Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no173.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Mon,  7 Sep 92 05:00:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #173
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  7 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
                      apollo 13 LEM, CSM names?
                       CFC replacement (2 msgs)
              Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
                      Launch costs to deep space
                    Learn more about PBS Education
                            Lunar Orbiter
             Sizing of launch vehicles (was Saturn Class)
                            Space markets
                    Storage of Lunar Orbiter data
         What's on display in the National Air & Space Museum
     With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? (2 msgs)
                         World Space Congress

    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: 7 Sep 92 03:03:54 GMT
From: Ray Soo <ray@gyro>
Subject: apollo 13 LEM, CSM names?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Does anybody know the names given to the Lunar Module
and Command/Service Modules for the apollo 13 mission?
( i think this mission did not get to land on the moon
due to technical problems )

email replies to :

[e-mail]


thanks in advance,

ray

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 19:43:33 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: CFC replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>An example of how hard it is to replace existing technologies is current
>household refridgeration. These are largely based on CFCs and will have
>to be replaced due to ozone depletion. The current CFC replacements are
>also not safe, and it may take a total rethink of the technology to get
>something that works properly.

There are usable replacements that are safe for the ozone layer - NIST has
one, and there are others. However the NIST material is flammable, so it's
not as safe *to use* as CFCs. It's probably fair to say that there's not
yet a *fully satisfactory* replacement. Obviously, it would be desirable
to come up with something that will work in existing systems. I don't know
whether any of the current candidates can be used for this.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun,  6 Sep 1992 17:00:35 -0400
From: Samuel John Kass <[e-mail]>
Subject: CFC replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 06-Sep-92 in Re: CFC replacement
user John [e-mail] writes:
>There are usable replacements that are safe for the ozone layer - NIST has
>one, and there are others. However the NIST material is flammable, so it's
>not as safe *to use* as CFCs. It's probably fair to say that there's not
>yet a *fully satisfactory* replacement. Obviously, it would be desirable
>to come up with something that will work in existing systems. I don't know
>whether any of the current candidates can be used for this.
>
>John Roberts
>[e-mail]

There was an article in a recent "We" (Russian/US newspaper) about a
competition for the first non-CFC refrigerator that operated like a CFC
refrigerator.  I forget how much money was offered, but details can be
requested from:

SERP, Inc.
2856 Arden Way
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Fax: [phone]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the date of the "We" that the article
appeared in, but it was sometime this summer.

    --Sam Kass

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 11:48:21 GMT
From: Barry Kort <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Many thanks to all who responded to my posting on this topic.

I passed along all the responses to my colleague, who asked me to
post his reaction here.

Barry Kort

=====================================================================
From: [e-mail] (Michael Majere)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 1:29:14 EDT

Let's see if I get the names right. :)

MM > > > > Michael Majere (me) writes:
BK > > > Barry Kort writes:
JS > > James Schaefer writes:
BK > Barry replies:
Then me again. :)

BK > > > A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such
BK > > > matters tells me:

MM > > > > A fairly large team <at NASA>, is planning the terraforming
JS > >                                       ^^^^^^^^

JS > > Studying.  That is a FAR cry from planning.  Some people are looking
JS > > into it.  And don't get all upset about looking into the matter, one
JS > > of the things being studied is whether or not changing Mars to allow
JS > > human habitation is a good thing (ie, should we? or should we
JS > > leave it as a "national park)".

Researching may be the best word here. Tho stages of implemtation are
being developed they are based on current technology and are, shall
we say 'in pencil'. Actual field work is being done on the subject
in Dry Valley, Antartica which is belived to be the place on earth
that resembles the surface of mars the closest (due mostly to temp
and the scarsity of the building blocks of life). It is quite obvious
that there can be no 'planning' as James referres to the word until
some type of research facility is actually set up on Mars.

The opinion of Christopher McKay (Mars project, NASA Ames RC) is that
we should attempt to terraform mars to learn about the development
of life on our own word. He feels that mars contains 'life' (or
the soup thereof) within the perma-frost, which quite possibly is
in the RNA (pre-DNA, theorized) form. He feels that to not
terraform mars would be a loss of a great learning potential.

