Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no262.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Thu,  4 Mar 93 05:11:11
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #262
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  4 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
                                <None>
            Bell Rocket Belt and WASP (was Re: Rocketeer)
                Galileo Earth-Moon Animation (3 msgs)
                    Opening up Space to everyone!
               Query on Sun Synchronous Orbits (2 msgs)
                                 SEDS
                      SOLAR gravity assist? Yup.
                             SSF_REdesign
           SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
                            SSI activities
Supernova may have caused huge void around solar system [Release 93-36] (Forwarded)
                     Why Apollo didn't continue?

    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: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 21:05:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: <None>
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail]. (Thomas E. Smith) asks:
>>     Now, researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
>>Greenbelt, Md., say evidence suggests it was formed by the
>>supernova or explosion of a star known as Geminga about 340,000
>>years ago.
>
>   Where did this star that no one has seen for hundreds of thousands of
> years get its name?

Geminga was only recently identified with its optical counterpart.  It
was first detected as a gamma ray source, and later correlated with
x-ray and radio detection.  I *think* the name Geminga translates
roughly as "What the heck is it?"

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 21:53:11 GMT
From: Larry Wall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Rocket Belt and WASP (was Re: Rocketeer)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
:
: >Oh, did I mention that I *also* have a slideshow on the nuclear
: >airplane? (-:
:
: Slideshow or SIDEshow, Mr. Ringtop?

In this newsgroup it's likelier to be a snideshow than a rideshow.

:                     I have talked to Ehud, and lived.

Yeah, pity about Ehud though.

Larry Wall
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 23:11:30 GMT
From: "Robert M. Unverzagt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Earth-Moon Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Does this movie exist in any other format, like .gl?  Sorry
if this has been asked already, but I'm new to this thread.
Thanks.

Shag

--
       Rob Unverzagt        |   Last call for alcohol.
  [e-mail]   |   Last call for freedom of speech.
[e-mail] |                            - Jello Biafra

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 21:24:45 GMT
From: Andreas Hestermeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Earth-Moon Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Does anybody now wether the animation is also available for a PC ?
(*.FLI format or *.GL format ?)

Thanks for any anwers,.
   Andreas Hestermeyer

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

Date: 1 Mar 1993 22:08 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Earth-Moon Animation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes...
>This is, perhaps, the most impressive and emotionally evocative graphic
>presentation yet released, and that is saying a whole lot, given the
>marvelous pictues we have seen from NASA, especially those from JPL
>during the Voyager encounters.

I'm glad you liked it.  Here's another comment someone said:

>>it is REALLY F&*%ING COOL!!!!!!!!  totally amazing!!!   i couldn't believe it
>>the first time i set it to loop and clicked play.

>I couldn't find the combination to display the movie using NIH Image, but
>it opens quite naturally using "Popcorn" under Macintosh Quicktime 1.5.

Here's how to set it up for NIH Image.

   o ftp to ames.arc.nasa.gov and grab the
     pub/SPACE/ANIMATION/Earth_Moon_Movie.Hqx file.
   o Use the BINHEX4 program on it, it will convert to a PICS file.
   o Set Image's memory partition to about 10 megs.
   o Launch it and "Open" the animation from the File menu.
   o Enjoy!
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | for anything.

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 00:21:13 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Opening up Space to everyone!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin Batty) writes:
>>
>>With equal opportunities legislation, coupled to a good standard of medical
>>support (not unlike standard life-support!) the presence of disabled people
>>in space seems a real possibility. There really isn't any need that I can see

(hope the editor didn't eat this post! :-)  The editor at the site here dosent
work well when logging in from off-campus)

Anyway,

I had been wondering the same thing myself.  Due to a back problem I have
difficulty standing or walking more than 30 seconds at a time.

This makes getting around under normal one-g difficult, to say the least.

Theoretically, would this make adapting to zero-g easier?  I know the
multiple g's of a launch would probably be a problem, so this is probably
only a thought-exercise at best.  Still, for someone has has problems under
normal gravity, would microgravity eliminate those problems or is there
something I'm missing in this theory.

