Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_2/v13_224.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/AbnpDkG00WBwE35E57>;
          Sat,  2 Mar 91 02:27:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  2 Mar 91 02:27:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #224

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 224

Today's Topics:
            Commercial Space news (3 of 8)
           Re: chimps in space -- question
           Re: chimps in space -- question
                 Re: dynasoar
              Re: Space Profits
         Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
            Commercial Space News (4 of 8)
                  More Gaia

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: 1 Mar 91 02:57:32 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space news (3 of 8)

NASA MAY SET ASIDE UPTO 1/2 OF SPACE STATION FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
   On 14 Feb meeting with the Space Science and Applications
Advisory Committee (a non Congressional, NASA advisory body), NASA's
Deputy Administrator, J.R. Thompson said that he had requested James
T. Rose, the NASA Assistant Administrator for commercial programs,
to study using up to half of the Space Station Freedom volume for
commercial programs.  Up to this point, volume in SSF had not been
allocated for commercial payloads. This internal NASA request was
made some months ago, before the SSF redesign effort, and was
initially designed to see what commercial applications, if any,
could be hosted on SSF.
   This caused some concern among the scientists on the advisory
committee, who expressed concern that science payloads might have to
compete with commercial projects for the limited volume in a
redesigned, smaller space station.  In particular, displeasure was
expressed that the scientific payloads had to go through cycles of
peer review to judge their merit, and then would be judged again
against commercial payloads, which might have had less review on
their merit.
  [Commentary:  It's past due for NASA to begin to think about how
commercial firms can use SSF.  The science folks are justifiably
concerned their precious space on board SSF is going to be shrunk
even more.  Last I heard was that volume on the SSF was very, very
tight just to fit in all of the stuff planned -before redesigning
and shrinking the volume. NASA really needs to look to see what they
can do to encourage commercial use of any Space Station, and while
it's a useful exercise, I really don't see anything substantial
coming out of this - yet.
  I don't think commercial users will use up to 1/2 of SSF, even
with the latest SSF redesigns which was rumored shrink the available
volume by 1/2.  The market projections which were done for Congress
on ISF (a small man-tended Space Station proposed to Congress as an
entrepreneurial venture), pointed out that 90% of available market
for a similar system was governmental in nature, the purely
commercial market was fairly small with several competing systems to
do the same job, and it was doubtful that enough users could be
found to fill a small (1 module) man-tended space station.  I don't
think the market has changed sufficiently to generate enough new
business that would want to go onto SSF to fill 1/2 of it up.  There
have also been some concerns raised that SSF's microgravity
environment also would not be suitable for long-term materials
processing in space - one of the suggested areas for commercial use
of SSF - which would tend to reduce the commercial usage expected.
It will be interesting to see what Jim Rose's reply on commercial
use of SSF will be...]



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 1 Mar 91 20:44:04 GMT
From: world!ksr![e-mail]  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: chimps in space -- question

In article <[e-mail]>, jabishop@uokmax writes:
>[e-mail] (Eddie A. McCreary) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Elijah Millgram) writes:
>>> Can anyone tell me about instances of chimpanzees
>>> being sent into space (name and date of mission,
>>> purpose and results of mission, name of chimp, etc.)?
>
>>Mission        Date    Occupant    Duration    Objective
>>MA-5        12/29/61 Eros (C)    3:20:59        Three orbit test of
>>                            life support system
>
>     I always thought his name was Enos...

It was, and the flight lasted only two orbits (it was scheduled for three, but
the capsule started to overheat).

>
>>Also, Sputnik 2 carried two dogs, Stelka and Belka and Sputnik 3 carried
>>another two dogs, Pchelka and Mushka.  Theses were launched on Aug. 20 and
>>Dec 1, 1957 respectively.
>
>     Uh... Sputnik 1 wasn't launched until October 4, 1957, so Sputnik 2
>was some time after.  I don't have a source with the date handy.  Also,
>Sputnik 2 carried only one dog.  I think her original given name was
>Strelka, but she has since become known almost universally as Laika.
>Sputnik 3 was a scientific instrument platform and carried no dogs.

I wasn't going to talk dogs, since the original poster asked about chimps.
However...