BK > That makes much more sense to me than what my colleague asserted.
BK > I can see NASA doing a lot of research on this issue, studying
BK > [deleted]                     ^^^^^^^^

Yeah, the better word. :)

BK > other planets before making any plans to actually implement such
BK > an important (and potentially irrevocable) decision.

Actually it is not *that* irrevocable. It can be stoped up until
the point that frozen CO2 starts to become in it's natural state,
a gas.

JS > > You know, if you hadn't used such inflammatory language ("destroying
JS > > the planet", "polluted". . .)  you might have gotten a better
JS > > response.  But anyway, even IF someone decided to to it, we couldn't
JS > > realistically begin the process in anything under 200 years.  The
JS > > scales are just too large.  Also, the process would take thousands
JS > > of years, and so, even 1-200 years into the process, we would still
JS > > have a chance to turn it off, with minimal damage.

It was not my intention to sound 'against' the terraforming of Mars.
I am *very* much for it and would like to see the research continue
even if we don't begin it for another 200 years.

Okay, McKay's definition of Terraforming means that life...in the form
of algae could exist (not humans). Here are his figures: it would take
100 years from the point of turning on 10 very large
chlorofluorocarbon factories pumping one part per billion before a
warm thick CO2 atmophyere is reached, oh that is with a considered
greenhouse effect. Then plants could be planted on the surface (oh
there is flowing water at this time) harsh plants tho...and after
about 100,000 years a human would be able to walk on the surface
without the aid of any pressure/oxygen suit.

BK > I agree, completely, James.  I will pass along your remarks to my
BK > colleague, who I am sure will be glad to learn that his understanding
BK > of NASA's program was in error.

I wasn't in error. If you needed me to clear something up for you you
should have just asked me. The topic of the letter in which I wrote
about the terraforming of mars was not even based on that subject.
Rather, it was a brief mention of the intent. If anyone wishes
that receives this letter I can provide catalog numbers of the nasa
reports on this subject (Tho a bit of digging is involved. :)

JS > > Finally, even if we COULD DO IT, and DECIDED TO DO IT, what is wrong
JS > > with that, or does your friend believe that humans should become
JS > > extinct just so that they do NOT interfere/interact with any part
JS > > of nature?

There is nothing wrong with it. The person that sent you the letter
failed to mention it was written is sarcasm. sorry for the misunderstanding.

BK > Here, I am sure my friend will have substantial thoughts and
BK > commentary  to contribute, which I invite him pass along to you.

Thank you Barry, sorry for the mix-up James. I am interested in the
group my comment found it's way too, how could I go about being a
part of it, I would like to further discuss Mars in your group.
I have been an avid fan of the Red Planet scince I can remember. :)

BK > My own expectation is that any future decision to proceed will have
BK > been undertaken with due consideration for protecting the future of
BK > both the planets we visit and the viabililty of our own civilization.
BK > Whether and when we proceed is not so much a moral issue as an issue
BK > of proceeding in a thoughtful and responsible manner.

I tend to feel we should try even if the chance of failure is high.
Whether we suceed or fail we have learned...

--
Michael Majere (aka Priam_Agrivar)         [e-mail]
Director, Space Administration               [e-mail]
MicroMUSE at MIT                                   chezmoto.ai.mit.edu  4201

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 10:58:05 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launch costs to deep space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ron Baalke writes for Delta-2:

>       Launch Energy, C3     Payload Mass
>        (km^2/sec^2)           (kg)
>       ------------------    -------------
>            10                   1000
>            20                    850
>            30                    650
>            40                    550

I've taken Ron's figures, extrapolated them to some other
launchers, and computed the costs.  This may slightly understate the
payload for the Centaur due to its better performance.  I have not
accounted for weight margins (eg 300 kg for MESUR at C3=17 on Delta 2
brings it to 622 kg instead of 922 kg).