No flames please! :-)  I mean, I know I probably won't make it into space
myself, this is just something I had been thinking about.

Simon

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 08:54:36 PST
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Query on Sun Synchronous Orbits

In Space Digest V16 #252,
[e-mail] writes:

>Can anybody email me an explanation of what is meant by
>a sun-synchronous orbit is?
>
>Thanks.

For a 90 degree polar orbit, the orbit plane remains fixed in inertial space.

For a sun synchronous orbit, the orbit plane rotates with the same angular
velocity as the Earth in its orbit about the sun.  Thus, the orientation of
the orbit plane remains fixed relative to the Earth-Sun line, allowing the
spacecraft to remain in the same local time meridian plane throughout its
operational life.  The table below, from page 69 of _Spacecraft Attitude
Determination and Control_, James R. Wertz, Ed.,  gives an idea of the
properties of Sun synchronous orbits.


  Mean      e=0   |         e=0.1
Altitude     i    |    i       Hp     Ha
  (km)     (deg)  |  (deg)    (km)   (km)

     0     95.68  |
   200     96.33  |
   400     97.03  |
   600     97.79  |
   800     98.60  |  98.43      82   1518

  1000     99.48  |  99.29     262   1738
  2000    104.89  | 104.59    1162   2838
  3000    112.41  | 111.94    2062   3938
  4000    122.93  | 122.19    2962   5038
  5000    138.60  | 137.32    3862   6138
  5974    180.00  | 168.55    4738   7209

i=inclination, e=eccentricity, Hp=perigee height, Ha=apogee height
Inclinations greater than 90 degrees are retrograde.

DMSP (Defense Meteorological Satellite Program) satellites are nominally
launched into 832 km orbits of 98.7 degrees inclination.  At least two DMSP
spacecraft are on orbit at any time, with at least one in the 6:00-18:00, or
dawn-dusk meridian, and at least one in the 12:00-24:00, or noon-midnight
meridian.  This is handy for our instrument, which counts particles and
measures their energies, because it keeps one of the many variables fairly
constant.

I expect Motorola's Iridium will use sun-synchronous orbits.  In case you
haven't heard, Iridium is a proposal to launch 77 small communications
satellites into 11 orbit planes to give global coverage for a kind of
cellular telephone.  The element Iridium has 77 electrons, hence the name.
Actually, the plan now is to launch 66 somewhat larger satellites, but there
are no plans to change the name to Dysprosium.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Let machines multiply, doing the work of many,
                     But let the people have no use for them." - Lao Tzu

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 23:44:02 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Query on sun synchronous orbits
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>Can anybody email me an explanation of what is meant by
>a sun-synchronous orbit is?

Posted as being probably of general interest...  (Also, I will ignore
some fine points in the interests of clarity; pedantic nitpickers will
please keep quiet.)

The Earth is not a perfect sphere, and this means that orbits around it
are not simple Keplerian orbits.  In particular, with certain exceptions,
the plane of a satellite orbit does not remain fixed with respect to
the stars -- it slowly rotates around the Earth's axis.  This is mostly
a nuisance, but you can play some useful tricks with it.  Notably, if
you pick orbital inclination and altitude right, you can get an orbit
whose plane shifts eastward slightly less than one degree per day.

The significance of that?  With respect to the stars, the Sun appears
to move eastward by slightly less than one degree per day, because
of the Earth's motion in its orbit.  If you match this motion with
a motion of your satellite's orbit plane, that orbit plane stays in
a constant relationship to the Earth-Sun line.

