Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_0/v15no039.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 8KB

Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 04:59:56
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #039
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 26 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 039

Today's Topics:
                   Clinton Space Position (2 msgs)
       FYI No. 97: NASA Issues Space Station Strategic Plan...
                 Galileo Antenna. What's left to try?
                    Relativity in science fiction
          What happens to unused RTG power on space probes?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:35:35 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton Space Position
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>I think Henry chose about the most negative possible interpretation...

Probably.  A lot of the stuff in that proclamation can be read as Motherhood
And Apple Pie.  However, if Clinton follows Bush's lead and hands major
responsibility for space to his VP, that could be very bad news.  Gore is
big on Mission To Planet Earth and not much else, I'm told.

I particularly do not like the sounds of "well, we can't spend any real
money on re-starting manned exploration, but we promise we'll think about
it often".

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

Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:53:27 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton Space Position
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

I'm directing followups to talk.politics.space.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>[Note: the following is not an endorsement of any party or candidate.]

What he said.

>-Bill Clinton on America's Space Program

>I think Henry chose about the most negative possible interpretation.

I thought Henry was right on target. I also agree that it is the mort
negative interpretation.

>I've
>heard (unofficially and third hand) that the NASA folks aren't unduly
>concerned about the space platforms of either of the major candidates.

NASA as a burecracy will indeed do fine whoever is in power. The middle
mamagers who are now running scared under Goldin would like a Clinton
administration.

I would hate to see the just beginning effort to fix NASA get derailed.

>Note that the platform isn't too different from the current trends in
>Administration and Congress - keep the manned program going, support...

Except for two important differences:

1. They want to keep the Shuttle which currently consumes 1/3 of the
NASA budget.

2. clinton pretty much comes out and says there will be no effort put
inot Moon/Mars.

>There are several indications in the proposal that some of the military
>space funding would be shifted to the civilian space program, which ought
>to be beneficial to the civilian program.

Except that the funding won't be transfered.

Add to all this the fact that by law Al Gore will be the head of the
Space Council and will be the point person on space policy. Except
for Mission to Planet Earth Gore has shown almost NO interest in space.
I don't expect him to support the human expansion into space in any
way.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------272 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 25 Jul 92 17:26:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FYI No. 97: NASA Issues Space Station Strategic Plan...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russel Shermer) writes:
>>NASA Issues Space Station Strategic Plan; Station Opponents
>>Announce Plans
>>
>>FYI No. 97, July 24, 1992
>>
>>In a new 48-page report, NASA has presented its vision of Space
>>Station Freedom's projected accomplishments, mission, goals, and
>>objectives.  [...]
>
>Is anyone planning on scanning this report into GIF files and making it
>available via anonyomous ftp?

If somebody mails me a paper copy, I'll scan it.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "We at NASA develop cutting-edge technology for our aeronautics and
      space programs.  We view technology transfer as a way of life.
      It's one of our top priorities." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:20:19 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Antenna. What's left to try?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven Robiner) writes:
>Has anyone considered the possibility of spinning the probe
>very fast along the axis of the antenna?  Perhaps the centriptal force
>might pull the antenna into place.

You'd probably tear Galileo's long booms off well before you exerted
any useful force on the antenna.  The stuck antenna ribs are inches from
the axis; the booms go out many feet.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:32:13 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relativity in science fiction
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>"With the neutralization of inertia it was discovered that there is no limit
>whatever to the velocity of inertialess matter..."
>
>That's from Galactic Patrol, which was copyrighted in 1937 and 1950 (this
>comment may have been added at the later date). (I believe this was the
>first book written, though it's the third of the series.)

Galactic Patrol, Gray Lensman, Second Stage Lensman, and Children of the
Lens are the Lensman book, singular -- conceived as a single plot line
and written in four pieces for practical reasons.  The later add-ons
are inferior; even CotL, written somewhat later than the other three,
shows signs of loss of enthusiasm.

Hmm, drat.  I think I've got the issues of Astounding that serialized
Galactic Patrol, but all my SF magazines are still packed away in the
wake of my move last fall.

>I've wondered about the chronology of the "negaspheres" (first appearing
>in the series in 1951, and apparently equivalent to antimatter black
>holes) ...

They showed up in Gray Lensman, which was serialized starting in 1939
I believe.  They weren't black holes -- just antimatter, which Smith
imbued with some with very odd properties.  (For one thing, they had
negative mass.)

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

Date: 24 Jul 92 22:21:43 GMT
From: "robert.f.casey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What happens to unused RTG power on space probes?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

From time to time, I see reports on various space probes.  One of the topics
reported is power generation (from RTG's) and power consumption by the
probe's equipment.  As I (mis)understand it :-), an RTG generates an exact
amount of power (declines over the years though).  If the RTG generates
700 watts, and the probe uses 600watts, what happens to the extra 100watts?
Does the RTG get hotter then if all 700 watts were used?  An RTG is based
on the radioactive decay of plutonium, which decays at some fixed rate
and generates power at some fixed rate.  So, what happens if I don't use
all the power?

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 039
------------------------------