      Delta 2/7,PAM-D2   Atlas 2AS/Centaur    Titan 4/Centaur    Ariane 44L
GTO,kg             1820              3460            8500        4200
C3=10,kg    1000          1900       4700         2300
C3=40,kg         550           1000         2600        1300
launch cost      $55m          $72m         $280m        $115m
cost/kg,C3=10    $55,000      $38,000     $60,000    $50,000
cost/kg,C3=40     $100,000      $69,000     $112,000    $91,000

C3=10 can get us to flyby, and C3=40 to rendesvous with, our choice out
of dozens of the near-earth asteroids, including several interesting C-
and M-type asteroids, during good launch windows.  With a 400 kg weight
margin, an Atlas 2AS/Centaur could deliver at least 1,500 kg to flyby,
or 600 kg to rendesvous, land on and sample such an asteroid, for $72
million plus spacecraft costs.  (Compare to the Voyager spacecraft which
were 825 kg).

ref: _Space Mission Analysis and Design_, Wertz & Larson eds., Kluwer
1991, substituting more recent figure for Titan 4 cost due to overrun.


--
[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 15:21:08 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Learn more about PBS Education
Newsgroups: sci.space

X-Date: 4 Sep 92 14:37:05 EDT
XX-From: [e-mail]
XX-Newsgroups: alt.education.disabled

X-Date: 4 Sep 92 14:34:46 EDT
X-Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA
Lines: 75

The PBS Elementary/Secondary Service is the school television arm of PBS
dedicated to serving the instructional needs of students and teachers through
and on behalf of public television stations and other education agencies
nationwide. E/SS acquires and distributes educational programming and related
curricular support materials for K-12 grade classroom use; promotes the use of
PBS's primetime programming as a curricular resource; provides professional
development for educators; serves as an outreach liason to the education
community; supports research and development and serves as a national advocate
for the use of video and related technologies for learning.

If you would like to receive more information on PBS E/SS, please print-out
and mail or fax the following Interest Form:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YES! I would like to receive more information on the following PBS
E/SS programs or publications.  This information will be sent at no
cost to you and with no obligation:

Programming

_____3-2-1 CLASSROOM CONTACT (Science, Grades 4-6)
_____AMIGOS (Spanish, Grades K-2)
_____CASTLE AND CATHEDRAL (History, Grades 5-10)
_____THE CHALLENGE OF THE UNKNOWN (Math, Grades 4-12)
_____EAT WELL, BE WELL (Health, Grades 1-4)
_____EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW (History, Grades 10-12)
_____FRANCE-TV MAGAZINE (French, Grades 8-12)
_____FUTURES with Jaime Escalante (Math & Science, Grades 7-12)
_____FUTURES2 with Jaime Escalante (Math & Science, Grades 7-12)
_____GROWING UP, GROWING OLDER (Relationships, Grades 5-6)
_____ICEWALK (Environmental Science, Grades 7-12)
_____NSBA VIDEOCONFERENCE EVENT 10/22/92 (Professional Development)
_____RACE TO SAVE THE PLANET: Instructional Modules (Science, 7-12)
_____SPACE AGE TELECONFERENCES 10/1/92 and 10/15/92 (Teaching Tool for 9-12)
_____SPACESHIP EARTH (Geography, Environmental Science, Grades 9-12)
_____TELESTAR 401: THE EDUCATION SATELLITE
_____VOYAGE OF THE MIMI & SECOND VOM (Science, Grades 4-8)
_____WORLD'S LARGEST CONCERT (Music, Grades K-12)

Print Resources

_____COPYRIGHT: STAYING WITHIN THE LAW Order Form
_____ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE COMPENDIUM Order Form
_____LEARNING FILE, VOL.   3: FOR THOSE WHO UTILIZE ITV Order Form
_____LEARNING FILE, VOL.   3: FOR THOSE WHO UTILIZE ITV Order Form
_____1992 INTERNATIONAL SPACE YEAR COMPENDIUM Order Form

Organization:
Name:
Title:
Address:
City:                                             State:
Zip+4:
Phone:                                            FAX:
Please fax this form to the E/SS FAX number, [phone], or mail
to Tom Flavell; PBS E/SS; 1320 Braddock Place; Alexandria, VA 22314-
1698.

