Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no237.txt

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 05:04:18
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #237
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 23 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 237

Today's Topics:
                             21 cm rights
                 ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
                       Atlas E and F questions
         Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
                  Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs)
                           Ethics (2 msgs)
                                 Gaia
                   Hubble is Looking at Pluto Again
                    Ion for Pluto Direct (2 msgs)
          Mars Observer Update - 09/22/92 (3 days to launch)
        Moving industry into space (was Re: Who went to Rio?)
                            overpopulation
     PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
                           Radio allocation

    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: Tue, 22 Sep 92 18:52:36 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: 21 cm rights

>So, if someone were to buy 21 cm and not want to sell the rights,
>radio astronomy would be wiped out?

If someone wanted to do that, they'd be high, as the only intrinsic
value of that frequency is it's use for astronomy.  (Or super-long
range SETI broad-casts :-)  People that dumb don't usually make the
kind of money you're talking about.

Why would they sink all that cash into some hole, just to keep astronomy
back?  Why would they outbid any astronomical concern, when the major
monetary value for the 21cm line is sale back to them?  Who would be
dumb enough to try to sell it to 'astronomy in general' at more than
'astronomy in general' was able to pay in the first place?

"Man on a mission;  His goal:  fuck over astronomy... ;-)"

Also, with strict property rights, you own whatever is over your
land.  So, radio emmissions are, technically, pollution.  Anyone
could sue for quiet in the 21cm band...in their neighborhood.

>Radio astronomy would have to take whatever was left over after
>the big money had spoken, and might lose some frequencies of major
>scientific interest?

I never built a radio telescope, but from what I've seen, big astronomy
IS big money.

>No international agreements to keep certain frequencies clear because
>of their scientific value?

In any transistion, I imagine whatever agreements had been made could
be considered de facto ownership, so the 21cm line, which, I think,
is protected, would be considered already owned by those who wanted
it kept clear.

>And where is astronomy to get the money to buy frequencies.  Part of
>the same fund-raising as is used to get money for large telescopes?

Buying a frequnecy once would be a lot cheaper than constantly lobbying
to make or keep it clear.  Imagine the benefits of strict property rights,
where a bought frequency stays bought.  Between philanthropy, and putting
lobbying and development money into frequency costs, in no time
at all, we'd have a lot more protected frequencies than we have now, in
far less time than people have already been lobbying, for a lot less $$.

What I want to know is, how much for the radar-detector band? :-)

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 15:33:54 GMT
From: Curtis Roelle <roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

    >< Drivel about some lawyer, Peter, or Beter or --whatever--  deleted ><

Is this the same Tom Holroyd who recently posted an admiring glazed-eye view
of one Dewey B. Larson, a late physicist whose theory of reciprocal universes
is built on the idea of our universe having 3 space and 1 time dimensions
while our twin has 3 space and one time dimension?  The same DB Larson who
"rejected "General Relativity" as another MATHEMATICAL FANTASY", in favor of
Larson's Complete Theoretical Universe, that features "vibrational,
rotational, and vibrational-rotational motions"?  The same DB Larson who
believed that "quasars with red-shifts greater than 1.000 REALLY ARE
MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT"?

One thing's for sure.  Holroyd's (B.S.) style of SHOUTING at the READER in his
posts is QUITE unMISTAKEable.

>               I would not be surprised if the Russians have already
>          COMPLETED a comet rendezvous and sample return mission and
>          have data and samples to share.

Do not plan to pick apart each and every line.  But if this were true I expect
the Russians would have crowed about this achievement till the cows came home.
Although far from being trivial, Russian technical achievements often seemed
to be announced with plenty of puff and bluff by their govornment.

>          In late 1977 and
>          early 1978, there was a strange rash of giant AIR BOOMS along
>          the East Coast of the U.S and elsewhere.  The AIR BOOMS were
>          never satifactorily explained, by either the government or
>          news media. ... The giant AIR BOOMS were actually caused by Russia
>          COSMOSPHERES firing CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAMS down into the
>          atmosphere in a DE-focused mode (spread out) for the purpose
>          of announcing their presence to the WAR-MONGERS in the U.S.
>          Pentagon.

Actually, it was the Family of Light communicating with Earth by
blissfully blasting farts our way from the Pleiades star cluster.

