Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no244.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 05:05:51
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #244
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 24 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 244

Today's Topics:
                             21 cm rights
                             ? about SETI
                  Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs)
                         Ion for Pluto Direct
          Mars Observer Update - 09/23/92 (2 days to launch)
                     PBS offers Space Compendium
                              Population
                     Robot Rovers: Big or Small?
                   Szabo's Comet Rendezvous Mission
                              Titan IV?
                         what use is Freedom?

    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: 23 Sep 92 23:07:14 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: 21 cm rights
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>[e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>>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.

>So let me get this straight.  Libertarians believe that I should be able to
>sue the local TV station for broadcasting radio waves in the air over my land?
>Can I also refuse to let airline pilots talk to ground control if they're over
>my house?  If I lived nearer the equator, would NASA have to refrain from
>talking to astronauts?  Would the Moon undergo a radio blackout once a day?

Something wierder occured to me after I posted this.  Do Libertarians restrict
this right to radio waves or does it apply to other frequencies as well?  For
example, can I sue my neighbor for having his outdoor lights on if I want to
sleep?  Or more interestingly, could major obervatories sue the inhabitants
of nearby cities because of light pollution?


>--
>Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?
>[e-mail]
--
Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 20:31:35 GMT
From: Richard Treitel <[e-mail]>
Subject: ? about SETI
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Brognano) writes:
|>
|>     A friend and I were discussing SETI the other day and we both were
|> wondering if there has ever been any non random radio signals from space
|> that could not be attributed to the background radio static of space.

Sure.  Go check out the story of how pulsars were discovered (should be in any
modern popular astronomy book).
                    - Richard

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 20:56:10 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Devon E Bowen)
writes:
>
> 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.
>

Yes, but a candidate's views on space often reflect his/her broader thinking
regarding science and technology.  As much as I disagree with some of Bush's
policies he has consistently proposed very generous R&D budgets, not only for
space, but for most other scientific fields.  If you look at this year's budget
proposal, an entire chapter is devoted to the merits of civilian R&D.

That is just an example, not an endorsement, but the point is that candidates
who support space in particular and R&D in general, will have a much better
idea of what investing in the future is.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 21:42:54 GMT
From: Rob Healey <[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] (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
|> [Benefits of military spending, etc...]
|>
|> >Military R&D provides jobs (Damn good paying jobs) not only for
|> >those who do the work, but also for a great deal more who make
|> >the supplies for the work.
|>
|> So what about the benefits from just plain space exploration?  Imagine the
|> spinoffs once we get a space platform working, or get a colony on the moon?
|> Or for that matter, make it to the moon again.  The benfits of this
|> could be huge.  At the same time, people are getting employed and less
|> money is going to trying to kill someone else.
|>
    What I want to know is why everybody WANTS government involved
    with ANY of the space exploration? Government is what generally
    messes up perfectly good ideas. Doesn't matter whether it's
    a Republican or a Democrat in office, space utilization suffers
    because its at the spending whim of a government. B^(.

    Government is OK at doing initial exploration, i.e. Christipher
    Columbus, but things don't get rolling till private enterprise get's
    involved, i.e. the colonies were usually paid for by investors who
    expected the colonies to pay for themselves.

    What we REALLY need to do is convince investors that starting
    a colony on the moon in our time is as good of an idea as
    starting a colony in the new world was back in the 17th
    century.

    I think we'll be FAR better off if government gets out of the
    space business and private/commercial interests take over. To
    this end maybe it would be a good thing for Clinton/Gore to
    get elected because then we'd have to de-tox from government
    control and funding of space related projects. This is assuming
    they won't fund space activitys.

    There is ALOT of pork involved with dropping space funding so I have
    my doubts if Clinton/Gore could really make good on the "promise" of
    cutting funding. Their high tech re-investment positions would force
    them to admit space funding is a good way to "reinvest" the "peace
    dividend" money. Even "slick Willy" would have a tough time
    dodging this unless he borrowed some of Ronny's Teflon...

    In my opinion we'd be alot better off getting away from government
    funding and toward private/commercial funding of space exploration,
    exploitation and colonization.

        -Rob

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

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 04:50:07 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct
Newsgroups: sci.space

Greg Macrae writes:

>> 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.

(a) You're evading the issue.  (b) You're putting words into my mouth.

(a) The issue is cost.  Please tell me how much it would cost to develop
and flight-qualify an ion propulsion system appropriate for putting, for
example, 100 kg on a 7 year trajectory to Pluto.  Remember, these costs
are going to be included in the mission cost.  Yes, we can argue that they
shouldn't be, but that's life.  I wholeheartedly agree with the proposition
that technology development be decoupled from any one specific mission, but
unfortunately you and I don't make these decisions.  For costing purposes,
assume a new start in 1995.  Remember that designs must be frozen well in
advance of launch, so we would need to have a fully qualified and reliable
propulsion system within a very short time.

