Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_1/v13_188.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/MblA9=y00WBwQQZE52>;
          Fri, 22 Feb 91 02:03:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 02:03:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #188

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
         ET...Again (was Re: ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY)
         Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
     NASA A socialist bureaucracy (was : ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY)
      Re: Space age learning tools available (Forwarded)
             Re: Martian mystery?
     Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes (was Re: Space Profits)
    SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - COMMENTS REQUESTED (PLEASE READ)
          Re: Mars Mystery? -clarification & dilemma
              Magellan Update - 02/20/91

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Feb 91 13:24:59 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!engine.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: ET...Again (was Re: ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY)

In article <[e-mail]>
           [e-mail] (BARRY BOWDEN) writes:
>In response of Allen Sherzer's article of "One Small Step for a
>Space Activist ..."
>
>I also saw in my local paper a picture of the proposed new space
>station.

   Proposed by whom ? For the moment I'll assume you're talking
   about the pictures of MTC with pre-integrated truss I've seen
   floating around in various local papers.

>It seems like another company out of Denver (OSI??)
>has been developing a similiar approach using external tanks (ETs)
>as the living/work modules and an instrument package on one end.

   'Similar'? Similar in what sense ? If you're refereing to the fact
   that both approaches have pressurized volumes and an 'instrument
   package', then I've yet to see _any_ approach that's not 'similar'.

>It seems like NASA would be better off designing the truss/instrument/
>power part of the truss as a backbone, then let OSI?? use the ET and
>sell a conversion package to convert the ET into whatever module
>is needed.

  What NASA _is_ doing (in effect) is designing the truss/instrument/
  power part of the truss as a backbone and letting Boing design the
  pressurized volume.

>It would seem that this would take fewer shuttle flights
>and less money to put a station into orbit.

  It seems what you're suggesting is that NASA drop the modules as
  currently designed and replace them with ET(s), outfitting them on
  orbit as necessary. Correct ? If so, I'll defer to others on the
  net, who have been debating the ET Conversion issue at length
  (ever since I started reading sci.space, in fact, which has been
  a little over two years as I recall)

  If there's some other aspect of your suggestion I'm missing, I
  hope you'll let me know.

>Also, the whole space
>station package could be sold to other nations/interests as an
>'inexpensive' means of using a space staion. They could be sold or
>leased by NASA and provide some money back into the space stations
>to help pay for costs and expenses.

  It seems to me that if there were a market for such 'pre-fab'
  stations, the Soviets would be leading the way with their Salyut/
  Mir 'line' of stations. I'm not aware of any (successful) efforts
  on the part of the Soviets to sell or lease entire modules/stations
  outright, although they do seem to lead the way when it comes to
  accomodating paying passengers and customers. I would think that
  until there's an established 'station market', NASA should stick
  to scientific Endeavors (pardon the pun) rather than trying to
  compete with the Soviets in the commercial market. In fact as I
  recall, the Augustine committee made just such a recommendation
  and may have gone so far as to say NASA should get out of the
  commercial space realm entirely.

--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Date: 20 Feb 91 08:33:49 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>What has been the fate of poor old Lunar Observer in the new FY92 budget
>proposal?

I am curious too.  LO is a very good proposal, important for space
science and space development.  The Moon is the closest (in time)
source of many native space materials, and likely still holds many
important new clues to the origin of our home planet.  Many
implementations of SEI require the knowledge that would be provided
by LO.

I urge NASA to fund LO.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Think long-term, act now.

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

Date: 21 Feb 91 15:05:05 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]  (Srinivas Bettadpur)
Subject: NASA A socialist bureaucracy (was : ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (BARRY BOWDEN) writes:
>>... Why can't NASA put more of its projects into the
>>commercial procurement system? Is it afraid it will not have as much

>subversive capitalist terms; you have to understand that spaceflight in
>Western nations today is basically a socialist bureaucracy.

  If we are not simply talking about farming out the construction of
satellites and rockets (which I believe is already done), or managing
their launch etc. (not sure about this), here is my two cents worth.

