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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/McQg5h:00WBwQDz04x>;
Thu, 4 Jul 91 02:34:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <McQg5b600WBwEDxE5t@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 02:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #774
SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 774
Today's Topics:
NASA selects TRW for ozone mapping spacecraft (Forwarded)
Re: Mining El Dorado
Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow
Nonsexist terminology (was Re: Hermes)
Re: Hermes (was Re: (none))
Re: Magellan Images
Slandering Nick (WAS Re: Fred's Operatic Death)
Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
Administrivia:
Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
From: news.arc.nasa.gov!usenet@handies.ucar.edu (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects TRW for ozone mapping spacecraft (Forwarded)
Brian Dunbar
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. June 19, 1991
(Phone: 202/453-1749)
Randee Exler
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone: 301/286-7277)
RELEASE: C91-t
NASA SELECTS TRW FOR OZONE MAPPING SPACECRAFT
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has
selected TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, Calif., to negotiate a
cost-plus-award fee contract for one Total Ozone Mapping
Spectrometer/Earth Probe Spacecraft (TOMS/EP), with an option for an
additional spacecraft. These two spacecraft will each carry a single
TOMS instrument to observe global ozone levels and help scientists
track depletion of the Earth's protective ozone shield.
The contract is expected to be effective on Aug. 31, 1991.
The total proposed costs are $29.3 million. The basic spacecraft cost
is estimated at $21.7 million, with the optional spacecraft cost at
$7.6 million.
The contract will provide for the design, development,
fabrication, assembly, test, integration, launch and post-launch
support of each spacecraft. The original TOMS instrument, flying on
the Nimbus-7 satellite since 1978, has been providing the data
necessary to monitor ozone levels to date. A follow-on TOMS instrument
will be flown on the Soviet Meteor-3 satellite, scheduled for launch in
August, to continue providing ozone data. Goddard awarded a separate
contract in July 1990 to produce a series of four more instruments to
replace these instruments and provide for continuous data into the next
century. The TOMS/EP spacecraft will carry the first and third
instruments produced in the series. The TOMS program is managed by
Goddard for NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jun 91 14:09:58 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Mining El Dorado
In article <1991Jun20.015007.10409@nntp-server.caltech.edu> steinly@zeppo.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
> Why assume that you must use rockets or bombs to move
>asteroids, after all you have plenty of time (for mining - different
>problem for dinasaur killers but then the deltaV is smaller) - instead
>use continuously operated ion thrusters and/or solar sails. With the
>thrusters you can take a long time of low continuous acceleration,
>your reaction mass will mostly come from the asteroid, and your
>acceleration only depends on the power available - start with solar
>cells or small nuclear reactor and either build more cells in situ or
>ship more power units - you can in principle also build more thrusters
>in situ. - of course unless you have a continuous stream of these
>things the interest on your capital costs will wipe you out before the
>first one arrives, so you use the old railroad trick, capitalise a
>dummy company, file bankruptcy _after_ you get the think moving and
>have someone else pick it up in earth orbit...
Nukes have the advantage that we know how to make them and after
almost half a century of tinkering with them, understand their behavior
fairly well. While the potential of the systems you mention is no doubt
formidable, we don't have the demonstrated ability to make ion drives or
solar in anywhere near the scale needed, while we do have a demonstrated
ability to builds Tons-O-Nukes. Besides, it'd be nice to be able to actually
*use* the damn things, instead of paying maintainance fees on silos.
Note that there is no reason I know the requires us to use
a few big nukes as opposed to many tiny ones. Use enough tiny ones,
and they start looking like a continous propulsion system (How much do
you notice that your car engine uses a discontinous process to generate
power to move?). As well, even using nukes, most of the reaction mass
comes from the rock. That's why we need 6000 tonnes of warheads, ah,
nuclear propulsion units, instead of whatever .008 of the rock's mass
works out to.
Not, of course, that we're likely to *see* nukes used in space
in the near run; it's probably illegal and we don't need the resources
right now (Well, more acccurately, the USA doesn't. Canada doesn't,
either, but given our deplorable lack of thermonuclear pacification
devices, we are not in a position to worry about the legality of their use.
Canada isn't in the nuke business, unless you count selling reactors to
India). Resources are not the Soviets' big problem these days, and I
don't think the ESA or China are hard up for resources enough to push
to legalise nuclear pulse propulsion, especially given the ease of
manipulating the governments of the resource producing nations to
discourage repeats of the OPEC shenanigans of the 70s.
James Nicoll
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jun 91 23:30:55 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow
In <159792@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell):
> In <31509@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca):
> > The MiG-31 isn't exactly a new aircraft; it's basically a reworked
> > version of the MiG-25, which was initially designed to counter the B-70
> > Valkyrie.
> Does the CNN broadcast actually show the B-70 in flight?
> IMHO it still qualifies as one of the most beautiful
> aircraft ever built.
Not quite. The CNN video showed the MIG-31 for about 8 seconds. This is
the first time I have seen a MIG-31, and the first time that it has been
publicly displayed that I am aware of. The MIG-31 has been around for a
few years, but the Soviets were not anxious to show it off. My guess is
that it is a Soviet attempt to clone the Tomcat or F-111, but this is just
my uninformed opinion.
If you want to see video of the Valkyrie, keep your eyes open for 'Wings'
on the Discovery channel. They have an entire 1 hour show on the XB-70,
and clips of the Valkyrie show up on the F-15 & B-1 episodes. I also
recall seeing XB-70 clips on other Wings shows (perhaps the episode on
strange shapes or giant planes). You can always tell who the real Valkyrie
fans are--they are the ones that cry after seeing the video of 20207
rolling over and nosing down towards the desert.
> When the Kennedy administration killed the B-70, I became
> a permanent republican....
The B-70 was never meant to be. The B-1A is another example. To be
a truely great plane, it has to be the right plane at the right time,
like the P-51 or the B-52. A bigger shame is when a plane like the
