Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no134.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30.0 KB

Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 05:00:05
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #134
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 22 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:
                             ACRV/Soyuz P
                           Asteroid report
                           Balloon Launches
                           Electric Tethers
                      Galileo Update - 08/21/92
            Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ? (2 msgs)
                  Meteorite/Fireball object spotted?
                   Private space ventures (4 msgs)
             Satellites in polar orbits - which/how many
                            Soyuz as ACRV
                       Space probe information
                To anyone who is interested in science
                  What about Saturn?/Future not Past
     With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? (3 msgs)
            With telepresence, who needs people in orbit?

    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: 21 Aug 92 12:52:22 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>The private
>measures Allan and others, including myself are suggesting will be
>coming on line in the early years post-2000.

Except for the posibility of Delta Clipper, I'm not as optimistic.
We currently have a space program which doesn't consider reducing
cost to orbit to be a worthy goal. Maybe Goldin will change that.

>The shuttle will
>continue working until it is driven from the skies by economics.

But it isn't economics which keeps it there, it's government dictate.
Unless we make space a market and subject it to market forces, costs
will never come down.

>Guinness is good for you

Ah yes, 'Guinness, the beer you eat with a fork'.

I envy you living over there where you can get it on tap; the way God
intended man to drink Guinness.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------245 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 21 Aug 1992 13:41:13 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asteroid report
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Recently, an associate mentioned there was a report of a rather large
>asteroid (or some object) approaching or within our solar system, and
>with a trajectory currently in our direction.  And that radio signals
>have been transmitted from said object.

I believe the object you're referring to is the Galileo spacecraft,
due for a last close flyby of Earth this Dec.  Its last port of
call some months ago was the asteroid Gaspra.  Please watch sci.space.news
for updates.

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:10:52 GMT
From: "Paul A. Voytas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Balloon Launches
Newsgroups: sci.space

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Tom) says:

>I don't know if this is a wacko idea or what:
>
>Has there ever been any proposal or even thought of using lighter-than-air
>platforms for launching small payloads?  It seems to me that with a
>dirigible designed to fly relativly fast, you could get pretty good cost
>savings with it, as you could get both velocity and altitude advantages.
>
>-Tommy Mac

Wacko or not, something like it was tried. The Air Force had a project
(called FARSIDE) in the early sixties (I think) that used balloon
launched rockets called ROCKOONS. The idea was to lift the rockets
up 20 miles or so and then launch them through the balloon. At least
two rockets were launched this way.

Descriptions of schemes to have a floating spaceport in the stratosphere
are also seen from time to time. These would be huge floating structures
with runways for single stage to orbit type of vehicles. Of course,
you have to get everything up there in the first place....

PAV

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 17:54:54 GMT
From: Dani Eder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Electric Tethers
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Mike Evert) writes:

>As I understand it, if a current is put into the tether, then that
>would cause the tether and spacecraft to gain kenetic energy and rise
>to a higher orbit.  The opposite will happen if current is drawn from
>the tether.  Would the acceleration always be in one direction and its
>reverse only?  I don't know if this would be in the direction of orbit
>or perpindicular to magnetic field.  Is it possible to use the tether
>for lateral motion?

The formula for the force developed in the tether is the same as
the force on any other current carrying wire in a magnetic field:

  F = IL x B

Where all the components above are vectors, and the x stands for
cross product.  This means the force is proportional to the current
I, the length of the wire L and the magnetic field strength B
(in Newtons, Amperes, meters, and Teslas respectively).  The
direction of the force is perpendicular to the current direction
and the magnetic field.

The magnetic field is approximately a dipole tilted about 10 degrees
from due north-south, and you can mount the current carrying wire
in other orientations than straight up-and-down, so you have some
measure of control in thrust direction, but it is not a simple
thing to picture.

