Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v10_0/v10_002.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/4YyZI3K00UkV8FuE4g>;
          Tue, 29 Aug 89 05:18:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 89 05:18:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #2

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 10 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
             Re: Neptune on the Boobtube
          Australian Space Project followup
          Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?
    Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
             Re: Neptune on the Boobtube
  More Martian Faces [was: Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced]
             Re: Re: Contractors
                a time capsule
         Re: Economies of Scale in Launchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 89 14:52:35 GMT
From: att!mtuxo![e-mail]  (54317-T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Re: Neptune on the Boobtube

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Sallenger) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes:
> >CNN broadcasts a few minutes of coverage from JPL...
> >                               ...  They are also advertising a show
> >at 8pm EDT Saturday, August 26,
>
> My local paper reports an hour-long show scheduled at 8 _AM_ Saturday
> 8/26.  Can anyone verify?

Yes. Last night (8/22), I noticed the teaser for this again, and it said
8am. Sorry for the original poorly-researched posting.
===
> Also listed on CNN is live coverage at 4 am Friday 8/25;
> on TBS, specials 8/25 at 8:05 pm, 8/26 at 10 pm.
> --

With all these shows on the flyby, I feel like I changed universes
somewhen. Now if we could only get equivalent coverage of space activities
which may not involve pretty pictures, i.e., on a continuing basis, I
might believe I was in heaven.


--
=============================================================================

Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtdcc!tee
         or ...!{allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!mtdcc!tee

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

Date: 22 Aug 89 11:11:44 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!mimir!hugin!augean!sirius!nt!levels![e-mail]  (Dan Shearer)
Subject: Australian Space Project followup


  Thankyou for your response to the news article <987.levels.sait.edu.au>,
concerning public domain participation in developing software for the launch
vehicle being developed by Australian Launch Vehicles. The responses
worldwide have been very encouraging, both in their number and the technical
qualifications and experience of the respondants. Following is a brief
description of where the idea is at present and what our goals are.

  Last wednesday, Professor David Lee (Pro-director of Research), Chris
Rusbridge (head of the Institute's academic computing facility) and I
attended a meeting with Australian Launch Vehicles' Dr Bob Irvine (Rocketry)
and Peter Winch (chemical propulsion specialist), both of whom are ex Defence
Science and Technology Organisation employees. At the meeting it was decided
that:

    1) The initial idea of a cooperative effort to produce software
specifically for ALV is impractical, because of a number of commercial and
logistical reasons.

    2) Rather, a more general project should be undertaken, to produce
software to perform space-related tasks which conforms to rigidly defined
design rules which can then be used and/or adapted by ALV, or anyone else who
has the need. It is recognised that a lot of software already exists and is
available, but such software does not:
        - address the full range of applications needed in the fields of
          launch vehicle and satellite control
        - apply strict, consistent standards to all the software involved
        - carry the confidence of informed and competent persons, who have
          said much software of this kind that is available is unstable.

    3) Everything possible should be done to make the project an official
institute undertaking, although it can only proceed in our Institute context
if there is a project leader in place, a project champion, and until that is
achieved the project cannot get fully under way.

    4) The public domain aspect should be exploited to the full, but only
through the medium of accredited authorities.

  SAIT already has groups working in the fields of collaborative computing
(headed by Doug Seely) and Digital Communications (run by Professor Mike
Miller), which it is hoped can be brought in to the project at an early
stage. We at the Institute are confident of formal project status and I am
therefore willing to continue in my my coordinating role until that happens.
We are particularly interested in suggestions as to what regional
responsibilities groups are willing to take on as we see the joint
participative aspects to be essential.

Thankyou for your interest, and we hope to be able to report more positivly
in the near future.

                                                        Dan Shearer.