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 15:01:04 GMT
From: Jonathan McDowell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas E and F questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Carl Rigg):
>
> Can anybody shed some light on the following questions?
> Every photograph I've seen of an Atlas E or F, appears to have a large
> second stage.
> The Vandenberg Launch Summary only identifies Atlas Burner launches
> as distinct from Burner 2 or Burner 2A configurations. Can anybody
> identify which launches were which?
> If Atlas E or F launches implied upper stages can anybody identify
> which launches used which?

The Atlas E and F space launches all used upper stages for
orbit insertion; however these upper stages were often
considered as apogee motors (part of the spacecraft payload)
rather than part of the launch vehicle; they were not integrated
into the launch vehicle in the same way as a conventional upper
stage is. For instance, the Seasat 1 launch is considered an
Atlas F, not an Atlas Agena D, even though the Seasat
was built around an Agena D stage which burned to achieve orbit.
Below I have listed all orbital attempts with Atlas E and F
with all upper stages, apogee motors, and payloads. Where the upper
stage motors(s) were given a name I have listed that too.
However, I have not included the Atlas F/OV1 launches of 1968-1971. I
note that the single Atlas Burner 2 launch, in 1968, used an Atlas SLV-3
rather than an Atlas F as its first stage. For further details on Atlas
E/F I refer you to an article by Joel Powell and Geoff Richards in the
Journal of the British  Interplanetary Society, published within the
past few years but I don't recall exactly when.

To amplify Henry's comments, the various Atlas variants are:

   Atlas A    R&D tests 1957-8
   Atlas B    R&D tests 1958-9; one orbital launch (SCORE)
   Atlas C    R&D tests 1958-9; one orbital Atlas-Able attempt exploded on pad
   Atlas D    'Atlas classic'; initial ICBM; Mercury, Atlas-Able, Atlas-Agena,
           Atlas Centaur, Atlas/OV1. Flown 1959-1967.
   Atlas E    Operational ICBM and reentry tests; 1960-1968.
        Refurbished for space use, 1980-present. Still flying.
   Atlas F    Operational ICBM and reentry tests; 1961-1974.
        Refurbished for space use, 1972-1981.
   Atlas SLV3    Space Launch Vehicle, 1964-1967.  Atlas-Agena, Atlas Burner
   Atlas SLV3C    Atlas Centaur 1st stage, 1967-1972
   Atlas SLV3A    Atlas Agena D 1st stage, 1968-1978
   Atlas SLV3D    Atlas Centaur 1st stage, 1973-1983
   Atlas G    Atlas Centaur 1st stage, 1984-1989 (then renamed Atlas I)
   Atlas H    Launch vehicle for WHITECLOUD, 1983-1987 (improved Atlas F)

   Atlas I    Renamed version of Atlas G with minor improvements, first flew
        1990     (I is Roman numeral 'one', not letter I)
   Atlas II    First flew 1991
   Atlas IIA    First flew 1992
   Atlas IIAS    Due to fly 1993, with strapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas F launches

Date        No.  Pad     Intl.Des. Upper Stages and Payloads          Name of
                                                                   Upper Stage
1972 Oct  2 102F V BMRSA1 72-076   Star 37/Star 26B/P72-1,Radcat       Burner 2A
1974 Jul 14 69F V SLC3W 74-054     Star 37E PTS/Star 24/NTS 1          PTS
1975 Apr 12 71F V SLC3W  FTO       Star 17A/P72-2                      -
1976 Apr 30 59F V SLC3W 76-038     Star 37E/WHITECLOUD 1,SSU,SSU,SSU   -
1977 Jun 23 65F V SLC3W 77-053     Star 37E/Star 37E/Star 27/NTS 2     SGS-1
1977 Dec  8 50F V SLC3W 77-112     Star 37E/WHITECLOUD 2,SSU,SSU,SSU   -
1978 Feb 22 64F V SLC3E 78-020     Star 37E/Star 37E/Star 27/Navstar 1 SGS-1
1978 May 13 49F V SLC3E 78-047     Star 37E/Star 37E/Star 27/Navstar 2 SGS-1
1978 Jun 26 23F V SLC3W 78-064     Agena D-Seasat 1                    -
1978 Oct  6 47F V SLC3E 78-093     Star 37E/Star 37E/Star 27/Navstar 3 SGS-1
1978 Oct 13 29F V SLC3W 78-096     Star 37S/Tiros-N                    -
1978 Dec 10 39F V SLC3E 78-112     Star 37E/Star 37E/Star 27/Navstar 4 SGS-1
1979 Feb 24 27F V SLC3W 79-017     Star 27/P78-1                       OIS
1979 Jun 27 25F V SLC3W 79-057     Star 37S/NOAA 6                     -
1980 Feb  9 35F V SLC3E 80-011     Star 37E/Star 37E/Star 27/Navstar 5 SGS-1
1980 Mar  3 67F V SLC3W 80-019     Star 37E/WHITECLOUD 3,SSU,SSU,SSU   -
1980 Apr 26 34F V SLC3E 80-032     Star 37E/Star 37E/Star 27/Navstar 6 SGS-1
1980 May 29 19F V SLC3W 80-043     Star 37S/NOAA B                     -
1981 Jun 23 87F V SLC3W 81-059     Star 37S/NOAA 7                     -