What good is this?  Well, it turns out that the orbits in question
are near-polar.  They are wonderful for remote sensing and for spy
satellites, because the satellite is always seeing the ground below
at the same Sun angle, so shadows etc. are consistent from one image
of an area to the next.  They also give the satellite a period of
eight months or so in which it is in continuous sunlight (there are
eclipses in the remaining months because the Earth's axis is tilted
with respect to the Earth-Sun line), which can be very handy,
especially if the satellite's mission only lasts a few months --
constantly going into and out of the Earth's shadow is a tremendous
headache for power supply and temperature control.  There are other
minor advantages.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 93 17:45:14 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: SEDS

Dennis Announces:
>>I love posts such as this. Hey Matt! Guess what? NASA (remember that mean old
>>ugly no count agency that Allen hates) is about to do a mission called the
>>Small Expendable Deployer System (SEDS)....

Allen points out:
>Dennis, I am glad to see that NASA is doing this experiment. However your
>implied arguement that since NASA is doing SEDS right it folleows that
>NASA does everything right isn't logically valid.

I'd ask:

1) What was the schedule for the actual launch for SEDS?

2) How many programs can you think of that spent time in this stage, yet
   never moved on?

I can think of a few, but then, I'm not the tech-mage that some of you
are, so maybe you can think of more;  CRAF, a mission that was very
inexpensive by NASA standards, and one I thought would have been quite
important for actual exploration, once was a mission 'about to be done',
before it was killed.  Fred may yet be killed.  Galileo almost got nailed.

So, beware the fallacy which Allen warns of, and don't count your
chickens before they launch.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 00:49:30 GMT
From: Dave Rickel <[e-mail]>
Subject: SOLAR gravity assist? Yup.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
|> This is long, but you'll like it, I promise.

Quite right.

|> So I'm posting this not only for everybody's amusement, but to take it
|> further.  What is the maximum delta-V available from a solar gravity
|> assist in a Sun-Jupiter solar system, assuming your probe can skim the
|> surface of the Sun?

Let's see how far down my throat i can cram my foot.

The total speed change you can get from a gravity slingshot is twice the
orbital speed of the body you're bouncing off of.  Using your figure of
.782 m/s, this gives a speed change of 1.56 m/s.  Not all that useful.

On the other hand, you can get a whale of a velocity change.  The maximum
velocity change is twice the escape velocity--using my handy CRC, i get an
escape velocity for the Sun of 617.23 km/sec, escape velocity for Jupiter is
60.238 km/sec.  Jupiter's orbital speed is 13.052 km/sec.

Anyway, assuming you could get out to Jupiter's orbit in the first place,
you ought to be able to use it to pump you up to 22 km/sec or so (my simplistic
model says that there is no Jupiter-sun-Jupiter encounter where the
object is moving at more than solar escape velocity when it enters Jupiter's
sphere of influence for the second encounter).

|> 1. If the answer is usefully large, can you follow a solar slingshot
|> with a Jovian slingshot and get even more energy?  Can you somehow
|> repeat this trick for endless energy pumping, or show that this is
|> impossible?

See above.  I figure you can have only one encounter where the final energy
is greater than that needed for solar escape.

|>
|> 2. How much help do you get when you throw in Saturn? Rs= 1.427E9 km,
|> Ms= 5.688E26 kg, Msun=3498.5 Msaturn.

Ahh.  Now it gets interesting (i.e., even messier).  Saturn has an escape
velocity of 36.056 km/sec, and is orbiting at 9.6383 km/sec.  We're lining
up for an interplanetary billiards shot.  It might be possible to arrange
for a couple of planetary encounters after the probe achieves solar escape
velocity--maybe Jupiter/Saturn/Jupiter.  This would be a fun one to simulate--
i'm guessing 30 km/sec after the final Jupiter encounter.

|> 4. How *do* you engineer a spacecraft to go arbitrarily close to the
|> Sun?  (Spare me Brin's "refrigerator laser,"  I already know about it
|> and his ship uses magic technology for its other systems.)