Note that the power consumed in an electric tether is mostly
I^2R resistance losses, plus the power to run the plasma contact
devices at the ends.  For a given number of watts of input power
for thrust generating, you can play with the wire diameter and
length to look for the least amount of weight and most thrust.
You can control current I, and length L.  Field B is a given.

It turns out generally that you want a wire in the km length
range, but not hundreds of km.  So if this is a propulsion system
attached to a really long tether, it may only cover a short segment
of the total length.

Another real world restriction to this propulsion system is that
it uses the ionosphere to close the current loop.  As you go
up in altitude, you have less ions to work with, so eventually
you can't keep the current flowing.  Also, the field strenth of
the Earth's magnetic field falls off like radius cubed, so that
also falls off with altitude.  Thus, this propulsion system is
limited to low and medium earth orbits.

Dani

--
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/[phone](w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***

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

Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:31:07 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 08/21/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                   GALILEO
                       MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                                 POST-LAUNCH
                            August 14 - 20, 1992

SPACECRAFT

1.  On August 17, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value for this mission phase.

2.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some change. The AC
measurement decreased 1 DN and reads 3.1 volts.  The DC measurement has
ranged from 118 DN (13.8 volts) to 132 DN (15.5 volts) and now reads 123 DN
(14.4 volts). These measurement variations are consistent with the model
developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team

3.  The Spacecraft status as of August 20, 1992, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  69 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.16 rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 8 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 43 degrees off-earth (lagging)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna-40 bps (coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- UVS, EUV, DDS, MAG, EPD, and HIC are
           powered on
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 184 hours


UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:

1.  The EE-9 (Earth-Earth #9) Sequence Final Profile Design was approved by
the Project on August 17, 1992.  This sequence covers spacecraft activities
from November 23, 1992 to December 5, 1992.

2.  The dual Drive Actuator (DDA) pulse mini-sequence No. 3 memory load was
approved for generation by the Project on August 20, 1992.  This mini-sequence
covers spacecraft activities from September 8, 1992 to September 11, 1992.
This mini-sequence will include two 2-second DDA motor turn on pulses, one
shortly after turning to a 45-degree off-sun attitude and the other just
before returning to a near sun-pointed attitude.

GDS (Ground Data Systems):

1.  The September 1992 D1.0 software delivery activities are continuing.
A total of 28 program sets implementing 75 Software Change Requests (SCRs)
and correcting 181 Failure Reports (FRs) are planned for the D1.0 delivery.
The D1.0 deliveries will continue thru October 1992 and will provide updates
to uplink capabilities needed for Jupiter sequence planning and developments
activities as well as updates to downlink capabilities needed for Earth 2
support.

TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, August 20, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         88,904,600 miles (.96 AU)
    Distance from Sun           153,145,300 miles (1.65 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed           51,000 miles per hour
    Distance from Jupiter        656,795,900 miles
    Round Trip Light Time        16 minutes, 4 seconds

SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of August 20, 1992, a total of 8110 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 3232  were pre-planned in
the sequence design and 4878 were not. In the past week, 1 real time command
was transmitted and pre-planned in the sequence design.  In addition, 5427
mini-sequence commands have been transmitted since March 1991; 3269 were
pre-planned and 2158 were not. In the past week, no mini-sequence commands
were transmitted.  Major command activities this week included commands to
reset the command loss timer.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:53:25 GMT
From: GILES JR G E <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The LEO environment contains lots of trash.  Thin skins might not
survive in this environment.
Gary Giles

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

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:20:59 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (GILES JR G E) writes:
>The LEO environment contains lots of trash.  Thin skins might not
>survive in this environment.

by itself the kevlar skin of an inflatable station isn't strong
enough. However, a shield can be included without much loss of
volume. In addition, leaks are easially repaired if they happen.