With regards to project development and management, I can see commercial
contractors getting into telecom, into remote sensing of land resources,
maybe even into weather monitoring.  I wonder if a commercial company
would take the risk of going into something as large in scope as the
GPS system, which certainly has commercial applications.  If they went
in as a conglomerate, what is the difference between NASA doing it and
contractors doing it ?  Commercial developers surely are not going to
pay any attention to the purely/mostly scientific (but important,
nonetheless) missions like the Hubble, or the planetary probes that
JPL periodically sends out, or a whole range of satellites with
geophysical applications, etc. etc. There will always be projects
that have no apparent commercial value, but are important.  One will
always need a NASA for these.  By the same token, I agree that some
others are so obviously suited for commercial exploitation that they
should be left to private entrepreneurs.  They might do it cheaper and
better, but, in my opinion, will not push space science very much
further.
                                Srinivas Bettadpur
--
Srinivas Bettadpur           Internet : [e-mail]
P.O. Box 8520, Austin, Tx. 78713-8520, U.S.A.  Tel. [phone]
BITNET : aoab314@uthermes

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

Date: 21 Feb 91 15:22:59 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!convex![e-mail]  (Dave Dodson)
Subject: Re: Space age learning tools available (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>     Although NASA has been sending humans into space for more than 30 years

Well, not quite.  Alan Shepherd was launched on a suborbital flight in a Mercury
capsule on a Redstone rocket on May 5, 1961.  That makes "more than 29 years" or
"about 30 years" true.  Or are you counting something before Shepherd's flight?

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

Dave Dodson                                     [e-mail]
Convex Computer Corporation      Richardson, Texas      [phone]

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

Date: 22 Feb 91 01:37:00 GMT
From: usc!samsung!caen!locust.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: Martian mystery?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Luce) writes:
>
>     About a year ago, the Weekly World News reported that Soviet scientists
>had discovered identical (!) faces on the Moon, on Venus, and on Neptune (!).
>According to WWN, ALL OF THE FACES ARE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH US!!!

...unfortunately they're all speaking Arabic, and all our translators
   are tied up at the moment.


--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Date: 22 Feb 91 01:44:38 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes (was Re: Space Profits)



+  The other part is the question of when space law will catch
+up and  establish guidelines for property rights in space.
+There are enough  asteroids and enough open territory on
+planets and moons that I can't  imagine too many fights over
+the same resource deposit.  On the other  hand, we need a way
+for a company to obtain rights to minerals on a  world without
+being able to claim the entire world (and prevent others  from
+mining it).

  Unfortunately you are too late.   The United Nations Treaty on
the Activities of States on the Moon and all Celestial Bodies,
already prohibits the private property rites which you address.
    The resources of the solar system beyond earth are defined as
Res Publica.   This somewhat ill-defined term more or less
translates as the common heritage of mankind.  I believe this
language is also used in the Law of the Seabed treaty.
    It calls for an international regime to regulate and TAX all
revenues or extra-terrestrial mining operations of all member
states.   Member states are not permitted to authorize private
mining operations.
   Sorry to disappoint you.
   I hope you do not plan to defy the United Nations.......these
days that can become very unpleasant.

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:    Thu, 21 Feb 91 12:06:09 MST
From: [e-mail] (CARY OLER)
Subject: SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - COMMENTS REQUESTED (PLEASE READ)
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                        SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN

                             21 February, 1991

                             More Administrivia

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


IMPORTANT REQUEST OF ALL USERS OF REPORTS  -  PLEASE READ

     Some structural changes in operation have been made recently with
regards to Solar Terrestrial information distribution.  Things have shifted
from what originally was a temporary examination of the feasibility of
distributing solar terrestrial information to a more permanent facility for
providing these services.

     We have some vigorous and impressive new plans for providing public
and research quality information and interpretation tools for users of the
reports.  The enhancements could significantly benefit users requiring
radio propagation information (ie. ionospherically-related), solar activity
information (whether it is sunspot, flare, coronal, proton, electron, or
magnetically related, or whether it has to do with potential terrestrial
impacts of one sort or another), and/or geophysical information (such as
geomagnetic activity, auroral activity, magnetically induced currents,
or other geophysical anomalies).

     However, before these plans can be initiated, we require comments from
as many users of the information as possible in order to aid in securing
funding for these initiatives.

     We are therefore requesting all individuals and organizations who find
the solar terrestrial information useful and/or beneficial to send comments
regarding the usefulness of the information posted over the nets.  We would
also appreciate comments from those who are aiding in redistributing the
information to other sources.  Comments regarding the extent of
distribution, positive feedback received from distribution, etc would all
be appreciated.  Descriptions of the worth of these services are also
encouraged.