______ I want to know the name and phone number of my local PBS
station Education Services contact.  My local PBS station call
letters are:____________
The nearest major city is:_______________________________________


E/SS Suggestion Box (how can we serve you better; ideas
for school programming; videoconference topics):

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 19:34:35 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar Orbiter
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald)
-Subject: New lunar spacecraft (WAS: With telepresence, who needs people
- in Earth orbit?)
-Date: 6 Sep 92 01:36:07 GMT
-Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

-While old data sets often contain overlooked gems, for some questions,
-they will not help at all. The Lunar Orbiters did optical imaging from
-roughly equatorial orbits about the Moon; if you wanted to look for
-lunar water, you'd need a polar-orbiting spacecraft with infrared
-imaging and better, also spectroscopic instrumentation - not unlike
-what's going on the Mars Observer.

The Lunar Orbiters imaged nearly all of the lunar surface, including one
of the poles. However, the highest-resolution areas were all on the nearside
away from the poles, with the highest concentration along the equator.

As you point out, they didn't have the proper instruments to look for water ice.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 09:04:07 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sizing of launch vehicles (was Saturn Class)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>[USAF study of developing a new launcher]
>[SSF]...you have a total delivery requirement of 750 tons, or 750,000 kg.
>To find total cost, we need to add recurring and development costs,
>with the development cost spread over the launched mass:
>
>Payload (kg)    Launch $/kg    Develop $/kg    Total $/kg
>4,536        5,082        2,733        7,816
>9,072        4,128        3,400        7,528
>13,608        3,655        3,987        7,642
>18,144        3,353        4,506        7,860
>22,680        3,136        4,987        8,122
>
>So, considering the Space Station delivery job only, the optimum
>size seems to be around 10 tons payload.

Interesting analysis, but one flaw pops out right away: we have to
amortize the development costs, not just add them.  U.S. bonds are
running at 6-7%, I believe; a commercial venture would have to
pay 10-15%.

Also, I should mention my earlier contention that there is only
about 13% chance of NASA buying HLV for SSF if somebody did this
on their own.  (50% chance of SSF flying, 25% chance of NASA
outsourcing instead of using Shuttle).  Another point I didn't
mention before is that redesigning  SSF around a hypothetical
launcher might be considered too risky.

Interestingly enough, Ariane 44L is right there, 9,600 kg to LEO.
It also costs $6,500/kg, so it is already cheaper than this hypothetical
launcher.  Titan IV is more politically correct; 17,900 kg to LEO
and $8,400/kg (according to my reference, but that seems a little
low given all the pad mods and cost overruns).  None of these save on
station assembly effort, which was a major reason for looking at HLV for SSF.

Ref:  _Space Mission Analysis and Design_, Wertz & Larson eds., Kluwer 1991


--
[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)

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

Date: 7 Sep 92 02:31:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space markets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>Fine. Come up with PRIVATE money, not public funds to build and launch the
>>station. According to you and Mr. Szabo, it's a goldmine of opportunites out
>>there.
>
>There is a goldmine of opportunity up there, but it's not coming from space
>stations.  It's coming from commercial satellites, primarily in the
>communications business.  The U.S. commercial space sector is growing at
>the phenomenal rate of 20%/year during a recession, according to U.S.
>Dept. of Commerce figures.

The Szabo holy grail of commercial development will never happen without
the partnership of the government agencies that he so passionatly spurns.
In the commercial world not one manager of of a program will dare to use any
technology that has not been "proven" by the military or NASA on government
sponsored space flights.  The solar arrays, batteries, power systems and
upper stages were all proven as a military or NASA program previous to their
adoption for commercial use. It is a fallacy based upon wishful thinking
that commercial space development will push technology forward.