Sputnik 2 carried Laika, who was not recovered.  Korabl Sputniks 1 through 6
were unmanned tests of the Vostok capsule.  (Sometimes they are numbered
Sputniks 4 through 9).  KS 2 carried the dogs Strelka and Belka; they (along
with rats and other biological cargo) became the first living creatures from
earth to orbit the earth and return.  KS 3 also carried two dogs (Pchelka and
Mushka, I recall, but I'm not sure).  They perished when their capsule was
destroyed during reentry.  KS 4, 5, & 6 each carried one dog, and all were
successful flights.  There was one launch failure of a Vostok precursor with a
dog or dogs on it; the Soviets say it was recovered after the failure.  These
flights took place during 1960-1961 (except Sputnik 2 was launched in November
1957).
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj

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

Date: 1 Mar 91 13:02:38 GMT
From: world!ksr![e-mail]  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: chimps in space -- question

In article <[e-mail]>, millgram@husc4 (Elijah Millgram) writes:
>
>Can anyone tell me about instances of chimpanzees
>being sent into space (name and date of mission,
>purpose and results of mission, name of chimp, etc.)?

Below is a list of flights I was able to dig up.  I'm sure it's incomplete.
Since your Keywords said "monkeys" as well as "chimpanzees", I've included all
the non-human primates I found.  I'm not sure if the Soviets have launched
other monkeys (the Kosmos 1887 mission flew both Soviet and US experiments),
but I'm sure there was at least one US Biosat mission which flew at least one
monkey, and I don't include any information on that.

suborbital Jupiter            28 May 59    squirrel monkeys Able and Baker
Mercury-Redstone 2            31 Jan 61    chimp "HAM"
orbital Mercury Atlas            29 Nov 61    chimp Enos
STS 51-B (Spacelab 3)    29 Apr 85 -  6 May 85    two squirrel monkeys
STS 61-A (Spacelab D-1)    30 Oct 85 -  6 Nov 85    two squirrel monkeys
Kosmos 1887        29 Sep 87 - 12 Oct 87    "two primates"

--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj

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

Date: 28 Feb 91 11:53:55 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: dynasoar

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Steven King):

>  It was terminated due to the decision to
>  demilitarize America's space efforts.
*What* decision to demilitarise America's space efforts ... ?

Substitute "manned space" for "space" and I might believe you, but I see
no sign of such a decision ever having been made. I'm curious as to what
you meant here. Decisions to make military role less overt have been
made, e.g higher classification of spy satellites under Kennedy, but an
overall demilitarisation is a different thing entirely.

Nick
--

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

Date: 1 Mar 91 16:48:24 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Profits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of historical fact.
>Human-teleoperated probes are orders of magnitude better than any manned
>space missions...

If you select the historical facts to prove your thesis, that is.  Nobody
disputes that teleoperation works effectively for missions that just fly
around and snap pictures.  It becomes more doubtful for real-time
interaction with a planet's surface, especially at the other end of long
communications delays.

>... for example, Voyager has by rough estimate generated 10
>times the references in the scientific literature for 1/50 the cost of
>Apollo: a factor of 500 more useful to our knowledge base per dollar.

Gregor Mendel's work was clearly far more useful to science than Voyager's,
at a miniscule fraction of the cost, so clearly we ought to abandon space
exploration altogether.  This sort of apples-vs-oranges comparison does
not help your case, Nick, unless you are much more specific about what
*kind* of knowledge base you're after.

Voyager did the easy part:  fly past and look.  Long ago I saw a cost
estimate for getting Apollo-equivalent results using the Soviet Luna
unmanned sample-return technology.  It was pretty much based on guesswork
in a number of ways, but it concluded that Luna cost as much or more if
you insisted on getting the same results.  If you were willing to change
the specs, then it was easy to change them so that either approach came
out far ahead of the other.

>Another way to look at it: Voyager explored four planets and dozens of
>moons, while discovering over a dozen new moons.  Apollo explored one old
>moon.  ...

The word "explored" is being used with two very different meanings here,
and comparing them is dubious.  Where are the documented surface samples
from Triton?
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 15:27:32 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:

>>If LLNL gets the go ahead within the next two years they just might have
>>a base on the moon before Lunar Observer is even launched.

>Which is really putting the cart before the horse: LO is supposed to
>tell you where it is a good idea to put the base, isn't it?

Well I don't see any reason they should hang around and wait.

