Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no148.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 05:00:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #148
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 29 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
              Another Shuttle Tank Reuse Idea, From NASA
          Interplanetary launch capability of the Delta II?
                   Is Galileo's antenna still brok?
          Launch Loops - quick summary (was Re: BuckyStalks)
                       Looking for gyro compass
                Mars Observer Launch to be Rescheduled
                     Martian Chronology (2 msgs)
          Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work? (3 msgs)
                      Size,Mass,and velocity....
                            Solar Sailers
                        Soviet rovers on Mars
                            Space Calendar
                      Ulysses Update - 08/28/92
                           Von Karman Stamp
     With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? (2 msgs)

    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: 28 Aug 92 20:11:08 GMT
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Shuttle Tank Reuse Idea, From NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space

This month's NASA Tech Briefs has an article on an idea to create a
12-person lunar habitat from a used Shuttle external tank.  Once the
tank is placed in orbit (instead of being thrown away, as usual), the
hydrogen tank inside would be removed, leaving the oxygen tank and
intertank structures, to which would be added living quarters,
instrumentation, an airlock, and small thrusters and fuel tanks.  It
would then be towed to the moon by some unspecified vehicle, and would
land on its own.  Once it was down, a crew would come down and finish
construction, including adding a layer of regolith getween the tank
and the micrometeor shield for protection.

Those interested in seeing the idle doodlings of some engineers with
too much free time on their hands :-) can apparently order copies of
NASA TM-4212 [N91-14251], "Single Launch Lunar Habitat Derived From
NSTS External Tank", from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, [phone]; prepayment of some
unspecified fee is required...

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 17:32:56 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interplanetary launch capability of the Delta II?
Newsgroups: sci.space

What would be a good formula be to compute payload to Earth escape+Vinf
using a Delta II launch vehicle?  I believe the vehicle can put 11 Klb
in a 100 nm reference orbit.  (The Delta I can put up 5.5 Klb)

What would a typical solid fuel upper stage weigh?  Given the delta-V
a solid upper stage could give me, how could I then compute the payload
capacity left after burnout?  My objective is to design a Venus orbiter,
launching with no bigger than a Delta II.  Has anything interplanetary ever
been launched with a Delta II before?

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 19:10:53 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Mike Evert)
Subject: Is Galileo's antenna still brok?

How's that antenna doing?  The last few Galileo updates that I've seen
posted here had nothing to say on the subject.  Did they fix it or
give up on it?  Is there hope?

--
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
|  Mike Evert                      | "You are helplessly hypnotized.  You  |
|  Internet: [e-mail] |  will believe everything I tell you.  |
|    Delphi: [e-mail]   |  This quoted message does not exist." |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 19:31:05 GMT
From: "Robert G. Munck" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launch Loops - quick summary (was Re: BuckyStalks)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> ... imagine balancing a pie plate
> on top of the arc of water, so that it is supported by deflecting the water
> downwards slightly.  The plate is suspended there, higher than you might
> have thought possible, by the force from the continuing deflection of the
> stream of water.

My understanding is that most or all of the support comes from the fact
that the (eastbound part of the) loop is moving faster than orbital
velocity.  Therefore it wants to move higher, but is held down by the
weight of the stations and payloads.  The westbound part doesn't have this
problem because it is moving .9 km/s slower than the eastbound due to the
Earth's rotation.  Or maybe it has the problem, but less, and is held down
by anchors into the earth.



>   - the ribbon undergoes no stress whatsoever; it is just a passive holder
>     of kinetic energy.

I don't think that's true.  You're mixing up the Space Fountain with the
Loftstrom Loop.  The Space Fountain would be a loop going straight up and
down, turning around entirely in the station at either end.  The top
station would just turn it around, absorbing energy, and the bottom
station would turn it around and accelerate it.  I suppose you could have
"guy wires" running at an angle from the top station to ground anchors to
stabilize everything.  Also, the loop would be unconnected objects, so you
could have multiple downward streams balancing each other.