Atlas E launches

1980 Dec  9 68E V SLC3W  FTO       Star 37E/WHITECLOUD 4,SSU,SSU,SSU   -
1981 Dec 18 76E V SLC3E  FTO       Star 37E/Star 37E/Star 27/Navstar 7 SGS-1
1982 Dec 20 60E V SLC3W 82-118     Star 37S/DMSP 5D-2 F6               -
1983 Mar 28 73E V SLC3W 83-022     Star 37S/NOAA 8                     -
1983 Jul 14 75E V SLC3W 83-072     Star 48/Star 48/Star 27/GPS 8       SGS-2
1983 Nov 18 58E V SLC3W 83-113     Star 37S/DMSP                       -
1984 Jun 13 42E V SLC3W 84-059     Star 48/Star 48/Star 27/GPS 9       SGS-2
1984 Sep  8 14E V SLC3W 84-097     Star 48/Star 48/Star 27/GPS 10      SGS-2
1984 Dec 12 39E V SLC3W 84-123     Star 37S/NOAA 9                     -
1985 Mar 13 41E V SLC3W 85-021     Star 27/Geosat 1                    OIS
1985 Oct  9 55E V SLC3W 85-093     Star 48/Star 48/Star 27/GPS 11      SGS-2
1986 Sep 17 52E V SLC3W 86-073     Star 37S/NOAA 10                    -
1987 Jun 20 59E V SLC3W 87-053     Star 37S/DMSP F8                    -
1988 Feb  3 54E V SLC3W 88-006     Star 37S/DMSP F9                    -
1988 Sep 24 63E V SLC3W 88-089     Star 37S/NOAA 11                    -
1990 Apr 11 28E V SLC3W 90-031     Star 20 Altair III/SCE,POGS,TEX     Altair
1990 Dec  1 61E V SLC3W 90-105     Star 37S*/DMSP F10                  -
1991 May 14 50E V SLC3W 91-032     Star 37S/NOAA 12                    -
1991 Nov 28 53E V SLC3W 91-082     Star 37S/DMSP F11                   -




 .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell                 |  phone : [phone]                |
 |  Harvard-Smithsonian Center for    |                                        |
 |   Astrophysics                     |                                        |
 |  60 Garden St, MS4                 |                                        |
 |  Cambridge MA 02138                |  inter : [e-mail]   |
 |  USA                               |  inter : [e-mail]      |
 '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 12:33:19 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Some references like Isakowitz, identify both Atlas E and F as
>>typical 1.5 stage Atlas configurations, that may be coupled with
>>a variety of second stages...
>
>This is correct.  Atlas C through F were *ICBMs*, not space launchers,
>with the standard Atlas 1.5-stage configuration and no upper stages of
>any kind.  When retired from strategic-missile duty, a lot of them were
>used as space launchers, with a wide variety of upper stages.
>


That makes me wonder.  when the US started retiring all those old
Titan II's and Pershing missiles, were any considerations
made to try using them for science?

I know INF specifically allowed destruction of vehicles by firing
into remote territory,  could the pershing's have been used
for sub-orbital sounding flights or maybe LEO lightweight packages?

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 14:33:49 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Gerard Vignes writes:

>>We all know those are empty campaign promises, but we also know that
>>Clinton and Gore are hostile to technology and research spending and
>>especially to projects involving space exploration and astronomy.

>You may presume this to be true, but you certainly do not _know_ it.
>Judging by their statements, precisely the opposite is true.