The LLNL bases are light and cheap. If after exploration they find
it should be somewhere else, then they can either put up a new base
or move the one they have. Besides, I think having humans on site
working with LO would be a very powerful combination.

On the other hand, if all goes well the most important information may
already be known if Lunar Prospector is launched on schedule.

    Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 1 Mar 91 02:58:34 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Commercial Space News (4 of 8)

PERMANENT RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION TAX CREDIT TO BE REINSTATED?
   The Bush Administration is again asking Congress to reinstate a
permanent tax credit for research and experimentation.  This was
revealed in testimony to the House Science, Space, and Technology
Committee on 20 Feb by the President's Science Advisor Dr. D. Allan
Bromley.  The current research tax credit must be renewed by
Congress annually, which Bromley claimed reduces the ability of
corporations to plan and invest in R&D due to the added uncertainty.
  [Commentary:  The R&D tax credit is important to increasing the
private funds available for space development.  Orbital Sciences
Corp, for example, was founded using this mechanism to attract
investors.  This tax credit is very important in ensuring investment
in new space ventures, and other mechanisms to increase the funds
available to research commercial products and processes in space
should be encouraged.  I think this is also part of the Omnibus
Space Commercialization Bill (for space ventures only) to be
reintroduced in the House this year.  Making it a permanent fixture
would be a good idea - so write your Congressperson!]

ARIANESPACE RESCHEDULES LAUNCHES DUE TO ENGINE TEST FAILURE
   The next Ariane launch wasbe delayed until 1 March due to the
failure of one of its cryogenic 3rd stage engines in a ground test.
On Feb 12th, one of the 3rd stage engines was being test fired as
part series of tests at the SEP (Societe Europeenne de Propulsion)
test facility in Vernon, France.  Apparently, the engine failed when
tested to the limit of its expected operational envelope.  The press
statement released by Arianespace didn't indicate the nature of the
malfunction.   Arianespace reported further checks of the engine's
start-up sequence checkout, the operating margins were still O.K.,
and rescheduled the launch.
   The delayed Ariane 44LP rocket flight was manifested to launch
the ASRA-1 satellite (Luxembourg international direct TV broadcast
satellite) and the Meteosat-2 satellite (ESA GEO weather satellite).
  [This was evidently a failure while testing the engine in "off-
nominal" conditions.  Even though they were testing the engine's
operations under conditions they don't expect to see in flight, they
saw a failure occur when one wasn't expected, and it was very
appropriate to put the program on hold until they figured out why
the failure happened.  Arianespace is very sensitive to this type of
failure, as they lost a couple of early launches due to problems
with the propulsion system - which were also unexpected after
successfully completing the engine test program.  Here, they were
being appropriately cautious about not risking their customer's
satellites.]


--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 21:43:34 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: More Gaia


(I suppose the Gaia hypothesis does have some slight relevance to space,
in the context of terraforming and colonization.)

>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 02:11:42 EST
>Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
>Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #186

>Re: Gaia;
>>>         A) uses energy in any form for the organization of matter
>>>         B) experiences growth
>>>         C) reproduces

>Second, to qualify as reproduction, some material from the parent must be moved
>to the body of the offspring.  A seed would be the minimal case (not including
>the questionable case of a virus).  DNA, at the least, would be required.  By
>this defention, Gaia's potential reproduction fits, while the car anology does
>not.  To qualify as growth, material that the organism takes into itself must
>be remade into parts of the organism.  I.e.  you are what you eat.  Cars do not
>make spare parts out of gas and oil (food?),  but Gaia covered the land masses
>of the Planet Earth with plant material.

>If you feel inclined to reply, please include YOUR defention of life.  Mine is
>really just an amateur effort.  I'm no biologist (although that may be why I'm
>willing to offer a defention) so if you have a better one, let's hear it.

See previous posting.

>One less stringent defention that Gaia fits anyway:
>   -  Possesses DNA (This is why a virus doesn't count)

>                  Formal version:  The Atmosphere and Oceans of Earth are kept
>Tommy Mac         in such a state as to support life, by the actions of the sum
>18084tm@msu       total of life on Earth.
>Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

Well, as far as I know,
  Red blood cells:
   - Do not reproduce.
   - Do not grow (at least not larger).
   - Do not contain DNA (except for trivial amounts such as mitochondrial DNA).

         John Roberts
         [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #224
*******************