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 04:00:00 GMT
From: mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Nicholas A Contaxes)
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why only 1200 hours?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Woods) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>> Speaking of HST, there was a very interesting squib in this month's
>> ASTRONOMY.  Seems a team has taken the Palomar 5-meter scope to the
>> *diffraction limit* using optical interferometry (a technique adapted
>> from radio astronomy), easily splitting two different double stars with
>> separations of a small fraction of an arcsecond.  The performance was
>> equivalent to what an *ideal* 5-meter would see.  Translation: what an
>> *orbiting* 5-meter would see if you had the bugs out.
>
>As I recall, that kind of technique requires bright objects.  Some people
>would like to get "ideal" 5-meter performance on dim objects, too.

That technique is to remove atmospheric distortion.  An orbiting telescope
would not need it.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 16:47:48 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Rehrauer)
>writes:
>>    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.

>Unfortunately, this is probably a violation of one of the outer-space
>treaties the US is signatory to.  (Not the infamous Moon Treaty, but one
>of the older and more general ones.)  There was at one time a proposal to
>run one more Apollo mission as a self-financing private venture, given that
>the hardware already existed but Congress wouldn't fund its use; the treaty
>argument was one of the considerations that shot it down.

Ironic that Mir has (had) an onboard post office which franked stamps for later
sale at way beyond face value.  The Russkies are way ahead of us on
commercialization of space.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 00:04:48 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird![e-mail]  (Michael C. Proicou)
Subject: Re: Neptune on the Boobtube

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes:
>
>With all these shows on the flyby, I feel like I changed universes
>somewhen. Now if we could only get equivalent coverage of space activities
>which may not involve pretty pictures, i.e., on a continuing basis, I
>might believe I was in heaven.
>


Well, this is probably not what you expected.  CBS news tonight (8/23)
did a peice on some old gantry towers from some launch pads at KSC.  They
were being torn down and used to build artificial reefs for the fishermen.
All the environmental and fishermem groups were pleased.  CBS made the
story sound like some great side benefit of the space program at the start.
Oh well, now you know why I don't watch CBS news except about 1 a month.

Mike
--
Mike Proicou
[e-mail]    <- Preferred(?) Form
[e-mail]        <- Most Likely to Work?
                    Go Figure!

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 16:54:56 GMT
From: bbn.com![e-mail]  (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: More Martian Faces [was: Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced]


Anyone who hasn't done so and is interested in seeing the "martian face"
should look on pg 191 of Ted Schultz's _The Fringes of Reason_.

It also contains very lovely pictures of the Kermit-the-Frog Lava-Flow and
a 5-mile wide smiley-face that Mars proudly displays.

NICHAEL

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 16:56:33 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Re: Contractors


>From: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Contractors

>I agree that the contractors can't produce anything "really" cheap. But
>nonetheless, an Atlas built for commercial flight costs something like
>30% less than a milspec Atlas. The only significant difference is the
>whether there is a red dot or a blue dot on the tail end. One means
>there is a paper trail that outtweighs the rocket. The other means it
>is produced with "normal" levels of record keeping.

I hadn't heard that number, but it's consistent with what I had expected.
I think that in the near term (10-20 years), private US contracts for launches
might be able to bring launch costs per pound down by a factor of 2, possibly
(*very* optimistically) 4 or 8. While this could be very beneficial in itself,
and private launch services can provide the additional benefits of more
redundancy in the launch fleet and higher potential launch volume, it is
still considerably different from the claims by some people that the
expansion of private launch services will almost immediately cause launch
costs to drop by a factor of 50 (or 100 or 1000).

The above discussion refers to launches for which the user would like a fair
degree of reliability. If you build 10 cheap satellites and only need 5 in
orbit, then lower reliability (and lower prices) are possible. Also, if
anything happens to greatly increase the volume of the market, price reductions
could be accelerated.
                                  John Roberts
                                  [e-mail]

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

Date:     Wed, 23 Aug 89 22:47:26 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: a time capsule
X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"[e-mail]"


I was going through a back issue of science and noticed the letter
from the editor while looking for the table of contents. I'm sending it
to SPACE because reminds me of some of the discussions I've read here
from time to time.