Actions speak louder than words. Gore's actions as head of the Senate
Space Subcommittee indicate that he just doesn't care very much about
space.

>Henry Spencer writes:

>>Of particular note is that John Pike reportedly has major input to their
>>space positions and is likely to be head of the Space Council staff if
>>C/G are elected.

The thought of which keeps me awake at night.

>>He basically opposes manned spaceflight and does not
>>believe that cheaper launch vehicles (e.g. SSTO) are possible.  Or so I
>>am told;

Pike has said he supports human exploration however he doesn't seem
to think reducing costs below the NASA 90 day study level are possible.

On SSTO, he seems to believe that it is impossible to reduce launch
costs below current levels. SSTO will face a big uphill fight under a
Clinton administration.

>His [Pike's] skepticism
>about cheaper launchers is based not on hostility to the idea but on
>history, as one vehicle after another failed to live up to predictions.

Granted. However, Pike seems unable to see the differences in the SSTO
approach. He may be correct that our existing paradime can't reduce launch
costs more however he is unable to see that a change in paradime may
yeild different results.

This is particularly disturbing since every other group (including NASA)
who has examined SSTO believe it is possible. Why can't Clinton find
somebody with more imagination to run his Space Council?

  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?"                               |
+----------------------214 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 14:46:33 GMT
From: Devon E Bowen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> Sure he will tell you he supports space but his record indicates
> that he simply doesn't care. for myself, I didn't vote for bush
> in 88 but I will in 92.

Now I'm no Henry Spencer but I'm a pretty big space nut. However, if
your vote for Bush/Quayle over Clinton/Gore is because of the way they
will treat the space program, I'd say you've got your priorities a wee
bit out of whack. I, personally, vote for what I think is best for the
society in general and not just my individual interests.

[Yeah, I know this is old news but I'm still catching up in this group]

Devon

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 17:47:35 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics

>>Please repost your aestheic angle, with an emphasis on how any aesthetic
>>value of Mars can be higher than the person doing the valuing.

>A) If you didn't get it the first time, it won't help to post it again.
>B) The aesthetic value of Mars comes from the person(s) doing the valuing.

But whatever the aesthethic value, it cannot be higher than the person
doing the valuing, wihtout creating a host of contradictions.

>>Premises are either true or untrue.
>>Conclusions based on valid forms and true premises are true.
>>Premises: Life is good, Humans are as good as any life, we can T-form Mars.

>If only we all could see things in such simple, black and white terms.

Gee, the first premise was an assumption, the second is a product of our
ability to value, and the third was the first part of an IF-then statment,
ie; IF we can T-form Mars...
The bit about premises and conclusions is just basic logic.

So which one did you have a problem with?

>>    "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
>>    of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs
>>    embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
>>    optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
>>                      Dr. Paul Erlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968

>This reminds me of the fable of the boy who cried wolf.  In the end,
>there really was a wolf!

I like quotes too:  Paraphrased:  The majority of politicains endeavor
to convince the masses that there are endless crises happening, so that

the people clamor for help in being led to safety.
                                            -HL Mencken (I think)
Even better:
Those who believe in the Balance of Nature are the ones that don't get eaten.
                                             -Snoopy

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 12:43:38 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.space

It's obvious that Tom and I will never agree, so I'm dropping the debate.

I haven't been "out-logiced", just have more things to do than I have time
for...




David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  [e-mail]    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 18:00:14 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gaia

>If you are an ardent Gaia-ist, it is possible to make
>the premise that humans colonising other planets (reproducing Gaia) is
>worth almost any sacrifice (notice the space connection here ??).

Sure, but then Josh will come back and claim what you really meant was that
you belive 'more life is better' :-)

Now that I think about it, I'd say two organisms are better than one...

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 23:24:41 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble is Looking at Pluto Again
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

The Hubble Space Telesope took some more images of Pluto and Charon yesterday
using its Wide Field/Planetary Camera.  The pair is about 25 arseconds from a
nearby star.  The images were received and are currently being analyzed.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

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

Date: 22 Sep 1992 08:36 EDT
From: Greg Macrae <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>you referred to consisted of, but it cannot have fired long and hard,
>>and there are known lab problems with continuous firing ion thrusters,
>>one I know of is erosion of the electrode which degrades the
>>performance severely after N hours of operation.