(b) I never said ion propulsion was slow.  Chemical features higher
acceleration, shorter duration propulsion; ion features lower acceleration,
longer duration propulsion.  If the duration is sufficiently long, low
acceleration can still achieve quite high velocities.  That's basic physics.

>   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.

Theoretically, ion is great for fast Pluto missions.  I don't recall anybody
claiming that it was not appropriate.  Practically speaking, however, the
technology demonstration has yet to be done, and that is a very valid
objection.

> 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.

So why don't you, if you know what they are?  Let the reader determine if
any of the objections are applicable to a fast Pluto mission.

> If you have some that I am unaware of, let's hear
> them...

But we don't know what you are aware of yet.  I'm not in the mood to play
50 questions.  When the Outer Planets Science Working Group had its
presentation from the ion drive folks, the cards were laid out on the table
and the group collectively assessed the situation and felt that the time was
not yet right, while at the same time thinking highly of the prospects.  But
there's only so much risk a group is willing to take.  If we had to base a
decision on your presentation so far, I am quite certain it would be rejected
simply because you're listing all of the great things ion should be able to
do while concealing the "valid objections" that may or may not be applicable
to a fast Pluto mission.  OPSWG isn't going to play that kind of poker.

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

Date: 24 Sep 92 06:54:41 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 09/23/92 (2 days to launch)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Glenn Cunningham, Mars Observer Project Manager

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

                       Launch Minus 2 Days

Date of report:     9-23-92        Time of report:     6:00 PM EDT

Titan's fueling of their main tanks, which started on Tuesday,
continued into this morning.  Ordinance installation for both Titan
and TOS (Transfer Orbit Stage) followed the fueling operations.

A good Operational Readiness Test (ORT) for transfer of the vehicle
state vector was conducted today.  Data flow for backup spacecraft
telemetry from Canberra to Building AO was demonstrated.

[The Mars Observer MRT (Mission Readiness Test) held yesterday at SPC 40
 (Signal Processing Center 40 in Canberra, Australia) was successful.
 TOS and the Mars Observer telemetry processing was validated by
 the project.  Back feed of both TOS and 16 Kbits/sec MO spacecraft
 data was also very successful.  Canberra will be the first Deep Space
 Network antenna that will acquire MO's X-band signal after launch.

                                  Ron Baalke
]

The Launch - 2 Day Readiness Review was held this morning.  There
were only three open issues which will be worked off by tomorrow
morning.  The only spacecraft issue involves working the details of
the revised battery charging/temperature management strategy with
the Titan countdown conductor which has been done at this writing.

The spacecraft, which is ready for launch, has been powered off
since early Tuesday morning.

Titan has a couple of problems which are launch constraints until
they are solved.  First, the battery for the Wideband
Instrumentation System failed a leakage (voltage to case)
measurement.  The spare battery was installed, but the failure must
be explained.  Second, two initiators for the destruct system
failed bridgewire resistance test, and new ones are being obtained.
Again, the failure needs explanation.  Lastly, the material in the
oxidizer vent ducts was found to be incompatible with the oxidizer,
and the ducts must be replaced tonight.  Titan is now behind
schedule, and are hoping to catch up by tomorrow morning.

The NASA Administrator, Mr. Dan Goldin, spoke to a group of the
Mars Observer launch team personnel representing all the centers
and major contractors this afternoon.  He was very enthusiastic
about the upcoming events.

Our prime concern at this time is the weather.  We are constrained
by the approach of rain and lightning, and the wind direction is a
constraint relative to the spread of a toxic cloud should there be
a near-pad destruct.  Weather, which would allow a launch, has been
marginal for the past day relative to these constraints.

Tomorrow, the MOC (Mars Observer Camera) cover, and the MOLA (Mars

Observer Laser Altimeter) cover and eye safe filter will be removed.
AT L-24 hours, the spacecraft will be powered on for final time for
launch preparations.

This is launch minus 42 hours and 27 minutes and counting......
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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 18:29:49 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PBS offers Space Compendium
Newsgroups: sci.space

X-Date: 17 Sep 92 18:58:21 EDT
X-Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA
Lines: 26

TO:     Education Liasons, School Librarians, ITV Coordinators
FR:     PBS Elementary/Secondary Service
RE:     1992 International Space Year Compendium
DT:     September 17, 1992

INVESTIGATE AND CELEBRATE SPACE EXPLORATION!