Why do I say this? Because I am flying three distinct new technolgies on our
SEDSAT 1 satellite and very little of the money comes from "commercial"
development.  We are flying the most efficienct solar cells in the world (26%),
we are flying the most advanced batteries in the world, (Nickel Metal Hydride),
and we are flying the most advanced processor in the world (SCC-100 100
MFLOPS performance in a 53mm X 73mm X 10mm package). We are also flying the
first deployment of a satellite into a higher orbit by a tether system. Why
is a student group able to do this? Because the commercial world hasn't the
intestinal fortitude to use the technology before it is "proven" by others. Why
are we being allowed to fly this technology? Because we are the cheapest game
in town and we have spread the risk and cost in such a way as to be invisible
to the idiot crowds.

>The market for mobile communications, including establishment of good
>telephone service in the 4/5 of the world that doesn't now have it,
>and direct broadcast is potentially in the high $10's of billions per
>year.  This is much higher than NASA's budget, and in the private sector.
>The main drivers in this biz are launch cost and reliability -- a factor
>of two improvement in each could make a tremendous difference -- and
>communications tech like compression and circuit design.

Look at the troubles Iridium is having raising their capital for a commercial
venture  and they have a great business plan with a high rate of return. The
prime problem they have is that it is new tech and no one has sufficient
intestinal fortitude to bankroll them, therefore they are spreading the risk
and lowering their own returns by going into partnerships with many companies.
This has delayed the program for at least two years.

>There might be a small market for automated space manufacturing
>platforms, a la COMET and Fairchild Leasecraft, but NASA and SSF
>have distorted that market beyond recognition.  In the next century,
>there is vast potential for manufacturing from materials native
>to space, but again NASA is ignoring that potential in favor of
>the obsolete vision of astronaut-driven space development.

Where I come from mights grow on a Chicken's rear end.  The fact is that even
though the budget is under extreme pressure, NASA has funded, not only SpaceHab
and COMET but they are doing the all important preliminary work on Spacelab
and sounding rocket materials development flights.  Your statment above and
others that you are making recently clearly show that you are completely out
of touch with what is going on and the character of your posts is one of
virulent hatred of spaceflight in general.


>There is no need for tiny-market HLVs; commerce can share launchers with the
>military and civilian space agencies.  The civilian agencies should be
>following the lead of military and commerce, instead of living in their
>own world building space stations, then building HLVs to support them,
>none of it relevent to the commercial market.

In this above statement you contridict your own reasoning. If commerce is so
able to perform without the military/civilian/spaceindustrial complex to
subsidize the costs.

Space Station Freedom does not need to justify its cost based initially upon
its commercial return any more than the Panama Canal did in its early days.
Look at your history books, the Panama Canal took fifty years to return its
investment to the US treasury in the form of reduced costs in transport and
increased taxes due to the increase in commerce. Additionally the U.S.
treasury never made a dime on the reduced costs that the canal provided to
other countries around  the world. Making Freedom justify its return on
investment before it is launched with concrete numbers is shortsided and
wrong from the beginning. It is the unexpected discovery or process that is
spawned from the space station that will pay back the dividends to America
and the world.

I have read some posts on here that try to twist some of my previous posts
regarding our efforts to build an incremental capability to launch
heavier and heavier payloads.  You are wrong and have not listened to what was
posted. That is all I have to say on that.

Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Oh and by the way the World Space Congress was awesome. Too bad those who
so easily attack NASA and the Military and the development of space in general
do not go and see how we are changing the world for the better by the
development of SS Freedom and other programs.

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 19:32:14 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Storage of Lunar Orbiter data
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
-Date: 5 Sep 92 13:24:10 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

-As a side note, most of the data from lunar probes, and some probes of
-other bodies, lies rusting away on reels of magnetic tape that no current
-machine can read in some musty warehouse. The most cost effective way to
-do lunar scientific research would be to mine that warehouse first before
-launching more probes.

The Lunar Orbiter data was also recorded on film as it came in, and assuming
a good choice of film, it could last for centuries. Dennis Wingo has access
to a copy.

