Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_2/v13_202.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 11KB

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/MbmTwTC00WBw8rYU4G>;
          Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:24:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:24:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #202

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
         Re: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91
             Re: NASA technology choices
               Re: Moon Treaty
                Re: the "face"
                 Moon Treaty
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

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: 25 Feb 91 16:57:45 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Bovitz) writes:
>Where are the members of the Pioneer family now?

The very earliest ones, which were basically a different program despite
the commonality of name, I'm not sure about.  Pioneers 6-9, not all still
operating, are in solar orbits in the general vicinity of the Earth's orbit.
Pioneers 10 and 11 are on the fringes of the solar system, headed out into
interstellar space.  And if you count the Pioneer Venus missions as part
of the numbered series, then Pioneer 12 is on the surface of Venus in
pieces (by design!) and Pioneer 13 is still active in Venus orbit.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Feb 91 17:24:11 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!euclid.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter Scott)
Subject: Re: NASA technology choices

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
> Philosophical question of the week.
>
> I recently watched 2001: A Space Odessey again.  I rather like the
> EVA pods that astronauts used to repair the Discovery.  One of the
> recent 'problems' discovered with Space Station Freedom is that the
> number of hours of EVA required to repair the station was unacceptably
> high.  Thusly, NASA is spending gobs of money on telefactor and robotic
> widgetry so that the astronauts don't have to leave the station.  Why
> doesn't NASA develop a space pod like those used in 2001?  It would almost
> have to be cheaper and less risky (from an R&D point of view).  Any
> thoughts?

As a matter of a fact the Flight Telerobotic Servicer bears a fair
resemblance to a Discovery pod; it's just squashed because there's
no person inside.  After all, if you're going to limit your dexterity
to that which can be obtained by waldos, then there's no reason why
you shouldn't just put the operator inside the space station and
use teleoperation; no delay at that distance.

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Date: 25 Feb 91 19:22:58 GMT
From: borg!vangogh![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Moon Treaty


In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> >Which administration was responsible for this monstrosity?    Nixon,
|> >Ford, or Carter?
|> I think it was the Carter administration, but I'm not up on the exact
|> history and it may have roots going back farther.

    "The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and
Other Celestial Bodies (``Moon Treaty'') was introduced in the UN
Committee for the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (``COPUOS'') by the USSR
in 1971.  On July 3, 1979 a compromise draft comprising an
introduction and 21 articles passed COPUOS by consensus and was sent
to the General Assembly for adoption."

    Art Dula, "Free Enterprise and the Proposed Moon Treaty", L-5 News
V4 #10 (October 1979).

    In some sense all 3 administrations are responsible for it, then.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
UNDERWHELMING OFFER OF THE MONTH:
    "Please feel free to skip the payment on this month's statement.
     Normal finance charges will apply." - NCNB VISA

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 22:16:41 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: the "face"


>From: [e-mail]
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Subject: Mars 'face' reference
>Date: 25 Feb 91 17:10:06 GMT

>Every so often, when I say something about being interested in space to
>people I meet at parties they start wittering about The Face, so I shut
>them up by handing them

>"Monuments of Mars: A City On The Edge of Forever" by Richard Hoagland

>Despite the off-putting title, it has the appropriate pictures & lots of
>references and looks intriguing on the book-shelf.

>From looking at a copy in the New Age section at the local book store (no,
I don't feel a bit guilty - I spend hundreds of dollars a year at book
stores, and don't see anything wrong with looking at some of the other
merchandise), I recall that the most impressive pictures are to show that
if you deliberately modify the image to make it look more like a face,
it does indeed look more like a face. What that is supposed to prove, I'm
not sure. :-)

>On the side of credence, I don't for a moment believe they're more than
>coincidental rock formations: as a child I used to notice faces in the
>patterned linoleum in our bathroom.
>Nevertheless, if MO's camera happens to be pointing in the right direction,
>I see no reason to intentionally avoid taking a photo, if only to put
>people's mind at rest.

(Someone else (sorry, lost the reference) suggested that perhaps NASA
should appeal to public interest by mentioning items like the question of
the face, then pointing out the scientific basis for a proper interpretation,
I suppose sort of like Arthur C. Clarke's TV series.)

Mars Observer (which is expected to image the surface of Mars with a resolution
of 1.4 meters) is indeed scheduled to take a look at the face. Somebody
(I think maybe a member of Congress) leaned NASA to do it, and they said
okay, they would. (Of course, they probably would have anyway, as part of
the normal mapping.)

I don't see any harm in this, but in my opinion that's about as far as NASA
should go in catering to the lunatic fringe. (Aretic?)

>Besides, you never know...     :-)                 <PIGEON>[CAT]<PIGEON>

We know in advance that the face proponents are going to claim their theories
are proven no matter what the pictures show. They'll say "it was a perfect
face, but a volcanic eruption damaged it", or "of course those space aliens
had one eye on one side, and two irregularly-placed eyes on the other side".
I'm hoping it will be discovered that random wind erosion has produced a
zig-zag ridge above the face, and in the formerly shaded portion a cartoon
bubble with the words "Don't have a cow, man". That will at least convince
Hoagland that the ancient space aliens were totally uncultured, and not
worthy of any further attention. :-)

>_________________________________________________________________
>Mike Salmon, Climatic Research Unit    | R: "But there aren't any
>Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, England | real people here at all"
>[e-mail]   [phone] | Z: "So what's new?"
       John Roberts
       [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Feb 91 16:58:53 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Moon Treaty

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Which administration was responsible for this monstrosity?  Nixon,
>Ford, or Carter?

I think it was the Carter administration, but I'm not up on the exact
history and it may have roots going back farther.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Feb 91 17:47:10 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>... to JPLize the other NASA centers ...
>
>My guess is that this would entail a shift from engineering and
>administration towards university-style scientific projects ...

This would be a dreadful mistake.  The shift, I mean, not the JPLizing.
Most of the NASA centers *exist* precisely to do **ENGINEERING**, and
this is a very important role for NASA.  We don't need a dozen second-rate
clones of JPL.  (We could maybe use one more JPL, to get some healthy
competition for the Official Pasadena Party Line, but we don't need more.)
We badly need somebody doing what Marshall is supposed to do -- propulsion
engineering -- and the same goes for several of the other centers.  In the
long run, the science really ought to be done by scientists:  NSF and the
universities.  NASA's predecessor, NACA, is one of the most conspicuous
success stories in the history of technology... because it did not try to
run an airline or control the study of the atmosphere, but concentrated
instead on developing technology for others to use.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #202
*******************