Umm.  Build it tough, so it can take it.  Give it a lot of mass, assuming
the solar encounter will be brief and the electronics in the middle won't
turn into soup.  Be sure to allow for tidal forces.


david rickel
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 19:41:31 GMT
From: Anton Gaidos <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF_REdesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does anyone have any idea what the redesign will be now that we know
there will be another redesign. Any speculation would be interesting
reading
Thanks
Anton

Not NeXT, NeXTNoMore, NeXon

-- NewsGrazer, a NeXTstep(tm) news reader, posting --
M>UQR=&8P7&%N<VE[7&9O;G1T8FQ<9C!<9FUO9&5R;B!#;W5R:65R.WT*7&UA
M<F=L,3(P"EQM87)G<C$R,`I<<&%R9%QT>#$Q-3)<='@R,S`T7'1X,S0U-EQT
M>#0V,#A<='@U-S8P7'1X-CDQ,EQT>#@P-C1<='@Y,C$V7'1X,3`S-CA<='@Q
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#"GT*
`

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 16:38:26
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
   >
   >   References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
   >   NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
   >
   >   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >   |In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
   >
   >Well, in some places truck drivers will actually give hitchhikers a
   >free ride, they figure they're heading that way anyway and the
   >marginal cost from the extra weight is negligible.

   What's the Point of this Stein?  Get Away Specials ride the STS super Cheap.
   But there is a significant difference between a GAScan and a 12,000
   lbm Thruster module.   YEah, I can hitchHike occasionally on the
   interstates,  but do you think I could get some trucker to
   take me and 5,000 pounds of cargo, even though he has deadhead space?

The point of this was to continue a rather minor sidethread
where Allen and you were arguing that any freight is always
charged at full amortised cost.

You have forgotten that the question was about fuel only
or fuel+thrusters, the claim was that the weight difference
was costing NASA $X00million per flight, when in fact the
fuel has to be flown anyway and the extra weight of a new
thruster pack does not mean the supply flight now costs
twice as much just because the refuelling component is
twice the weight.
_If_ ditching the thrusters would allow them to fly
say a TDRSS or a comsat with the fuel you might have a case,
but in practise I expect they'll be carrying people
and lots of little stuff which are marginally affected by
the extra weight of the thrusters.

   >on standby figuring (correctly) that the marginal cost is negligible,
   >the price charged to regular standbys is what the market will bear,
   >based on how big a discount people will demand to accept the
   >uncertainty of not getting a flight.

   And Launcher companies sell secondary payloads much less then primaries,
   but then you accept the orbit,  and the mass restrictions they stick you with.
   Do you think 12,000 pounds is a secondary payload?   and can SSF
   accept uncertainty on when the next Shuttle will arrive witha PM?
   I don't think so.

Any launch method you use has uncertainty, name a booster that
can launch 6000-12000 pounds that might not be grounded for 1-3 years.
Remember the shuttle has to go to Fred anyway to bring people and
other consumables, do you know that there is the volume to use
the "extra" 6000 pounds for anything you can charge for?

   >   Wingo was trying to claim that thrusters fly for free.  Allen pointed
   >   out that was a crock.  You then come up with some argument on the
   >   cost being the operating cost divided by payload.   Sadly, that's
   >   allen's point, too.  The cost of dragging thrusters to orbit does
   >   cost 10,000/pound under any rational accounting scheme.  any claims to
   >   the contrary is a fiction.

   >This is false; you repeatedly assume that the cost per pound is the
   >total operation cost+amortised cost divided by pounds flown; it is
   >no such thing - if NASA stopped in its tracks and flew nothing
   >it would still cost several billion per year.

   Stein.  What do you mean.  NASA has the capacity to put up about 8-12
   Shuttle flights per year.   We the taxpayers pay them 4 and some Billion
   a year to do this.  Now every SSF devoted mission means somebody else
   waits for a mission.  Now if NASA went to a total stand-down
   it would mean they are considering terminating SHuttle Ops.  That means
   Manned SPace division gets re-organized.

No, it could mean they're doing a safety review, or that Greenpeace
has sued them to stop SRB emissions...

   If they stand down for a few months, things ride,  but if they stand down
   for 3 years like post challenger, believe me,  people get sacked....

Oh yeah, name one.