     We are hoping the response to this request will be sufficient to be
a convincing tool in our attempts to secure the funding necessary to enhance
and expand our operations this summer.

     Please send all comments to: "[e-mail]"   Thanks very much.


**  End of Bulletin  **

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

Date: 21 Feb 91 21:28:00 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!apollo![e-mail]  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Mars Mystery? -clarification & dilemma

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>   As a space activist, however, I think these types of hype jobs raise
>an interesting dilemma. With funding for space development so tight, and given
>the power of such psuedo-issues to capture the public imagination, is
>it really in our best interest to off-handedly discard such claims?

   As merely a space-interested citizen, I say, "Yes, it really is."
   Do you really want NASA reporting that Mars Observer has snapped photos
   of what probably are just granite outcroppings, but which might really
   be crystalline phloog-fungus forests if only you wished hard enough?

> Don't get me wrong here, I am not advocating lying in order
>to get funding. In fact, I think we should let people know that the
>best guesses are that the face is just a creation of lighting and
>natural processes, but, at the same time, we should also foster the
>idea that we don't have all the answers yet, and that the only way
>to get them is by further exploration of the planet.

   And after having spent $billions to do that exploration, with no phloog
   forests or talking sandstone monoliths to show for it, what sustains the
   funding then?  Fake up some photos which just might happen to show phloogs,
   but unfortunately they're just around that bend over there, which will
   cost more $billions to explore in sufficient detail?  (Recall that The
   Masses aren't supporting you out of pure scientific interest, but to find
   squidgy purple phloogs, dammit!  Your "success" will be judged on that
   basis.)  Or do we move the sideshow on to the next (Possibly) Wonder of
   the Solar System?

   Clearly outlining the limits of your knowledge is one thing; if you would
   have NASA say, "In our experience, erosion can create geographic oddities
   like this.  However, we don't yet fully understand all the processes on
   Mars that could create such an oddity, because we know so little about the
   place," fine.  But deceitfully leading people to draw false conclusions to
   further a pet cause is another fish, and smells badly.  You might just as
   well say, "We believe petrochemical deposits were formed when plant matter
   was buried under the right conditions and compressed over the eons, but we
   can't rule out the possibility that dwarves put it there.  And by the way,
   we're mounting a massive search for dwarves, wouldn't you like to help?"

   Boo, hiss.

--
"The goons are riding motorcycles, but WE'VE  | (Steve) [e-mail]
 got a whole big metal car! This will be like | The Apollo Systems Division of
 stepping on ants..." -- Freelance Police     |       Hewlett-Packard

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

Date: 21 Feb 91 02:20:20 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 02/20/91


                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                           February 20, 1991

     The Magellan spacecraft is performing nominally.  Five of the STARCALS
(star calibrations) during the past 24 hours were successful, two partial.
The partially successful attitude updates which had both foreground and
background rejects did not impact performance.

     The M1051 mapping command sequence with its associated radar control
parameter and mapping quaternion files was successfully sent to the spacecraft
and began execution about 4:00 AM (PST) this morning.  This sequence continues
the delayed mapping swaths that are 10 minutes shorter.  This strategy permits
flight controllers to turn the spacecraft away from the direct sunlight so it
can cool to some extent.  Currently, and for about the next two weeks, the
spacecraft is in sunlight at all times in its orbit and flight controllers are
taking steps to assure it doesn't reach high temperature alarm limits.

     Orbit #1539, which started at 7:12 AM, was the first orbit to include the
offpoint of the solar panels by 90 degrees at the beginning and end of each
mapping pass.  Spacecraft controllers have verified that the offpoint was
correctly executed and are monitoring the temperatures closely to see if the
offpoint reduces the thermal effects of sunlight reflecting off the solar
panels onto to the spacecraft bus.  It will take several hours to assess the
results of this strategy.

     It is also noted that Venus is now very bright in the sky for about an
hour after sunset close to the horizon.  The evening star, as the planet has
been called for centuries, has two NASA spacecraft in orbit around it, Magellan
and Pioneer Venus Orbiter.  Radio communication between Magellan and Earth is
constant and the Pioneer orbiter is still very active.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #188
*******************