> 6. My preferred version: the hula hoop
> ======================================
>  the loop go all the way around the earth, in low orbit. ...
> 60 stations spaced around the equator, each of them fastened by cables to
> the ground.  The ribbon moves in a shape somewhere between a 60-sided
> polygon and a circle.

Actually, the hoop doesn't have to be as high as what we call low orbit.
Just getting it above most of the atmosphere, say 80 km, would do the job.
Also, I've come to favor EIGHTEEN hoops at a given altitude, connected in
groups of three by triangular braces at intervals and three such groups
going each way.  This eliminates a great deal of instability and provides
redundancy.

Finally, I'd suggest hoops at several altitudes, say every 80 km up to 240
km. That way the spokes don't have to be as strong.

--
Bob Munck

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 13:06:05 GMT
From: Constantin D Orogo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for gyro compass
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello, sci.space netters! Anybody out there have information
on where I can buy a cheap gyro compass? Thanks in advance.
-Constantine Orogo, [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 23:34:13 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Launch to be Rescheduled
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Donald L. Savage
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                August 28, 1992
(Phone:  [phone])

George Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
(Phone:  [phone])

Frank O'Donnell
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])


LAUNCH ADVISORY

MARS OBSERVER LAUNCH TO BE RESCHEDULED

     The launch of Mars Observer aboard a Titan III rocket
from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., originally
scheduled for Sept. 16, is being postponed.

     During an inspection of the payload contained within the
Titan nose fairing atop the rocket,  particulate
contamination was observed on the surface of the Mars
Observer spacecraft.  A precautionary decision has been made
to remove the payload from the Titan and return it to a
spacecraft facility on Kennedy Space Center for cleaning.

     The contamination may have been introduced into the
fairing when a dry nitrogen purge was placed on the
spacecraft as part of securing for Hurricane Andrew.

     The countdown dress rehearshal scheduled for today will
also be postponed at this time.   A new launch date cannot be
determined until it is known how long it will take to clean
the spacecraft.  However, a launch before the end of
September is expected.  The planetary launch window extends
through Oct. 13.

- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 16:35:58 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Martian Chronology
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail]  writes:
> In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Dave Jones) writes:
> +In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Kenneth Freeman) writes:
> +|Has a Martian calender been worked up for the benefit of future
> +|colonists?
> +|UUCP: {ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!kfree INET: [e-mail]
>
> Maybe not the seasons, but the day would be very important. Navigation
> will probably be done with artificial satellites (GPS-like) rather
> than the stars.
>
> I once entertained putting together a Nautical Alamanac for Mars
> for the year 1986 (My best guess for a manned mission) for navigational
> purposes. It would have been simpler to put everything in terms of
> Martian days than to keep everything in Earth days.
> +
> --
> Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

     The project scientists for VIKING planned mission events
according to the Martian Calendar. Actually they had to use a
DUAL calendar system, since they were on Earth, and operating
on Mars. Earth timelines referred to DAYS, and Mars timelines
referred to SOLS, the equivalent of a Martian day, or 24
Earth-hours, 30+ Earth-minutes
    I don't know if they broke each SOL down into 24 hrs
subdivided into 60 minute segments divided into 60 second
segments, but I would surmise that they used decimal based
subdivisions of SOLS.
--

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 17:42:15 GMT
From: "Greg Fruth (JIAFS" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Martian Chronology
Newsgroups: sci.space

One proposal for a Martian time scheme can be found in AAS paper 87-269,
"Metric Time for Mars" by Bruce A. Mackenzie.  This paper may be found in
_The Case for Mars III_.  In it, the author presents a possible
time convention for human settlers on Mars, which I shall summarize:

unit        equivalent Mars units    equivalent Earth time   use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mars day    1 day = 25 hora        24 h 39 m 35.238 s    ~ day
        1 day = 1000 millidays    1.0275 Earth days

Mars hour    25 hora = 1 day        0.9864 hours        ~ hour
or 'hora'    1 hora = 4 centidays    59.184 minutes
        1 hora = 40 millidays

centiday    100 centidays = 1 day    14.796 minutes        ~ quarter of
or 'quarter'    4 centidays = 1 hora                  an hour

milliday    1000 millidays = 1 day    1.4796 minutes        ~ minute
or 'mil'    40 millidays = 1 hora
        10 millidays = 1 centiday

beat        100 beats = 1 milliday    0.88775 seconds        ~ second
(as in
 heartbeat)

I do not necessarily espouse this proposal; I just thought I'd mention it.