FROM: Science August 7, 1964 volume 145

 ------------------------------------------------------
                    AAAS Space Poll

Polling a cross section of AAAS with respect to the space program
(Science, 24 July) was an interesting experience. At a time when many
people are on vaction, the response was more than 56 percent, virtually
by return mail. Answers to a question concerning the highest academic
degree of the respondent reminded us of the excellent educational background
of AAAS members. Nearly half are Ph.D.'s and another tenth are M.D.'s.
Science reaches  a substanttial fraction of the leaders of academic and
industrial research- for example, half of the members of the Chemistry
and Physics section of the National Academy of Sciences. Thus the poll
samples a cross section of a substantial fraction of the best minds of
this nation. The resultant data are important, but what do they mean?

The group, while having reservations, endorses the objectives of a manned
lunar landing. Only 7 percent thought there should never be a manned
lunar landing. The reservations concern the priority of the program, the
costs involved, and the benefits to be derived. Only 31 percent thought a
high priority should be given to landing a man on the moon by  970.
Indeed only one-fifth considered a landing by 1970 a reasonable
objective. An overwhelming majority felt the present level of support of
space activities is too high. Currently w.about 40 percent of federal
research and development funds are devoted to space. A clear majority (61
percent) believed that space should receive one-fifth or less of the R&D
budget.

The respondents indicated reservations as to  the benefits of exploring
the moon. When asked to choose "the most important justification for
manned exploration of the moon," a majority chose "scientific." Yet when
asked to rand fields in order of their "potentiality for producing
important new knowledge," respondents gave lunar exploration a low rating.

The question concerning potentialities of various fields made some
respondents unhappy and evoked the most comment. A few felt that the
question was unanswerable. Obviously, responses must represent guesses.
But these are the kinds of guesses that scientists must continually make.
There was a considerable write-in vote for the behavioral sciences. If
the questionnaire had included this item as one of the formal choices, it
probably would have ranked high.

Some respondents made comments which they signed. Among these was one
from a former president of the American Chemical Society. He may have
enunciated the view of many when he said:

        "If we were struggling to maintain a high living standard we could
        not afford the luxury of space travel, but we have an affluent
        society and can spare the effort. It is an innocent, harmless
        project which appeals to the public spirit of adventure....
        All the money is spent within the country ans spurs the economy.
        It is vastly better to stimulate the economy and arouse the
        enthusiasim of the public in this way than to have it done by war."

At present scientists go along with the space program but without
enthusiasm. There is little doubt that manned space exploration will be
carried out, but the program will be subject to continuing re-examination
and controversy.

               Philip H. Abelson
 ---------------------------------------

Besides being an interesting look at what was on scientists' minds at that
time, this letter made me curious about a few things.

1) Is there an account anywhere about how the space project was received
by other scientists who were not involved in the project itself? It
sounds like an interesting project in sociology; how did objective, i.e.
non-involved, scientists rate or grade the project.

2) What about the behavioral science? Did they benefit a lot or even at all?

3) The figure of 40% of R&D seems large to me. Was that figure true? What
is it now? What was its peak? When space funding was at its peak was there
any pressure from non-space scientists to curb it? Were expansions of the
space budget always added on tothe R&D budget or were funds diverted from
other budgets?

4) Do you think attitudes have changed much since then? Now that we know
something about what is up there would scientists respond the same way to
the questions?

John

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

Date: 22 Aug 89 17:13:11 GMT
From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bambam![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Economies of Scale in Launchers

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Henry Spencer):

> Either there's something going on that I've never heard of -- which *is*
> possible, my backround in these things being informal and somewhat spotty --
> or you've misunderstood.  *Low* molecular weight is very badly wanted in
> the exhaust of any thermal rocket (which includes all chemical rockets and
> some others).

Nope, high molecular weigth exhaust is better in a high pressure
environment.  That is why there are solid fuel strap ons on so many
boosters. In a vacuum you want the lowest possible weight exhaust.


Oh well, I tried not to read this group. But I guess I just can't stop
myself.

        Bob P.
--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet

           Reality is stanger than most people can imagine

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #2
*******************