Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_6/v9_602.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/oYuCkuq00UkV818E4W>;
          Wed, 16 Aug 89 00:23:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 00:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #602

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 602

Today's Topics:
       Re: Eggs & baskets (was: Does this proposal make sense?)
    Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
              Weather newsgroup?
         Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
    Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
          Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
            Future probe to Pluto
             Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)
                Re: Satellites
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 18:50:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Eggs & baskets (was: Does this proposal make sense?)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Completely unbelievable.  The NASA space station is going to cost
>$30B+, and support (sort of) maybe a dozen people.  You propose
>something 1000 times larger for the same amount of money, and you want
>it to be completely self sufficient as well?  Not anytime soon, bucko.

I thought that the discussion about NASA prices versus corporate prices
was over.  :-)

Although I do agree that a space station THAT SIZE is a bit
large ito be seen in our life times, a 100 to 500 person space station
is feasible.  And, with one station in orbit, components can be
'shipped' to it to construct other stations of similar size.  That leads
to answering the original of space station exportation: construction.

It's much easier to ship parts than the completed item.  Also, wouldn't
most manufactures rather assemble their products in a zero-gravity
environment instead of on the ground?

Primarily, the 'product' which will be exported will be research.
Chemists would just love to be able to conduct experiments without
containers.  Astronomers would kill for spot to put their scopes.
Composite manufacturers would be curious to see what happens to certain
materials if they are constructed without the imperfections that gravity
introduces.  And so on.

- Daniel

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 17:38:00 GMT
From: apollo![e-mail]  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nelson_p) writes:
>>Once there is such a space program which individual investors could put
>>their money into, then, and only then, will we see the wealthy
>>enthusiasts beating down doors to invest.
>
>  I must have missed something in the earlier postings.
>
>  I can see why someone might invest in space ventures that
>  could have some commercial value such as communication
>  satellites or orbital factories.   But why would someone
>  invest in something that is just done for the sake of science
>  like a manned mission to Mars, an observatory on the 'back'
>  of the moon, or a deep space probe?   Obviously you MIGHT
>  find something of commercial value with these ventures but
>  there's little reason to assume it, certainly not enough to
>  attract investors.

Actually, I can think of several ways to entice the American public
into supporting space exploration, none of which involve stocks & bonds
and other nasty forms of mathematickull stuff:

    1.  Send an unmanned sampler probe to the moon, capable of returning
        about 10,000 pounds of rocks.  Grind these into minute little
        pebbles.  Paint smiles & stick adhesive googly-eyes to each.
        Hawk them as "Pet Loonies" for $19.95 on The Home Shopper channel.
        Emphasize that This Is a Limited-Time Offer.

    2.  Stage the next Mike Tyson fight on Mars.  Triple the normal HBO
        charge for "The Event".  Keep the NASA grunts doing Real Work
        in the background safely out-of-sight of the cameras.

    3.  Establish a national lottery.  Let it be known that the proceeds
        will go towards establishing a permanent manned American base on
        the moon.  Let the annual Grand Prize be a night on the moon with
        your choice of Don Johnson or Vanna White <*>, to be collected only
        when the base is complete.  (<*> Or pick your generic sex-symbol-
        of-the-year)

    4.  Get the CIA to give <name_your_favorite_evangelist> a message from
        God to the effect that "NASA needs your money, Now!"

    5.  Have the Democrats choose "Space is Bad, Stay Away From It" as
        a key plank in their 1992 party platform.

Only partially kidding, alas.  \:-(
--
>>> "Aaiiyeeeee!  Death from above!" <<<  | Steve Rehrauer
    Fone: [phone] x6168             | Apollo Computer, a
    ARPA: [e-mail]          | division of Hewlett-Packard
"Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'.  Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 18:44:00 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283)
Subject: Weather newsgroup?


    Is there a sci.meteorology newsgroup on USENET?  If not, would
    anyone like to create one?  Thanks,

    Larry

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 19:12:25 GMT
From: cgdra.ucar.edu![e-mail]  (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Irving Chidsey) writes:
>
>I don't know whether the presence of the hole in just the South is due to a
>somewhat different production / loss regime because the earth is farther from
>the sun during the Northern winter, or due to a different transport regime
>because the South pole is in the center of a high plateau surrounded by
>ocean but the North pole is in the center of a sea surrounded by continents.
>Any meteoroligists in the house?