--
Greg Fruth                                      [e-mail]
 ___            ___  ____               __      ____        ___  __
/   \|   |  /\  |  \ |        /\  |\  | | \     |    |\  |   |  /  \ \   /
\___ |___| /__\ |__/ |__     /__\ | \ | |  \    |__  | \ |   |  |  |  \_/

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 09:06:40 GMT
From: Phew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
Newsgroups: sci.space

This is probably a FAQ, but I couldn't find it, so here goes...

My basic understanding of rockets (developed back when I couldn't
reach the top of the fridge :-) ), was that they were broken up into
stages so that they would be able to get into orbit with a useful
payload, instad of wasting all the propellant on boosting the tanks
and engines.

All the mentions to Single Stage To Orbit now make me wonder what
is different. My understanding was that a kilogram of fuel didn't
have enough chemical energy to get itself into orbit, let alone
anything else, but lacking the chemistry I can't verify this.

I realize that there are many other possible solutions, such as better
fuels and fuel combustion, nuclear engines, ramjets which convert
to closed rockets etc. What method/s have been adopted for the SSTO
now under development, or on other similar projects?

"Take pity on an innocent engineer" :-)

Patrick Hew
1st Year Science/ Engineering
University of Western Australia


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

Date: 28 Aug 92 16:53:29 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phew) writes:
>All the mentions to Single Stage To Orbit now make me wonder what
>is different. My understanding was that a kilogram of fuel didn't
>have enough chemical energy to get itself into orbit...

It doesn't have to.  Most of the fuel comes nowhere near getting into
orbit; its energy is used up putting more (kinetic) energy into the
last little bit of fuel, so that *it* can reach orbit.

Staging is not magic; it's just a way of reducing the weight of tanks
and engines carried into orbit.  If your engines are good enough and
your tanks are light enough, you don't need to stage.  Getting into
orbit with one stage is not impossible, and the numbers say it is not
ridiculously impractical, although it is difficult.

Atlas, burning LOX and kerosene, can put 2000kg or so into orbit with
one and a half stages (it drops two of its three engines halfway up).
All the orbital Mercury missions were launched that way.  (Nowadays
Atlas generally doesn't fly without a Centaur upper stage, but that
wasn't part of the original configuration.)  The first 1.5-stage-to-
orbit mission, Project Score, was launched on an Atlas in 1958.

People have been discussing SSTO spacecraft for a long time.  Ed
Heinemann, Douglas Aircraft's weight-reduction genius, thought he
could put a single-stage expendable launcher into orbit (with very
little payload) circa 1950, although he never got the chance to try.

The possibility of making the Shuttle SSTO was studied very seriously.
This concept lost out on the fundamental problem of SSTO:  most of
the mass carried into orbit will be structure, engines, etc., so any
serious weight growth in those items could wipe out the payload
entirely... and there is always weight growth.  Circa 1970, for a
program that politically had to succeed, the risk was felt to be
unacceptable.

Two things are different about the current SSTO program:  we now have
better lightweight materials, and this program is willing to take some
risks.  The estimates say it can be done; it's high time we found out.

>I realize that there are many other possible solutions, such as better
>fuels and fuel combustion, nuclear engines, ramjets which convert
>to closed rockets etc. What method/s have been adopted for the SSTO...

Basically, none of the above.

As currently planned, SSTO will use very ordinary engine technology,
except that it will probably use either a "plug nozzle" (which puts the
entire base area of the rocket to work as the nozzle) or telescoping
nozzles that can be made longer in flight.  Both of these basically just
optimizes the nozzle design to match changing outside pressure; neither
has flown, although both look workable.  Last I heard, the feeling was
that telescoping nozzles looked less risky.