It seems that I missed a post on the topic...  There are several different
electrode designs and philosophies employed by different research groups.
The Europeans are still hanging on to 3 electrode optics.  These do suffer
from erosion that degrades performance.  The American thruster designs
use 2 electrode ion optics which still erode, but in such a fashion the
the performance is not affected at all!.  Furthermore, we have been able
to reduce the operating voltages to the point where the erosion occurs
very slowly.  Conservative extrapolations project 10,000 + hours of operation
from systems operating at greater than 2,500 sec Isp.  The extrapolations
are based upon ground testing in facilities where the background pressure
enhances the erosion rates, assume linear erosions rates, and define
end of life at a point where we have demonstrated efficient operation.

Another old life limiting problem was erosion within the discharge
chamber.  Basically by eliminating all of the surfaces which demonstrated
erosion in past wear tests, and redesigning the magnetic circuit to
operate at lower voltages, chamber erosion has been virtually eliminated
for operating conditions of interest for missions within the solar system.

Funding continues at a low level for research along these lines.  I believe
we have made great advancements since the last American ion thruster flight.
The technology is mature, and for some applications, flight qualified
thrusters and power processors exist as 'off the shelf' items.

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

Date: 22 Sep 1992 09:50 EDT
From: Greg Macrae <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes...
>Greg Macrae writes:
>
>> The study I am refering to assumed about 10 metric tons for the
>> interplanetary stage.
>
>   [rest of interesting posting deleted]
>
>Lots of interesting information, but one very important, extremely crucial
>item was missing:  cost, including launch.  From the content of your

Balderdash!  The information I posted was for comparison of trip times and
payload fraction purposes.  There have been innumerable claims that ion
propulsion is slow.  Beyond the Mars orbit, that is incorrect; the numbers
prove it.  The system described and analyzed is not similar in scale to
the chemical missions now under consideration.  Most, if not all, of the
components for the propulsion mission described are scalable.  This means
that it is available in pint sized containers too.  The claim was made
that ion was not appropriate for fast Pluto missions.  I claim that that
has not been substanitated.  There are valid objections to ion propulsion.
I like to think that I am aware of most if not all of them.  I have seen
none posted here so far.  If you have some that I am unaware of, let's hear
them...

Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
     MacRae                  |       Darting dragonfly...
                             | Pull off its shiny wings and look...
  [e-mail]  |      Bright red pepper pod!
                             |                      -Kikaku
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 23:15:07 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 09/22/92 (3 days to launch)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Glenn Cunningham, Mars Observer Deputy Project Manager

                          MARS OBSERVER
                 DAILY ACTIVITIES STATUS REPORT
                            FROM THE
      KENNEDY SPACE CENTER/CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION

                       Launch Minus 3 Days

Date of report:     9-22-92        Time of report:     9:30 AM EDT


Launch preparations continue toward a scheduled launch on Friday,
September 25th at 12:27 PM EDT.

On Sunday, September 20th, a small fuel spill at LC-40 (Launch
Complex 40) prevented Titan from loading their attitude control
system fuel.  This loading was postponed until this morning.

On Monday, September 21th, Titan loaded their oxidizer during the
day, and the spacecraft did additional tests to characterize the
battery charge/temperature management for launch day during the
night.

The Headquarters' Mission Readiness Review was conducted Monday
afternoon in Washington, DC.  Dr. Fisk gave his approval for
continuing with the launch preparations.  The only issue in this
meeting was the establishment of the readiness of the Advanced
Range Instrumentation Aircraft (ARIA) as a launch hold criteria for
the early days of the remaining launch period.

Today, Titan is loading their attitude control fuel and their main
fuel tanks.

Data from the spacecraft's battery management tests will be
analyzed today.  There is some possibility that additional tests
may be called for tonight.

TOS (Transfer Orbit Stage) has decided that the apparent anomalous
inertial measurement system data observed during the Launch Day Dress
Rehearsal is the normal response to the disturbance of the Mobile
Service Tower roll-back.

The L-2 day Launch Site Readiness Review will be held tomorrow.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 14:39:50 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moving industry into space (was Re: Who went to Rio?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles J. Divine) writes:
>  The biggest challenge here seems to be reliable,
>cheap, routine access to space -- something people are actually
>working on.