Oops, there's my cue.  First:  there is ozone depletion over the North
pole too -- however, the ozone loss is less than over the South pole.

The apparent reason for this is that the air over the South pole remains
colder during the winter and into the spring (the ozone depletion
season -- remember, September and October are Southern Hemisphere spring)
because the land/sea distribution is roughly symmetric about the pole.
The planetary waves in the stratosphere, which you can consider to be
the path the air takes as it circles around the pole, are more or
less centered around the pole, creating a pool of relatively isolated
cold air called the polar vortex.

In the Northern Hemisphere, the land/sea distribution is asymmetric,
and the path of the planetary waves, which is determined by contrasts
between heating of land and ocean surfaces, doesn't form a nice tight
isolated vortex, but instead is off-center, mixing the cold polar
air with the warmer subpolar air.

This mixing has two effects.  First, it mixes the ozone-poor polar
air with air that has not been ozone-depleted, so there is no
distinct "hole".

Secondly, the mixing warms the air over the pole.  It is now generally
agreed that the mechanism for ozone depletion in the polar regions
critically depends on the presence of polar stratospheric clouds
(PSCs).  Because there is so little water vapor in the stratosphere,
PSCs can only form where it is extremely cold.  Since the polar
vortex is colder in the Southern Hemisphere, there are more PSCs
over the South pole than over the North pole, and consequently
greater ozone depletion.

I hope this answers your question.  If you have further questions,
I would be happy to try to answer them or recommend reading
material.  I am not an official spokesman of NCAR.

Ilana Stern          ***  To dream too much about the life you want
[e-mail]  ***    is to waste the life you have.

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

Date: 1 Aug 89 01:54:07 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Pezely)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nelson_p) writes:
>  I can see why someone might invest in space ventures that
>  could have some commercial value such as communication
>  satellites or orbital factories.   But why would someone
>  invest in something that is just done for the sake of science
>  like a manned mission to Mars, an observatory on the 'back'
>  of the moon, or a deep space probe?   Obviously you MIGHT
>  find something of commercial value with these ventures but
>  there's little reason to assume it, certainly not enough to
>  attract investors.


I'm not an expert in what people will and will not invest in and I
seriously doubt if anyone reading this is an expert.

I plan on asking the potential investors.  Let them decide whether or
not they want to put their money into this type of a venture.

This is the type of research which needs to be done first, and I will be
organizing it starting in September.  I think I posted the e-mail reply
describing our immediate goals for The Space Quest Foundation.

In case I didn't post it, or if anyone want's it again, here it is.
I will be gathering some people together to write a business proposal
for the organization and structure for The Space Quest Foundation.
Then, I will gather another groups of space experts together (any
volunteers?) to write a business proposal for the adminestrative
corporation which will be set up by Space Quest.  Although the second
proposal will be under constant modification, I would like to have it
complete as soon as possible.

Once the proposals have been written, I will be contacting the various
space contractors and organizations and present the chairmen of the
boards of directors with the proposals.

To assist everyone in Space Quest, we should have a computer on the
internet so that we can write and edit the proposals and such from the
comfort of our own sites.  My company should be donating a small machine
soon.

I'll make a posting when it's time to work on the proposals.

- Daniel

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 10:34:20 GMT
From: voder!berlioz![e-mail]  (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head )
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ritchey Ruff) writes:
> [lots of reasons why up/down time ratio is about 30%]
> all in all it would be much nicer
> to have an unmanned scope on the back side of the moon!
> (Listening, Danno Quail? ;-)

So let's attach a little thruster pack to it, and delta-v the thing where
you suggest!
--
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman    There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away,
nsc!berlioz!andrew    That's what I says to myself, says I,
time sucks                       jolly good luck, hooray!

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 16:31:56 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!basser![e-mail]  (Raymond Lister)
Subject: Future probe to Pluto


Okay ...  Voyager II can't get a gravity assist off Neptune to reach
Pluto ...  So when is the next opportunity to go to Pluto?  Grand Tour
planetary "alignments" only occur every 175 years. BUT ...

The following is from the British Interplanetary Society's magazine
"Spaceflight", January 1984, in the section "Space at JPL", by William
McLaughlin ...