It will burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen; no exotic propellants
or nuclear engines.

It will make no attempt to use airbreathing propulsion, which involves
a whole slew of nasty problems in its own right.  If what you want is
to get into space, rockets are better.

It *will* make use of some of the very lightweight materials developed
for the X-30.  They probably aren't necessary, but they help.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 17:15:51 GMT
From: Tom Nugent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Phew) writes:

>This is probably a FAQ, but I couldn't find it, so here goes...

>My basic understanding of rockets (developed back when I couldn't
>reach the top of the fridge :-) ), was that they were broken up into
>stages so that they would be able to get into orbit with a useful
>payload, instad of wasting all the propellant on boosting the tanks
>and engines.

>All the mentions to Single Stage To Orbit now make me wonder what
>is different. My understanding was that a kilogram of fuel didn't
>have enough chemical energy to get itself into orbit, let alone
>anything else, but lacking the chemistry I can't verify this.

> What method/s have been adopted for the SSTO
>now under development, or on other similar projects?

From what I understand, 5 years ago you could not get into space without
stages.  However, with various materials developments, at least some of which
came from the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program, it is now possible.
First of all, the tanks which hold the fuel are now lighter because of the
advanced materials.  (Actually, so is alot of the craft.)  Therefore, with
the same amount of fuel, you have less required mass, and can actually think
about having a payload.  The second point I'm not so sure on: some advanced
materials also allow the fuel to burn hotter and therefore more efficiently.

I imagine Allen will make any corrections to the above.


--
Tom Nugent    voice:[phone]    e-mail:[e-mail]
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 17:08:04 GMT
From: Tom Nugent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Size,Mass,and velocity....
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:

> isn't the net supposed to be a research tool?

Um, well, I honestly don't know.  What is the net intended for?  I got the
impression that it was for the discussion of the various topics (dependent
on the newsgroup), and perhaps for the dissemination of specialzed knowledge
that one particular reader might know to share with others.

I should point out that in my previous post, I was tired at the time.  I
didn't mean to complain about bandwidth, more on the various requests that
come up where people ask for information that they should easily be able
to find themselves.  Maybe.

I apologize for any waste of bandwidth I create myself.


--
Tom Nugent    voice:[phone]    e-mail:[e-mail]
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 12:27:31 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Solar Sailers

Also note that the CIS is flying a solar sail deployment experiment
near MIR very soon. It will use centrifugal deployment techniques and
is not a flight test. After the test it will be gotten rid of by
letting it reenter. Check recent AW&ST for details.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 16:47:24 EDT
From: Jerry Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet rovers on Mars

>Date: 24 Aug 92 23:37:54 GMT
>From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>

>(I'm not familiar with their instrument load). Phobos 2 and one of the
>Soviet Mars landers carried tiny rovers, too.  Or do we only count
>spacecraft that succeeded?  ^^^^
                               ?
Tiny?  I'm not sure about Phobos 2, but 2 weeks ago I saw a Soviet Mars
rover at the Air Force Museum, Wright Patterson AFB and it was pretty
big.  Probably at least as large as a 12 - 16 hp riding lawnmower with
6 wheels and lots more mass.

They also had a Soyuz return capsule.  I would hate to spend a year
in micro-gravity and then ride back in that rascal.  It didn't look
very comfortable.  It is a big improvement over the Vostok return
capsule however.  I never knew that the hatch was blown at 22,000 ft
and the cosmonaut jumped out. Sheeeesh.

Jerry

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

Date: 29 Aug 92 05:53:10 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Calendar
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

     Here's the latest Space Calendar.  If you see any updates to the
calendar, then let me know and I'll add them in.  Note that launch dates are
subject to change.

     The following people made contributions to this month's calendar:

        o Khee Chan        - Updates to Ulysses Conjunction #2 and #3 dates.
        o Andre Knoefel    - Maximum time & solar longitudes for all the meteor
                             showers.
        o Steven Pietrobon - Update to AUSROC II launch date.


