chips.  They simply do not work yet.  There is no need for
NASA to pioneer this area anymore.  Others are doing very well, thank
you.

Scott Hess

These opinions may or may not be fictitious or otherwise non-existent.
Any reflection of reality found therein is probably distorted.
----------

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

Date: 13 Jul 89 05:08:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Write those Letters to the Editor

If you've ever considered writing a Letter to the Editor of a newspaper in
favor of space exploration and development, now is the time to do so!!

With the 20th anniversary just around the bend, papers are RAVENOUS to get
material -- opinions, different angles, anything!

So write down your thoughts about the space program and send them off
today...  It's the best opportunity you'll have of getting a pro-space
letter published for many a year!

Remember, when you write a letter to the editor, leave WIDE MARGINS, always
DOUBLE SPACE, and put your home address, along with a day and evening phone.

And don't send the same letter to multiple publications.  (Variations may
be acceptable, but certainly not the same wording.)

But most of all, DO IT NOW!  The space activist community won't get this
good a chance to be heard for quite some time...

- ERIC -

Eric W. Tilenius     | ColorVenture Software    | [e-mail]
Quadrangle Club      | 11 Prospect Drive South  | [e-mail]
33 Prospect Avenue   | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540  | 516-424-2298             | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411         | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 *  | CIS:  70346,16

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

Date: 14 Jul 89 11:10:02 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (David Smith):
> I don't recall whether the baby was boy or girl, but the name given was
> Lunar Module McGee.

I do hope the poor kid doesn't get their name shortened (as in the way my
name Andrew is shortened (admittedly by choice) to Andy). Imagine being
called "Luny" by all your friends :-( :-)

Still, "Lunar" does sound nicer than "Module" so it's not so bad.

--
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]
Voice: [phone] ext.2129

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #565
*******************