   Now if they terminate SHuttle,  lots of people go overboard.  If you say
   they shouldn't because NASA is A JOBS Program,  then that's communism.
   it didn't work there, it doesn't work here.

Bzzt. Usenet rules of debate number 2, gratuitous invoking of
Communism out of context, you lose.

   >   |
   >   |Allen, what is the development cost of learning how to do
   >   |automatic refuelling and over how many flights will you amortise it?
   >   I believe allen did those numbers.  He proposed that at 8% rate of return
   >   and 4 Billion up front in engineering, you payback in 4 years.

   >Which is sheer fantasy, the $4 billion up front don't exist and
   >therefore there is no payback. NASA doesn't get a tax write off

   NASA has a 13-14 billion dollar budget.  THey could fund any program
   ona multi-year basis.  They just odn't choose to.  They want to waste
   money.  it justifies jobs better.

Excuse me? You claim to know Public Administration and also claim
that NASA could divert $4billion from Congressional allocation
into a development program like that. Right.

   >for investments, if they reduce future operations they probably
   >just get less money to operate with. More importantly they never

   Ah.   The mind of the bureaucrat takes over.  The more we spend, the
   more we get.  Not do more with less.

That is part of the reality of the system in which NASA operates,
if you can change it, more power to you.

   >get the upfront money in the first place - they certainly can't
   >borrow it on the open market!

   You could argue, given the Deficit, that NASA Borrows it's entire
   budget on the open market.

No you could not.

   Steinn.  Have you ever studied business or government?   Rate of return
   analysis applies wether you are a government or a business.  it only
   becomes problematic, when one is investing in a public good.
   The shuttle is a very measurable Service, provided bt hte governemnt,
   and as such ROI and ROR are normal measures for it.

Is it now, can you tell me how much investment was made in the
shuttle, how much of that was strictly STS development and how
much was generic development on materials, space suits, hypersonic
flight etc that _is_ a public good?
    What charges can you claim against public good launches?
Do you put a hidden charge on "commercial" launches of National
Security missions because the development costs on those were sunk
by the government?

   Stick to astro-physics.  you won't be so off.

I don't think it were astrophysicists that generated the system
NASA operates in, I do believe most of the culprits had MBAs or PA degrees,
or law. And very few were communists [sic].

   >   |    Do you propose flying fewer shuttle flights without the
   >   |resupply (in which case the marginal cost on the remaining flights
   >   |increase) or should NASA redirect those flights to another purpose?
   >   |Or should they simply fire 20,000 support staff - in which case what
   >   |is the cost of severance (including any welfare support to the
   >   |government)?

   >   Neither of these questions are relevant to the Freedom PMO.  THey are
   >   a problem for Johnson, kennedy and HQ.   IT is the job of Reston to
   >   do the most with the least dollars.   It's HQ's job to figure out how to
   >   rebalance missions.   What if we signed a deal on 5 energiyas.  suddenly
   >   26 shuttle missions go by the way.  Is that restons fault?  of course not.
   >   The assumption is HQ will either direct new shuttle missions or
   >   reduce the program size.   simple enough and nobody's problem
   >   but theirs.

   >This is pure nonsense. NASA is not a group of trading companies,
   >and its purpose is to find out how to carry out certain objectives,
   >if possible, given this years budget. They can't borrow upfront costs
   >and they are not free to buy from arbitary suppliers, a significant
   >part of their mission has been to find out how to carry out certain
   >objectives in space and to maintain a group of people who have the
   >experience of carrying out those activities.

   IT is not the Mission of Freedom to be a welfare program inside of
   NASA.  By your reasoning, now SHuttle has no raison d'etre other then
   th fly SSF.  If SHuttle is a good, practical system, then it will
   support other missions.  If it isn't it will die.   That's evolution!

Isn't it? I think in reality it actually is part of Fred's mission,
and it sucks, unless you happen to be one of the NASA people hoping
to hang on until there is funding for some real missions. Who do you
think defines Fred's mission, and what do you think it is.