Cheap access to space == Controlled fusion for power generation

So far:

    A) It's always been 20 years "around the corner"
    B) Current solutions have big price-tags attached
    C) Non-traditional solutions aren't getting the bucks they should.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 15:51:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: overpopulation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

      (...stuff deleted...)
> In the developed countries, the sphere
> where most readers of this forum operate politically, the birth rate is
> _below replacement_ and the biggest problem is long-term population
> _decline_ and the problems it brings, like labor shortages and loss of
> cultural and genetic diversity.

> For those of us interested in the prospect of civilization's expansion
> into space, this is an especially serious problem.  The concept of
> expanding space colonies, or a growing population on a terraformed Mars,
> is in jeopardy if, as demographics indicate, a technologically
> sophisticated population with perfect birth control would have
> birth rate of less than 1.0 per couple per lifetime, or a population
> decline of 50%/generation.
         (...stuff deleted...)
> Fertility, not physical resources, is
> the main barrier to human expansion through the cosmos.

This is somewhat off the topic, but do you realize that you have just
rebutted one of the main arguments against the existence of extraterrestrial
civilization, namely "If they exist, why haven't they visited us?"

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 11:16:48 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Nugent       ) writes:
[Tom is disputing a proposal by Prof. Alexander Abian
([e-mail]) that moving Venus might be more effective than,
ahem, "conventional" terraforming techniques.]
> How exactly do you propose to move an ENTIRE GODDAMN PLANET?????  The machinery
> to terraform a planet is peanuts compared to what you would need to do to
> move a planet.  Machinery is also not the only way to go.  Plant certain
> bacteria, etc. which ingest CO2 and put out O2 will begin the process.  Keep
> it up with more advanced plants as the temperature falls.  You would most likely
> need machinery to help, but not to do the entire thing.

James Oberg makes an interesting point about this in his book *New
Earths: Restructuring Earth and Other Planets*.  I thought a quote
might be worthwhile:

"Many controlling factors in a biosphere depend on materials or energy
flows which are remarkably small; modulation of such environmental
fulcrums by natural or artificial levers (intentionally or
accidentally) can produce effects out of all proportion to the
material and energy expended.  To coin a metaphor, it is a type of
biospherical ju-jitsu, where tiny slaps and shoves can use the
momentum of the whole planet to completely change its biological
course, without directly confronting the massive energy flows of
planetary climate.

"On Earth, such fulcrums may be vulnerable to artificial perturbation
to the extent that our planet could be rendered uninhabitable by the
manipulation of a proportionately tiny amount of energy or matter.
Conversely, on other worlds, a similarly gentle and subtle tickling of
such fulcrums may make their environments more benign."

Prof. Abian's proposal is, of course, the opposite of this idea; it is
brute force in the extreme, and the energies he needs are orders of
magnitude above the "massive energy flows of planetary climate" Oberg
is so afraid of. I presume he knows this and has his reasons to prefer
changing the planet's orbit...

Since, however, he has demonstrated massive ignorance about the nature
of Venus's climate, it's impossible to take him seriously.   I usually
enjoy Big Thinkers, but in this case I may make an exception. (-:

                  [o]
                  [|]   ///        Bill Higgins
   E               H   ///
  |8D:O:          occc))))<))      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   E               H ///
                  [|]//            Bitnet: [e-mail]
                  [|]
Bumper sticker seen on a Soyuz:    SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
    GOT HARD CURRENCY?
 TRY OUR MICROGRAVITY LAB!        Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 15:31:13 GMT
From: Josh Diamond <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio allocation
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   A judge is supposed to make decisions based on natural law, et. al.
   When he doesn't, he's called 'a felon', not 'judge'.

Incorrect.  According to the constitution, a judge is supposed to make
decisions based upon _written_ law.  Natural law is mentioned
_nowhere_ in the constitution.  As far as the US is concerned, there
is no such thing as "natural law".

This is the difference between _justice_ and _jurisprudence_.  The
judge's job is to be _jurisprudent_ -- to judge in a manner consistant
with written law.  Only when the written law is not specific, or when
there is doubt as to whether a particular law applies, can he/she
consider _justice_ in deciding a case.

Sometimes a judge is forced to make injust decisions because of laws
which are not just.  In this case it is the responsibility of the
public either to challenge the law on the basis of constitutionality,
or to elect representative who will change the law.


                        Spidey!!!


--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                         [e-mail]
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \          Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 237
------------------------------