Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no142.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 18KB

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 05:07:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #142
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 25 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
                   Private space ventures (2 msgs)
                      Size,Mass,and velocity....
             SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
  Whither a Lunar Base (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
         With telepresence, who needs people in Earth 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: 25 Aug 92 03:53:59 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

(attribution lost in the shuffle)
> [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.]

Don't worry about it, I'm sure something like it will happen, sooner
than you think.

For practical uses of space technology, private investors have for
years been able to buy stock in aerospace companies such as Boeing and
Lockheed.  Howard Hughes had many millions worth of shares in, ahem,
Hughes Aircraft.

Since it's been brought up, if space technology is so useless for the
Third World, then how come Mexico, India, and Indonesia are acquiring
their own communications satellites?  Meteorological satellites can see
typhoons heading toward Bangladesh as well as they can hurricanes for
Florida, and the list goes on.  When space technology and services look
like good investments to these countries, for the amount of capital
they can afford, they do invest, just like everyone else.

(Also, it bothers me to hear arguments about how "the Third World
doesn't bother me at all, they're overpopulated anyway." This strikes
most people as very callous.  You wouldnUt think this if you were in
this situation: for an interesting perspective on the dubious notion of
"surplus population", re-read "A Christmas Carol," by Charles Dickens.
Space should be helpful, not hurtful, and it certainly can be helpful,
like many other technologies.)

For the more abstruse uses of space technology, promising no immediate
payback, a modest level of effort still gets funded, sometimes, because
people value it.  People enjoy learning about the Universe; if people
think a project is interesting enough to warrant the funding requested,
the project gets funded.  Sometimes there turn out to be paybacks, but
I think it's dishonest to claim there certainly shall be immediate
practical applications when they are still only speculative, and may
appear really only in the long term (some of which turn out to be very
important, but you can't know in advance which ones).  The main
objective of such projects is the science, to learn about nature.

Of course this decision process can be involved.  Physicists are having
trouble funding the Superconducting Super Collider, at a cost of over
$8 billion, in today's weak economy.  It certainly does not help this
project that most people find the science involved difficult to
understand: how familiar are you with experimental tests of Standard
Model 1-2-3 electroweak theory?

The W.M. Keck foundation has donated over $70 million to build the 10-m
Keck telescope in Hawaii.  This is now the largest telescope in the
world: its size will make it able to see unprecedentedly faint objects,
the value of this to astronomical research being easy to understand.
All the mirror segments are in, testing is underway, and so far it
looks to be a first-class telescope.  Astronomy has benefited from
private funding since the time of Lord Rosse, continuing through the
telescopes on Mount Wilson and Palomar, not to mention my favorite, the
1.3-m McGraw-Hill telescope on Kitt Peak.

So, I think it's just a matter of time before some private individual
or venture funds a similar project in space.  A good candidate will be
a replacement for the International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite,
which has revolutionized nearly every field of astronomy (see Exploring
the Universe with the IUE satellite, ed. by Y. Kondo).  IUE is still at
it, after 14 years, and even despite its much-larger successor, the
Hubble Space Telescope (which is a nightmare to try to get telescope
time on).  Now, IUE originally cost about $25 million, about 1% of HST.
 With inflation and an advanced detector, a successor might cost about
$100 million: not too unlike the Keck telescope.

I am quite sure my friends in planetary science and space physics will
have no trouble thinking up interesting projects in their own fields
for themselves: we're looking at a price range of a-few-to-100 million
dollars.  Face it, $1 billion is a mighty big piece of pocket change,
even for Ross Perot or Bill Gates!

Fred

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

Date: 25 Aug 92 04:03:23 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

(attribution lost in the shuffle)
> [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.]

Don't worry about it, I'm sure something like it will happen, sooner
than you think.

For practical uses of space technology, private investors have for
years been able to buy stock in aerospace companies such as Boeing and
Lockheed.  Howard Hughes had many millions worth of shares in, ahem,
Hughes Aircraft.

Since it's been brought up, if space technology is so useless for the
Third World, then how come Mexico, India, and Indonesia are acquiring
their own communications satellites?  Meteorological satellites can see
typhoons heading toward Bangladesh as well as they can hurricanes for
Florida, and the list goes on.  When space technology and services look
like good investments to these countries, for the amount of capital
they can afford, they do invest, just like everyone else.

(Also, it bothers me to hear arguments about how "the Third World
doesn't bother me at all, they're overpopulated anyway." This strikes
most people as very callous.  You wouldnUt think this if you were in
this situation: for an interesting perspective on the dubious notion of
"surplus population", re-read "A Christmas Carol," by Charles Dickens.
Space should be helpful, not hurtful, and it certainly can be helpful,
like many other technologies.)