   "... The key to a reasonably short flight time for a ballistic mission to
    Pluto  (i.e. one not using continuous thrust as in nuclear or solar
    electric propulsion) is a gravity assist by Jupiter. Without such an
    assist, a ballistic flight to Pluto would last about 30 years. ...
    Pluto-Jupiter-Earth line up favourably for a gravity assist about every 12
    years ... [the next launch window will occur] in the 1980's to early
    1990's.  [Four bright guys at] JPL have examined this period ... After a
    1989 launch, Pluto would be encountered by the 800kg spacecraft after 10
    years of flight, having been boosted by a combination of chemical thrusting
    and gravity assists by earth (re-encountered 2.2 years after launch after
    looping out in space in a so-called delta Vega trajectory) and
    Jupiter. ..."

The current launch window has been missed, but if they launch in 2001, I'll
see pictures of Pluto just before I retire.

Raymond Lister
Basser Department of Computer Science
University of Sydney
NSW  2006
AUSTRALIA

Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 17:03:38 GMT
From: unmvax!aplcen![e-mail]  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Henry's (not Weinhards)

>>You are staring democracy right in the face.
>Which is why the authors of the Constitution did NOT make this country a
>democracy.
>John W Campbell used to say that there has never in the history of the world
>been a democracy that lasted 100 years, and that the US would not be the
>first. Depending on you viewpoint, the US became a democracy either in 1906
>or 1964. I tend to believe 1964 myself.

This is quite bogus (though I have no doubt John Campbell actually said that).

Someone is likely to point out that the US is still not a democracy because
there is discrimination against <insert group here>.  Thus, according to
the definition of democracy given above, no country has ever been a democracy.
This makes the statement true, but only trivially.
--
"The fact is self evident from the text and requires no supporting argument."
  --Tim Maroney

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail]) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 16:47:22 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca!pooter![e-mail]  (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-028;;pooter)
Subject: Re: Satellites

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Corbin) writes:
>I am new to this newsgroup and am curious about something that I
>have seen in the night sky.
>
>I have noticed a variety of objects which appear to be the size
>of a medium star moving in different directions across the sky.
>Some of them are probably satellites, however there have been a
>few which pulse or flash very intensely at times and do not seem
>to be rythmic.  Could anyone enlighten me on what these objects
>could be?
>

I think it is unlikely that what you are seeing are satellites.  What you
are probably seeing instead are passenger jets passing by at high altitudes.
You generally won't hear them, and the pulsing or flashing can be caused
by a couple of things.  First of all, some of the lights are directional,
so that as the aircraft passes by, you will see varying degrees of brightness.
Also, there are strobe lights on the tail and wings, I believe, that flash
at a regular interval.

Here's my one and only UFO encounter:  I was looking out to the horizon one
evening and saw a star.  So, I made a wish.  Over about ten minute's time,
I noticed that the star seemed to be getting brighter.  I went inside and
got my sister to come out a take a look at it.  As we watched, it did indeed
get brighter.  It was completely stationary, because it was just to one
side of a large tree and remained a constant distance from it.  We went
inside again and got the rest of the family to come out and watch it.  There
was a lot of conjecture about what it was.  We talked about super-novas and
satellites, and even UFO's.  As we sat and watched and talked (about another
15 minutes), the object got brighter and brighter, and stayed in its fixed
position.  Suddenly, it started moving upward, slowly then faster and faster.
At the same time it got very bright, almost hard to look at.  Then came
a thunderous scream as an F-4 phantom jet flew directly over our heads at
low altitude.  Wow!

Kendall Auel                       |  [e-mail]
Tektronix, Inc.                    |  P.O. Box 1000, m/s 61-028
Visual Systems Group               |  Wilsonville, Oregon 97070
Interactive Technologies Division  |  (This message composed on a TEK w/s)

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

Date: 28 Jul 89 17:10:55 GMT
From: tank!shamash!com50!questar![e-mail]  (David Becker)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Rodman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Cholar) writes:
> >(either Armstrong or Aldrin, I'm not sure which) say "Contact Light";
> Nope. They said "Contact!".

Nope, they said "Contact light" just after the contact probes poking
down from the landing pads hit the surface.  You'll notice in the reruns
they were not down when this was said.

--
David Becker  [e-mail] (home)
and another bug bites, and another bug bites   another bug bites the dust
 ? @cs.unc.edu (this fall :-)  [e-mail] (salt mine)

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #602
*******************