The "1992 International Space Year" Compendium has been jointly
produced by PBS E/SS and the Student Space Foundation with
support from the National Science Teachers Association's
Space, Science & Technology Division to assist educators in
grades K-12 in their planning and celebration for the 1992
International Year of Space. It is also designed to help
educators and students investigate and celebrate space
exploration for many years to come.  This comprehensive
compendium lists hundreds of classroom resources, including
videos, books, research reports, posters, computer software,
space societies, teacher training workshops, music, and more!
Parents may also find this useful in supporting budding
scientists/astronomers.  135 pgs.  To order copies of the
compendium, send a $10.00 check to: 1992 IYS; PBS E/SS, Attn:
Tom; 1320 Braddock Place; Alexandria, VA 22314-1698.  SORRY,
NO PURCHASE ORDERS ACCEPTED.

END

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 22:26:13 GMT
From: me <dudemon@dakine>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

Edward V. Wright ([e-mail]) wrote:
:
: Oh?  You haven't even read about the spotted owl?  The environmentalist
: position there is that the species must be saved regardless of how many
: jobs are lost.  Now, there are certainly cases where a specific type of
: environmental protection may be worth some job loss, and this may be one
: of them, but that is not the environmentalist position.  Whenever
: someone starts talking about cost/benefit analyses, the environmentalists
: do not contest the costs and benefits involved -- they just yell bloody
: murder.
:
 <deleted>
:
: Um, I notice you didn't answer his question.  Why don't you volunteer
: to sacrifice *your* job, or give up part of *your* income, to avoid
: "inconveniencing other species."
:

mr. wright,
    i think you picked a poor example.  "jobs" are not a finite resource.
Humans can create more jobs at will;  workers can be retrained and/or
relocated.  However, all that nasty training and moving is pretty inconvient
for the humans involved, no doubt about that.  So if i'm grokking your
point correctly, here is how i interpret your view of the cost/benefit
tradeoff:

COST: a few dead birds.         BENEFIT:  Noone loses their cherished job,
      (one extinct species)               has to learn a new trade or move.
                                          In other words, no humans are
                                          inconvenienced.


however, someone with a bit less of a (hmm, twisted isnt quite the right word)
homocentric perspective might see it like this:


COST: a few inconvienced humans. BENEFIT: one more species saved to
                                          enhance the biodiversity of
                                          the ecosphere.  Dosent
                                          significantly alter the balance
                                          of the environment, the consequences
                                          of which humans know very little.

as for THE QUESTION (tm), i do give up part of my income to avoid
inconveniencing other species. not huge but still significant portions of it
goes toward supporting groups that i feel contribute positively in this way.
some of my favorites include: cousteau society, california league of
conservation voters, sierra club and yes, even that old left wing favorite,
GreenPeace!  I also AVOID  donating any of to groups that i feel contribute
negatively in this manner:  most notably the Republican presidential
reelection campaign.

so i would like to rephrase THE QUESTION (tm) in a slightly less homocentric
manner:

How many species are you willing to sacrifice to save some humans from a little
inconvience?

anxiously awaiting your reply,

tim "extiction isnt just inconvient, it's forever" edwards

-----------------------------------
tim edwards     [e-mail]
cyber dude
autodesk, inc.

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

Date: 24 Sep 92 07:22:12 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robot Rovers: Big or Small?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Karl Altenburg) writes...
>>Some support the traditional large rover.  [...]
>>Others support the non-traditional, small (insect-like), multiple,
>>cooperative rovers.

Phrased the way Karl did, this is a fake issue, like "unmanned vs.
manned." What we are really talking about are design tradeoffs.

It's easy to make small rovers that have a short range, modest power
requirements, and lots of computing power.  They're great if you just
want to explore the neighborhood of the landing site.  For range
measured in tens of meters, you can even use tethers!  And they can be
carried on small landers, or in large numbers on big landers, so they
fit flexibly into mission designs for missions of all sizes.

Such instruments as cameras, X-ray fluorescence spectrometers,
and alpha-scattering spectrometers can be made pretty small and are
suitable for small rovers.  I don't know much about seismographs or
aeronomy instruments.

It's rather harder to build a small rover with tens or hundreds of
kilometers of range.  (The small-rover people are working on it,
though!)

Some equipment-- for instance, a drill to take cores from soil or
rocks-- doesn't scale down to small sizes very well, and is suitable
only for large rovers.  And the thermal problems of enduring a lunar
night, which Lunokhod had to solve (radioisotope heat sources and an
insulating lid that closed), are probably easier for a more
massive lander.  Some redundant systems might be incorporated into a
big rover without a large fractional mass penalty (imagine two
shovels instead of one).

For something like the Mars Rover Sample Return, where a rover and
return rocket are landed and the rover collects samples from a wide
area and stuffs them into the rocket, a big rover is the right answer.
It can carry lots of samples and a hefty RTG power supply.  This is
admittedly a "Cadillac mission" with pricetag about ten gigabucks, and
out of favor in the new FCB (fastercheaperbetter) NASA.