For the more abstruse uses of space technology, promising no immediate
payback, a modest level of effort still gets funded, sometimes, because
people value it.  People enjoy learning about the Universe; if people
think a project is interesting enough to warrant the funding requested,
the project gets funded.  Sometimes there turn out to be paybacks, but
I think it's dishonest to claim there certainly shall be immediate
practical applications when they are still only speculative, and may
appear really only in the long term (some of which turn out to be very
important, but you can't know in advance which ones).  The main
objective of such projects is the science, to learn about nature.

Of course this decision process can be involved.  Physicists are having
trouble funding the Superconducting Super Collider, at a cost of over
$8 billion, in today's weak economy.  It certainly does not help this
project that most people find the science involved difficult to
understand: how familiar are you with experimental tests of Standard
Model 1-2-3 electroweak theory? (Beam jockeys excepted.;-))

The W.M. Keck foundation has donated over $70 million to build the 10-m
Keck telescope in Hawaii.  This is now the largest telescope in the
world: its size will make it able to see unprecedentedly faint objects,
the value of this to astronomical research being easy to understand.
All the mirror segments are in, testing is underway, and so far it
looks to be a first-class telescope.  Astronomy has benefited from
private funding since the time of Lord Rosse, continuing through the
telescopes on Mount Wilson and Palomar, not to mention my favorite, the
1.3-m McGraw-Hill telescope on Kitt Peak.

So, I think it's just a matter of time before some private individual
or venture funds a similar project in space.  A good candidate will be
a replacement for the International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite,
which has revolutionized nearly every field of astronomy (see Exploring
the Universe with the IUE satellite, ed. by Y. Kondo).  IUE is still at
it, after 14 years, and even despite its much-larger successor, the
Hubble Space Telescope (which is a nightmare to try to get telescope
time on).  Now, IUE originally cost about $25 million, about 1% of HST.
 With inflation and an advanced detector, a successor might cost about
$100 million: not too unlike the Keck telescope.

I am quite sure my friends in planetary science and space physics will
have no trouble thinking up interesting projects in their own fields:
we're looking at a price range of a-few-to-100 million dollars.
Face it, $1 billion is a mighty big piece of pocket change,
even for Ross Perot or Bill Gates!

Fred

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

Date: 25 Aug 92 04:08:38 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Size,Mass,and velocity....
Newsgroups: sci.space

Oh, come on, don't be a spoilsport. E-mail the data, or ignore the
request; isn't the net supposed to be a research tool?

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

Date: 24 Aug 92 15:20:01 GMT
From: Mark Prado <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
Newsgroups: sci.space

 > Heat load isn't a significant
 > factor in any event, even with my wrong numbers it's still piddling.

Efficient microwaves would produce less heat than coal or any other
thermal mechanism, since it is more efficient.

 > >Adding another 4 TW of heat is literally a drop in the
 > bucket.>Spread it out and you'll have a very hard time
 > detecting it.
 >
 > Yep.

But the killer of SPS is:

1. longterm, expensive, massive program
2. the biological stuff or the public perception of unknown risks

There are greater, more general motivators for space development.

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

Date: 24 Aug 92 15:37:00 GMT
From: Mark Prado <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whither a Lunar Base (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Newsgroups: sci.space

 > From: [e-mail]
 > Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office

Coming from JSC, it sounds as if you could go down the halls to
the offices of Dr. Wendell Mendell and company at JSC for a few
hints.

 > We'll have a lunar base about six years after it becomes either
 > politically profitable for a Government to fund one

People have been trying to do that for years.  They have failed.
Any new faces in the crowd care to try ... and risk being squashed
by the ones of established status?

 > or about two years
 > after it becomes economically profitable for a corporation
 > to fund one.

Whose blueprint and numbers are these?  LB1's?  SSI's?

 > The only thing standing between us and a lunar base is money.

Money makes the whole world go 'round, but it really takes skill
to get that money.  Plus it takes quality leadership in
management.

 > Most of the engineering issues are readily soluble with a
 > sufficient amount of money.

Right. Nothing revolutionary is needed.  But there are many little
things that must be resolved, as in any engineering project.

 > Since the preponderance of motivations and problems in lunar base
 > construction are political and financial, not scientific or engineering
 > issues, let's take this discussion to talk.politics.space.

That's a good place to start, and one good place for leads.

Another is my BBS at 202-296-7778  2400 baud
                     202-296-6305  9600+ baud
(Skip the other official and unofficial stuff on the BBS.)