Also, I believe there's been an ongoing project to convert old magnetic
tape storage to optical format. As I recall, it is thought that *some* of the
CD-ROM media will last for a century or more. There was a discussion of this
topic on sci.space several months ago, but I don't remember the details.
[Do the new SPACE Digest archives include the sci.space messages from the
months when SPACE Digest was down?]

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 16:13:12 GMT
From: "Charles A. Lind" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's on display in the National Air & Space Museum
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
>After leaving the Rover Expo, I went to the National Air & Space Museum,
>and attempted to carry out a long-planned project - going through the
>museum, and trying to catalog all the spacecraft, rockets, and well-known
>airplanes there. This is more difficult than one would think, because
>many of the displays are in out-of-the-way places. Most of the displays
>are aircraft, so I got only slight coverage of them. I might as well
>post what I got, then later on I will try to go back with a printout,
>so I can add things I missed, and correct any errors. I'd like to add some
>more of the advanced aircraft, and some of the important spacecraft parts
>such as guidance computers and rocket engines.
>
>Among the spacecraft and rockets, many are working models that were never
>used, others were built for ground tests (presumably mostly or entirely
>functional), and others are reconstructed from parts of test vehicles
>or flown vehicles. There are also many models (full-scale or smaller),
>and some engineering test devices which illustrate the size and configuration
>of the real devices. I'll try to include all the documentation I wrote.
>I'm also including some other displays of general interest.
>
>The identification of each display by type should be useful in resolving
>future questions on the subject. Perhaps someone could cross-correlate this
>list with the previously-posted list on where space hardware is displayed.
>
>.......................
>
>
>Aerobee sounding rocket - original
>
>Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia - original
>
>Apollo Lunar Module LM-2 - original, intended for an unmanned test flight,
> but not used because the first lunar module unmanned test flight was
> a success - retired for use in ground tests
>
>Apollo command module used in the Skylab 4 mission - original
>
>Apollo-Soyuz test project - used to test docking adapter - full-scale units
>
>Ariane 44LP rocket - 1/15 scale model
>
>Atlas Centaur rocket - 1/15 scale model
>
>Bell X-1 - first airplane to break the sound barrier - original
>
>Delta 3914 rocket - 1/15 scale model
>
>Explorer I satellite - first US satellite - replica
>
>GOES satellite - full scale model
>
>Gemini 4 capsule - original
>
>Gemini 7 capsule - original
>
>Goddard liquid-fueled rockets - models of two, including the first flown
> (one of the two weighed more fully fueled than the thrust of the rocket -
> it sat on the launch pad until part of the fuel had been burned)
>
>Gossamer Condor - human-powered aircraft - original
>
>Hubble Space Telescope structural dynamic test vehicle - full size
>
>ITOS weather satellite - ground engineering test satellite
>
>Intelsat VI communications satellite - 1/12 scale model
>
>Japanese H-II rocket - 1/15 scale model
>
>Jupiter C rocket - original
>
>Lunar Orbiter spacecraft - used for ground tests
>
>Lunar Rover - qualification test vehicle (1 of 8, built by Boeing before
> building the three flight vehicles - I think another one is at KSC)
>
>Mariner 10 spacecraft - flight-qualified original
>
>Mariner 2 spacecraft - replica
>
>Mercury Freedom 7 capsule - original
>
>Mercury capsule Friendship 7 - original
>
>Minuteman III rocket - original
>
>Northrop M2-F3 lifting body - original
>
>Pershing II missile - US - training version
>
>Pioneer 10 spacecraft - prototype
>
>Ranger spacecraft - replica of Rangers 7,8,9, made of parts of Ranger test
> vehicles
>
>SS-20 missile - Soviet - training version
>
>Saturn V aft end - (1/4 with two mirrors at right angles to make it look
> full size, with an F-1 engine - body of rocket is a model)
>
>Saturn V rocket model - small
>
>Scout D rocket - original
>
>Skylab (Orbital Workshop, solar array, and Multiple Docking Adapter) - the
> second Skylab, built as a backup, but never launched because the first
> Skylab accomplished the mission goals
>
>Space Shuttle Columbia - 1/15 scale model
>
>Space Station Freedom model - small
>
>Spacelab - 1/15 scale model
>
>Spirit of St. Louis - first nonstop transatlantic flight - original
>
>Sputnik I - USSR - first satellite - replica
>
>Surveyor spacecraft - used for ground tests
>
>TDRS geosynchronous data relay satellite - full-size model
>
>TIROS weather satellite - ground engineering test satellite
>
>Titan Centaur rocket - 1/15 scale model
>
>Tsiolkovsky - Russian space pioneer - big display
>
>V-1 German WWII "buzz bomb" - original
>
>V-2 German WWII missile - original
>
>Vanguard I satellite - original backup
>
>Vanguard launch vehicle - original
>
>Viking Mars lander - 3rd working vehicle, used for simulations on Earth to
> support the two landers that landed on Mars
>
>Viking rocket - partial replica, made with parts of flown vehicles
>
>Voyager aircraft (flew around the world nonstop without refueling) - original
>
>Voyager interplanetary space probe - full-scale replica, parts of which were
> used for pre-launch engineering tests
> [so let's hear no more about "the third Voyager hanging in the Air & Space
> museum" :-) ]
>
>WAC-Corporal rocket - original
>
>Wright Brothers' Flyer - first powered airplane - original
>
>X-15 rocket plane - original (didn't say which one)