The LLNL design has two envelopes for added protection. The outer one
in pressurized at 3.5 PSI and the inner envelope (where the crew
resides) is at 7 psi.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------245 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:08:32 GMT
From: Harm Munk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteorite/Fireball object spotted?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:


>Hello,

>I just recently heard over NPR (National Public Radio) that a possible
>"meteorite" was spotted over Europe somewhere.  I missed the information on
>exactly where it was spotted.  However, the object was accompanied by large
>tremors covering a 12 mile stretch and a flood of calls to authorities who
>have already confirmed that the "fireball" object was NOT
>military test aircraft, abnormal weather patterns, an earthquake OR
>anything else identifiable, at this point.

>If anyone has specifics to this event please post or email.  Thank you.

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Diamond - [e-mail]
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday evening, at around 22:30 local time (20:30 UT) in the northern
part of the Netherlands, a loud, explosion-like noise was heard. At the time,
the air space over this area was closed (it is controlled by a military air
base), and no other military or civilian air activity was going on. Also, no
reports of accidents were reported. The European Space Organisation reported
no space junk entering the atmosphere at that time in that area.

The Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute has six
seismic measuring stations in and near that part of Holland to measure seismic
activity in the gas fields in the northern parts of Holland. All six stations
registered the explosion, and the seismograms indicate that it was a sound
wave and not a seismic wave. From the order of reception of the sound waves
it was concluded that something caused a shock wave above or near the town
Joure in Friesland (a province in the Netherlands). Eye witnesses said that
they saw a 'pillar of fire in the sky'. Alas, at the time that part of the
Netherlands was heavily overcast, so whatever these people saw was filtered
by the clouds.
At this moment, the best guess is that a meteorite of approximately 30 cm
diameter entered the atmosphere and exploded at a height of 10 kilometers
above the town of Joure. Up to this moment, no fragments have been found.

+----------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Harm Munk                              | Building WAY 11                    |
| Philips Research Laboratories          | P.O. Box 80 000                    |
| Knowledge Based Systems                | 5600 JA  Eindhoven                 |
|                                        | The Netherlands                    |
| #include <standard.disclaimer>         | tel. [phone]               |
|                                        | email: [e-mail]         |
+----------------------------------------+------------------------------------+

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 02:26:20 GMT
From: Simon Demler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

> [It bugs me that there are people like H Ross Perot, who
> themselves have enough cash to finance their own space
> programs, but that none, so  far, has underwritten one.]

Does it also bother you that these people could be spending some money
on the drought problems in Africa rather than on some space program...You
must be one of those space for the sake of space of types...

Come on get real...there are MUCH larger problems that need solving
on this planet before trying to get peoples private wealth for space
purposes..

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 15:29:18 GMT
From: Stephen J Kenny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
>Come on get real...there are MUCH larger problems that need solving
>on this planet before trying to get peoples private wealth for space
>purposes..
>
WHAT?? Did I miss something here?
I see nothing at all wrong with cultivating and/or harvesting
private peoples' wealth for space development, exploration
etc. Considering the APPALLING state of the funding game
in D.C., it's amazing NASA gets anything done at all.
My god, we could even make NASA a tax shelter...just think
of the revenue generated from corporations alone.

Furthermore, you are correct in sayng there will always be
problems "on this planet". But when in the entire course od
history have we, as a race, EVER  tidied up our yards before
trashing our neighbors. Human history is replete with such
examples.

Space for space sake is fine by the way. Curiosity and
the subsequent search for knowledge are more than justification
for investigating....
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Away..we go...so fast...."  | [e-mail]
            - Autosexual | [e-mail]
           Be Bop Deluxe | Stephen J. Kenny
-------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 14:24:35 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> Simon Demler writes:
>Does it also bother you that these people could be spending some money
>on the drought problems in Africa rather than on some space program
 Nope, it doesn't bother me at all. The planet is overpopulated as it
is. Besides, how do you fix a drought ???
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  voice/fax: [phone]

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 17:06:04 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon Demler) writes:
>> [It bugs me that there are people like H Ross Perot, who
>> themselves have enough cash to finance their own space
>> programs, but that none, so  far, has underwritten one.]
>
> Does it also bother you that these people could be spending some money
> on the drought problems in Africa rather than on some space program...You
> must be one of those space for the sake of space of types...
>
> Come on get real...there are MUCH larger problems that need solving
> on this planet before trying to get peoples private wealth for space
> purposes..