                             =========================
                                  SPACE CALENDAR
                                  August 28, 1992
                             =========================

* indicates change from last month's calendar

   August 1992
     27-31 - SEDS International Conference, Washington D.C.
     28-05 - World Space Congress, Washington D.C.

   September 1992
    *?? - Mars Observer Titan III Launch
     ?? - Hispasat 1A Ariane Launch
     ?? - LEAP-3 OSC Aries Launch
    *01 - Ulysses, 2nd Conjunction
     05 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 1 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission)
     08 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 5 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
     08 - Geotail, 1st Moon Flyby
    *10 - Consort 5 Starfire Launch
     11 - STS-47, Endeavour, SpaceLab Japan (SL-J)
     14 - Magellan, Orbit Trim Maneuver, Cycle 4 Begins
     24 - Comet 1 Conestoga Launch
     24 - SCD-1 Pegasus Launch
    *29 - DFS-3/Kopernikus Delta 2 Launch

   October 1992
     ?? - Galaxy 7 Ariane Launch
     ?? - UFO Atlas Launch
     01 - Mars Observer, 1st Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-1)
     04 - 35th Anniversary, Sputnik Launch (1st Satellite ever)
     05 - Progress Launch (Soviet)
    *09 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver 15 (TCM-15)
    *10 - Draconid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 197.0 degrees)
     12 - SETI Scanning Begins
    *12 - 500th Anniversary, Columbus Discovers America
     15 - STS-52, Columbia, Laser Geodynamics Satellite (LAGEOS-II)
     15 - Freja Long March Launch (Sweden/China)
    *20 - AUSROC II Launch
    *21 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 208.4 degrees)

   November 1992
     ?? - Superbird A Ariane Launch
     ?? - Geotail, 2nd Moon Flyby
    *03 - Southern Taurid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 220.7 degrees)
     05 - STS-53, Discovery, Department of Defense (DOD)
     07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 6 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
    *13 - Northern Taurid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 230.7 degrees)
    *13 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver 16 (TCM-16)
    *17 - Leonid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 235.7 degrees)

   December 1992
     ?? - Pioneer Venus Burnup
     ?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch
     08 - Galileo, Earth Flyby
     08 - Asteroid 4179 Toutatis, Near Earth Flyby (.025 AU)
     10 - Lunar Eclipse
    *14 - Geminid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 262.0 degrees)
     14 - 30th Anniversary, Mariner 2 Venus Flyby (1st Flyby of Another Planet)
     19 - 20 years since man has been to the Moon (Apollo 17)
    *22 - Ursid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 10:00 UT, Solar Longitude 258.7 deg.)
     25 - Isaac Newton's 350th birthday (or January 4)

   January 1993
     ?? - Eutelsat II F-5 Ariane Launch
     03 - Mars Observer, High Gain Antenna Deployment
    *03-4 Quadrantid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 10:00 UT, Solar Lon 283.13 deg.)
     07 - Mars Observer, 2nd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-2)
     07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 7 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
    *12 - STS-54, Endeavour, TDRS-F

   February 1993
     ?? - Hispasat 2 Ariane Launch
     01 - 35th Anniversary, Explorer 1 Launch (1st U.S. Satellite)
     06 - Astro-D Launch (US/Japan)
     07 - Mars Observer, 3rd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-3)
     15 - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch
     18 - Jules Verne's 165th Birthday
    *18 - STS-55, Columbia, Spacelab Germany (SL-D2)
     19 - Copernicus' 520th Birthday

   March 1993
     ?? - SPOT-C Launch
     ?? - Radcal Scout Launch
    *01 - Ulysses, 3rd Opposition
    *11 - STS-56, Endeavour, Atmospheric Lab for Applications and Science
          (ATLAS-2)

   April 1993
     06 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 11 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission)
    *22 - Lyrid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 02:00 UT, Solar Longitude 32.1 degrees)
    *23 - Pi-Puppid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 33.3 degrees)
    *28 - STS-57, Atlantis, European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA-1R)

   May 1993
     04 - Galileo Enters Asteroid Belt Again
     15 - Magellan, End of Mission?