There are compromises, too, like using a big rover as a bus to carry
shorter-range rovers.  The Erebus experiment will do this, as well as
using the bus as a camera platform to show what the little rover is
doing from the outside.  A bit like the camera ship that always
accompanies the *Enterprise* on *Star Trek*...

I would recommend looking at the *Case For Mars* series of conference
proceedings, published by Univelt, to see how people were treating
these design issues in the Eighties.

> It would be
> interesting to see who would get the first rover to Mars.  Maybe we can
> get another little space race going :-).

I think there is *already* a space race going: I believe that ISAS,
the Japanese space agency for science, and NASDA, the Japanese space
agency for engineering, are competing to land on the Moon.  Remember,
you heard it here first.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 22:36:26 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Szabo's Comet Rendezvous Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>Here is hopefully a more practical alternative -- how about substituting
>the Artemis lunar lander from SEI for the Mariner Mk. II derivative,
>and a plasma thruster for the chemical upper stage?  Here is a comparative
>breakdown:

Well, I think we can safely say that this _would_ be more practical than the
previous suggestion.  :-)

>Rosetta/Artemis            Rosetta/Mariner Mk. II
>---------------            ----------------------
>Ariane 4     $120m        Titan 4      $270m
>electric stage  $100m        Centaur          $30m
>Artemis        $150m           Mariner Mk. II $1,000m
>misc./ops    $200m                 $200m
>TOTAL COST    $570m                   $1,500m
>time til return  6 yrs                8 yrs

Couple questions for you:  (I'm not flaming - just asking)

The data I have puts Titan IV _with_ Centaur at $230 million.  Granting
inflation/price changes and all, I'm still skeptical about the $300m figure -
where does it come from?

Where are the prices for the Artemis and electric stage coming from?  I always
get skeptical about price tags on vaporware.

It seems to me that Artemis may not be what you want for this.  It's designed
to land significant payloads on the Moon, which means it's got a big engine.
Presuemably you would have the electric stage providing propulsion both to and
from the comet, and would only need a small chemical rocket for the rendezvous

It you can point me towards references on Artemis I'd apreciate it.  I'm doing
some graphics of it for someone who wants to put a one meter telescope on the
Moon.

--
Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 23:03:31 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan IV?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John McDonald) writes:

>Is the Mars Observer being launched on the new Titan IV,
>or on the Titan III (similar to those that launched
>Voyager and Viking) ?

MO will be launched on a Commercial Titan, I believe the only one Martin
Marietta has an order for.

>If not, what is the planned first launch of a Titan IV?

Titan IV made it's first launch on June 14 1989.  You don't hear about it as
much because it's mainly used for secret military stuff.


--
Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 22:56:23 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: what use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (USRNAME) writes:
>>According to a reliable source, at a space station
>>utilization meeting of 1500 people earlier in the year, only
>>15  of the people in attendance considered
>>themselves to be space station users, as opposed to
>>contractors, NASA engineers, etc. The question comes to mind
>>"What's wrong with this picture?"

>_Now_ it's asked!  The question that comes to my mind is,
>why wasn't this asked in early 80's when NASA was first pushing
>for it (and when people like me lobby for it, I take part of the
>blame).  Why do we pursue this technology as a religious sacrament
>instead pursuing that which is useful to people?  The human
>race has launched over half a dozen space stations, and planned
>many more, spending $10's of billions in the process.  Surely if
>there was a use for them, we would have found it by now!

Oh sure.  The Xsoviets have decided that stations are useless.  This explains
why they are so commited to theirs, and even plan to build another, despite
their economic problems.

>Yet there are only _fifteen_ users for this $120 billion
>space station!

Nick, this is a Twain Statistic if I ever saw one (as in "Lies, damn lies and..)
You just took a fuzzy attendance figure thirdhand and decided that was the
number of users Freedom was going to have.  I'll ignore the price figure
because anyone who claims to know exactly how much it's going to cost is trying
to convince you of something.  The figures I've seen suggest that there were
several times more (though still not what I'd call "many").  But this still
ignores the fact that just because someone happens to work for NASA doesn't
make them irrelevant.  It also ignores that fact that most people are waiting
to see what happens before they commit themselves to an experiment.  Dennis
seems excited about SSF, a materials person I know is excited about SSF.  Why
do ignore the people who _are_ interested, just because SSF ignores your
personal intrest in comets?
I'd be the first one to agree that managment of SSF has been bad, that there
are problems with it, but please get a second opinion before you decide nobody
wants to do anything with it.

Disclaimer:  You won't get an impartial opinion out of me.  I worked on the
project.
--
Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?
[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 244
------------------------------