This troubles me.  Trying to convince someone to spend his or her dollars
on a particular project is the american way (car salesmen, investment brokers,
even probably you when you try to sell a particular approach to anything to
your boss), but condeming someone for either choosing or not choosing to
spend or not spend thier money on a particular project is not right.

Why pick on Perot.  Why not Bill Gates.  Well, the fact is that Gates (for
example) doesn't spend his money on non computer related investments. Period.
He is not obligated to choose to solve the drought problems in africa.
Neither am I for that matter.

If I can convince Mr. Perot that it is in his best interest to solve the drought
problem in africa, then he will do so, If I can convince him that it is in
his best interest to start a space program, then he will do so.  Actually
I have heard that he leans towards throwing his wealth at a mag-lev system
for the U.S., but the political climate isn't supportive enough (yet).

In fact, there are others that might even be better candidates, like the
prince of that little island who has 29B and is the worlds richest man.
Why don't we pick on him?

Also don't forget that most of these guys have large portions of their
wealth tied up in other investments.  If you need 2B to do something, unless
you can turn someone worth 2.1B into an absolute fanatic on your topic
don't expect to see them invest 99% of thier fortune in your scheme.  If you
need 2B you better find someone with 15B or better, or more like 10 people
with 2B each.

        john.

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 08:42:12 GMT
From: Mark Sproul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellites in polar orbits - which/how many
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gregory M Ellis) writes:
> On a recent camping trip in the North Cascades we observed what appeared to
> be several satellites (approx. 8 in an hour) moving in a south-to-north
> polar orbit and all on roughly he same track.  They appeared to be way too
> high for aircraft.  What were they?
>

There are a number ameature radio satellites, weather satellites and
military satellites in polor orbits.  I am active in the amateur radio
stuff and there are between 5 and 8 of them at the present time.
I am not sure exactly.

-------------------------------------
Mark Sproul - KB2ICI

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 13:49:08 GMT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, jch+@cs (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
>[e-mail] writes
>> Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a
>> possible water landing.  We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia
>> to land in like the Russians.
>
>Uhhh, this may be stupid, but why not just land on the steppes of
>Asia, or any other flat land surface that happens to be within reach
>when an emergency hits?  It's not like the capsule would be reused,
>nor need we worry about the Russians getting their hands on new
>technology :-)  Heck, they'd probably appreciate the return of their
>raw materials.

As has been pointed out already, Soyuz IS capable of water landings.  The
cosmonauts practice this all the time, two or three Zond reentry capsules
(which are basically Soyuz descent modules) made water landings, and at least
one crewed Soyuz capsule has landed in a lake.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 14:07:20 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space probe information
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

There are a number of programs that can do the calculations
you're looking for. I don't know about getting them here, but
you can find a number of SHAREWARE programs for caluculating
orbits, trajectories, gravitaitonal effects, and satellite
positions on CompuServe in the Astronomy Forum or in the
Spaceforum. Call 800-555-1212 for CompuServe's tollfree number
f you aren't already a user.
--

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

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:43:33 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: To anyone who is interested in science
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail]  writes:
>
> We apply   to everybody  who  is   interested in future  Russian
> science; who would like to assist it to integrate  in  the World
> science society.
> We  need  information  about Foundations and other organizations
> those   are   interested   in    attraction    russian   science
> organizations into a science research but also about  conditions
> of participation russian  scientists  in  this projects. Besides
> we would like to know about questions of finance.
> We  hope on   establishment of  interaction  and  development of
> international cooperation.
>
>         Best regards.
>                     M. Naumenko
>
>
     Have you sent any requests to the main N.A.S.A. research
centers that are doing aeronautics research? If you haven't
contacted them yet, you should send letters to the
     PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE at each of the following NASA
Centers:
    NASA Langley Research Center
    Hampton, VA