   June 1993
     04 - Lunar Eclipse
     14 - Sakigake, 2nd Earth Flyby (Japan)
     22 - 15th Anniversary of Charon Discovery (Pluto's Moon) by Christy

   July 1993
    *01 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite(ACTS)
     29 - NASA's 35th Birthday

   August 1993
    *?? - Seastar Pegasus Launch
    *?? - ISTP Wind Delta-2 Launch
    *?? - ETS-VI Launch
    *?? - GEOS-J Launch
    *?? - Landsat 6 Launch
    *04 - Mars Observer, 4th Trajectory Correction Manuever (TCM-4)
    *08 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus Orbitor 2 Launch
    *12 - Perseid Meteor Shower (Max: 04:00 UT, S.L. 139.6 deg and 15:00 UT,
                                 S.L. 140.1 deg.)
    *19 - Mars Observer, Mars Orbit Insertion
    *25 - STS-58, Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS-2)
    *28 - Galileo, Asteroid Ida Flyby

                                ######
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 29 Aug 92 01:03:51 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ulysses Update - 08/28/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                         August 28, 1992

     Spacecraft and science operations continue to be carried out
as planned.  A routine Earth-pointing maneuver was performed on
Wednesday, Aug. 26, with another maneuver scheduled for Saturday,
Aug. 29.

     The spacecraft reached maximum distance from Earth -- 938
million kilometers or 583 million miles -- on Wednesday, Aug. 26,
and will now begin to close that gap.  Presently Ulysses is still
at about the maximum distance, traveling at a heliocentric
velocity of about 30,000 kilometers per hour (19,000 miles per
hour).  The craft is beginning to move slowly away from the
ecliptic plane and is about 9 degrees south relative to the sun.

      A reduction in the number of ranging passes continued
during this reporting period to improve the spacecraft signal.
The 34-meter (111-foot) ground stations are in use to support
flight operations, with at least one 70-meter (230-foot) station
pass per week to support ranging.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:17:03 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Von Karman Stamp
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

A new stamp will be issued on August 31, 1992, in commemoration of
Theodore Von Karman.  Von Karman is attributed to being the founder of
the Jet Propulsion Lab.  He taught at Caltech in the 1920's until 1942,
and led a group of Caltech graduates in rocket tests during the 1930's in
a isolated region about 3 miles north of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.
This test site later became JPL.  The stamp's first day of issue will be during
the opening ceremony at the World Space Congress in Washington, D.C.  The
stamp will also be released in a rare second day issue at JPL on
September 1, 1992.  This ceremony will be held, appropriately enough, in
the Von Karman Auditorium at 10AM PDT.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:46:45 GMT
From: Phew <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Phew) writes:

>"This is a very interesting phenomenon. I think we should stay to study
>it ... unless there is jeopardy." - HAL 2010 to Dr Chandra ( :-) )

>I fully accept that there is no competent AI now, but then again,
>graphic user interfaces were unheard of a decade ago... :-)

I must apologize for this error (thanks to Steve Hix for pointing this out).
Graphic User Interfaces must have existed in concept for many years before
their release.

But I think that this error makes my main point even more telling.
The technology for the future human presence in space - whether or
not it is robotic or human - exists in concept now. The choice to be made
(within this debate) is whether this technology will have *only* robotic
presence in space.

Depending solely on telepresence in space would limit human intervention to
any reasonable "real time" sense to about the Moon or so... unless a way
of getting around the speed of light can be found (For my view on FTL
communication, see up :-) :-) :-) ).

As soon as we abandon "real time" telepresence, we either depend entirely
on robots, or on humans. Surely a combination of the two would be better?

Patrick Hew
1st Year Science/ Engineering
University of Western Australia

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

Date: 28 Aug 92 12:34:32 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Depending solely on telepresence in space would limit human intervention to
>any reasonable "real time" sense to about the Moon or so...

Using only telepresence is limited not only to distance but also to scale.
The available bandwidth is limited and telepresence in any realistic sense
will use up a lot of 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?"                               |
+----------------------238 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 148
------------------------------