==========================================================

The meek shall inherit the Earth.
[The rest are going to space.]

P.S. I think we'll go for near-Earth asteroids instead of the
moon, if private money is on the line.

If the government does it, then they had better not manage it.
As Dr. Andrew Cutler suggested, the President could offer
a $10 billion reward to the company which brings the first ton
of asteroidal material to low Earth orbit.  And the company
keeps the material and all patents and rights.

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

Date: 25 Aug 92 03:55:58 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
[...stuff re manned vs unmanned exploration modes...]
>Cecil may want to hear a discussion of this, but I think I've heard it
>often enough before.
Hey, at least we're not talking about Soyuz any more!

This has been fairly interesting, but I was hoping for some consensus on what
needs to be done to improve capabilities to the point where ``telepresence''
in LEO is viable.  G. Herbert's point re the *5 sec* time delay through SSF's
comlink is something I hadn't quantified (thank you). Maybe teleoperators need
mind-altering substances to slow time perception to the point where they are
willing to take 10x longer to do something (complementary personalities to air
traffic controllers?)  After all, accelerations can be as small as you have
patience for.  Maybe we *all* need these, as we sit through the ponderous
assembly of SSF -- strut by strut, Shuttle by Shuttle -- while NASA projects
a sense of mission during the 90's.  The process is likely to be more heroic
than necessary.
--
Gerald Cecil  [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
   If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. -- Chairman of US Space
    Council.    ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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


    id AA02377; Mon, 24 Aug 92 23:27:22 EDT
Received: from crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa20375; 24 Aug 92 23:18:59 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!network.ucsd.edu!sdcrsi!silogic!markd
From: "Mark C. DiVecchio (K3FWT" <silogic!markd>
Mmdf-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What happened to Viking?
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Aug 92 02:15:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: silogic.1992Aug25.021550.28118
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silogic Systems, San Diego, CA
Lines: 56
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Burris) writes:
>What happened the Viking spacecraft?
>
This was posted as an answer to this question in 1990

    >> Viking 1,2    1975    Still sending any signals?
    >>            If not, when did they stop?

    VIKING 1 was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida on August 20,
1975 on a TITAN 3E-CENTAUR D1 rocket.  The probe went into Martian
orbit on June 19, 1976, and the lander set down on the western slopes
of Chryse Planitia on July 20, 1976.  It soon began its programmed
search for Martian micro-organisms (there is still debate as to whether
the probes found life there or not), and sent back incredible color
panoramas of its surroundings.  One thing scientists learned was that
Mars' sky was pinkish in color, not dark blue as they originally
thought (the sky is pink due to sunlight reflecting off the reddish
dust particles in the thin atmosphere).

    The VIKING 1 orbiter kept functioning until August 7, 1980, when
it ran out of attitude-control propellant.  The lander was switched
into a weather-reporting mode, where it had been hoped it would keep
functioning through 1994; but after November 13, 1982, an errant
command had been sent to the lander accidentally telling it to shut
down until further orders.  Communication was never regained again,
despite the engineers' efforts through May of 1983.

    An interesting side note:  VIKING 1's lander has been designated
the Thomas A. Mutch Memorial Station in honor of the late leader of the
lander imaging team.  The National Air and Space Museum in Washington,
D.C. is entrusted with the safekeeping of the Mutch Station Plaque
until it can be attached to the lander by a manned expedition.

    VIKING 2 was launched on September 9, 1975, and arrived in Martian
orbit on August 7, 1976.  The lander touched down on September 3, 1976
in Utopia Planitia.  It accomplished essentially the same tasks as its
sister lander, with the exception that its seisometer worked, recording
one marsquake.  The orbiter had a series of attitude-control gas leaks
in 1978, which prompted it being shut down that July.  The lander was
shut down on April 12, 1980.

    The orbits of both VIKING orbiters should decay around 2025.

    The next United States Mars mission will be the Mars Observer,
scheduled for launch in 1992.  Although there are no definite U.S.
Mars probe plans after that, some possibilities are a lander which
will return samples of Martian soil to Earth (this may be a
cooperative project with the Soviets), and a rover/walker vehicle,
in preparation for manned missions, which may also be international
in scope.

--
Mark DiVecchio, Silogic Systems, 619-549-9841                       K3FWT
-----   9888 Carroll Center Road, Suite 113, San Diego, CA 92126    -----
[e-mail]                             BBS 619-549-3927
...!ucsd!sdcrsi!silogic!markd     sdcrsi!silogic![e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 142
------------------------------