    NASA Lewis Research Center
    Cleveland, OH

    NASA Ames Research Center
    Mountain View, CA
--

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 14:50:06 GMT
From: Robert Rubinoff <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Saturn?/Future not Past
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>> This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than magnetic
>> confinment fusion devices would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
>> actually built for the first time in the 50's.
>Surely you're joking, Mr. Higgins. Magnetic confinement fusion devices
>don't work so great, in the early '90s!

He didn't say they *worked* in the 50's, just that they were *built* in the
50's; I think this is in fact correct.

Actually, they *work* just fine, in the sense of creating magnetic fields that
can (briefly) contain fusion reactions.  They just don't work well enough to
be produce more power than they use.

   Robert

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 12:37:36 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>Have you talked to someone who builds or works with space robotics?
No, I was hoping that there might be someone out there who would counteract
hype from virtual-reality types.

>When anyone suggests replacing humans in the short term, they laugh.
>Space robotics aren't as strong, for the most part, have less degrees
>of freedom _and_ less limbs, less end effector dexterity, and more
>likely failure points than a man in space.  They're safer, but often
>can't do the job.  (note that an astronaut in EVA can't do everything
>either.  both together are much more capable.)
OK, fine.  But the only current `job' for SSF is apparently biological
research on the long-term effects on microgravity, which means loading
rats into a centrifuge.  I submit that that can be done with a conveyor
belt.  Sure, you need people to (dextrously) put the station together
(or at least to install the rats in their cages), but after that its all
BF Skinner (push the bar, get the food pellet, wait for the scalpel).

>Or are you just trying to start a flamewar?
Well, I'm certainly getting sick of some of the topics that have been
battered to death here.  We seem to be going round and round on how to
supply SSF or get the crew away when things fall apart.  I'd still like
to see a discussion of *why*, in the present scheme of things, people are
necessary for Earth orbit operations.  Seems to me you could (in the spirit
of many discussions in this group) free up a lot of $ (possibly some small
fraction of which could be used to improve the dexterity of robots.)  This
is, after all, sci.space, not sci.humansinspace.waiting4Soyuz
--
Gerald Cecil  [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 12:55:01 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

If and when we ever get it, come back and ask us again. For myself,
I will juge it to be here when you allow a surgeon to do a heart bypass
on you by teleoperation with a 1/10 second delay. If you live, we can
talk about it.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------245 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 15:19:12 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerald Cecil) writes:
>OK, fine.  But the only current `job' for SSF is apparently biological
>research on the long-term effects on microgravity, which means loading
>rats into a centrifuge.  I submit that that can be done with a conveyor
>belt.

You might want to bounce this idea off a lab biologist: Experimental
animals require _alot_ more than picking them up, putting them in
the experiment and then putting them back in a cage. For example, they
will sometimes actively resist being taken out of their cage (or put
back in it), get away from who (or what)ever is carrying them back and forth,
escape from their cages (requiring a very different sort of work to
find again, etc...

                             Frank Crary
                             CU Boulder
                             (even though
                             I'm currently
                             using a Berkeley
                             account...)

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

Date: 21 Aug 92 15:26:13 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>If and when we ever get it, come back and ask us again. For myself,
>I will juge it to be here when you allow a surgeon to do a heart bypass
>on you by teleoperation with a 1/10 second delay. If you live, we can
>talk about it
If we restricted ourselves to things that exist, this newsgroup would be
pretty thin.  What *will* the crew of SSF be doing, other than keeping
themselves alive (& putting rats into centrifuges)?  Are there NASA
plans for teleoperation of SSF before permanent occupation?
---
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line on the Net costs $10 **

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 134
------------------------------