    I believe it's number 1.  I had the opportunity to hear
    A. Scott Crossfield speak at the NASM and I got the impression
    the X-15 hanging was the one he initially did the flying in.
>
>X-29 forward-swept wing aircraft - full-scale fiberglas mockup
>
>John Roberts
>[e-mail]
>

Charles Lind
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 07:59:34 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.robotics

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

>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?

There is an intermediate regime, called "teleprogramming", that
utilizes a local simulation of the environment, with a VR-style
interface similar to what would be used for teleoperations.  The
simulation catches most of the operator errors, minimizing the impact
of the time delay. See the first issue of MIT's _Presence_ journal.


--
[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 08:17:54 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.robotics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>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.

The bandwidth requirements aren't that bad.  Hand gloves, for example,
typically use 19,200-bps RS-232 ports, far below the capacity of
TDRSS or DSN.  Various protocols, eg symbolic abstraction of repetive
or primitive movements, can further greatly reduce bandwidth needs.


--
[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)

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

Date: 6 Sep 92 22:10:05 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: World Space Congress
Newsgroups: sci.space

I hadn't been planning to go to the World Space Congress because I couldn't
get enough time off work to justify the $300 expense. However, on Wednesday
I found out that it was possible to register for the exhibit hall only free
of charge, so I visited it Thursday evening. Very impressive - there were
plenty of pieces of hardware and models, including the NASP mockup (you can
tell a lot about how scramjets are supposed to work by looking at it), a
Canadian RMS robot arm (very large), an RL-10 engine (the type to be used
on DCX), and so on. There were also representatives from the many
organizations available to discuss their products and services (most of them
were very busy, and I didn't have time to talk to more than a few), and
videotapes. There were displays by US government organizations, US companies,
and foreign governments and companies. Foreign participation was very high -
perhaps about 50%. [Those of you who have attended technical conferences
in the past are probably aware that there are often "local tours" available
at extra cost as an incentive to attendance. The WSC "local tours" included
the Washington area, but also Walt Disney World plus a cruise to the Bahamas,
white-water rafting and charter planes in Utah and Colorado, and an Alaska
cruise! I guess "local" is defined by by how far you've traveled to get
there. :-) ]

I got about 30 pounds of literature - I'll try to post interesting items
as I come across them. (It will probably be at least a month before
everything's organized and reviewed.)

It will be interesting when the big spenders who attended the lectures
get back and can post the details. I got about 12 hours of the NASA Select
coverage taped. I think many of the readers would be pleased by the content
of most of the speeches - they emphasized international cooperation, and
ways to make space exploration more cost effective, such as reducing launch
costs, small quick turnaround missions, and trying new techniques.
Administrator Goldin was among those who made these comments.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 173
------------------------------