   By your reasoning, if someone invented a 10 dollar anti-gravity drive
   that needed no maintenance, and meant a buick could make a good
   rocket, then  it should be scrapped because it would not employ the
   NASA Shuttle Army and it's political power.

Nope, but if you claimed you needed only $4billion to develop
the anti-gravity drive and why don't they scrap the STS and fire
100,000 people to let you fund development you might encounter
a little resistance...

   Stein,  stop thinking like a communist.

[sic] get a life.

   NASA borrows all sorts of up-front money.  all decisions are based
   upon investment vs payback  how do you think shuttle was developed.
   They borrowed 30 billion  and threw out saturn, which only cost
   500 million a launch.

No, NASA is funded from current operating revenues, at most about 20%
of its funds can currently be considered borrowed. If the US
government ever splits the budget into "investment" and "current
expenses" it will be interesting to see what fraction of the NASA
budget is considered "investment" and funded on borrowed money...

   >   Allen makes good points,  and given i have a masters in Business and
   >   Public administration, I would say in keeping with accepted practice.
   >   Politically naive, oftentimes, but acceptable.

   >   I would challenge you steinn to find any textbook which dictates
   >   that allen is wrong.

   >Allen is wrong because he treats NASA as if it were a small business
   >operating in a free market, and it isn't. It is not at all clear to
   >me that it should be either.

   Again.  I challenge you to find any text on Public Administration that
   says Allens accounting is wrong.

A lot of the world's problems seem to be tracable to MBAs and
microeconomists overapplying limited models of toy worlds to reality.

   Allen is wrong to consider ALL of Nasa a small business, but in terms of
   flight operations.  THey Are.

   NASA's research branches and Advanced test labs are "Public Goods".
   they are not and never should be considered businesses.  But NASA's
   communications  group is a service.  and is measured against public
   companies, and is contracte d for as often as is provided in-house.

   Shuttle operations are again a measurable service, and as such should
   be run in something approximating business rules.

   Of course not.  You find me any book written by other then Marx, that
   says so, and I'll gladly change my views.  but Currently the SHuttle

Gee,you mean all I have to do is to dig out a more modern text on
communism and you'll convert ;-)

   system is runa s a communist state  and functions as well as one.

Yeah, yeah, of course it would do ever so much better in a _real_ free
market...

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 1 Mar 1993 20:51:38 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSI activities
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Someone asked what the Space Studies Institute had been accomplishing
recently. Here's the word from the last fundraising letter:

    "By the end of August, SSI completed the current phase of glass/glass
    composite research with McDonnell Douglas and Alcoa Goldsworthy
    Engineering by supporting an intern over the summer. The intern, Jonas
    Hodges, and the principal researcher, John Garvey, will brief the
    community on their work at the upcoming SSI conference in May.

    "Together we conducted the SSI Gallup poll which will help in SSI's
    strategic planning process to solidify its image, increase its strength
    and achieve its mission in the face of the loss of Dr. O'Neill.

    "SSI launched a new research project ``Lightcraft'' (featured in the
    last newslette) which is designed to bring beamed energy propulsion to
    proof of concept. These efforts in addition to our continued educational
    and outreach programs made 1992 a productive and successful year.

    "Looking ahead, the organization plan for 1993 is outlined in your
    current newsletter in greater detail, but briefly will focus efforts on:
    holding the conference from May 12-15 here in Princeton; briefing the
    Clinton Administration on SSI's activities; placing articles in the
    popular media about the benefits of solar power satellites; seeking
    funding from outside sources to reprint _The High Frontier_;
    establishing a volunteer force (opportunities for members and Senior
    Associates are listed in the newsletter); and membership expansion.

    "To complete the Research Plan, the Board of Directors are finalizing
    planes for sponsorship of over $30,000 of research in the next six
    months. In addition, they are developing a list of projects in the
    $10,000 to $25,000 range to be considered for sponsorship over the next
    two years. All projects will concentrate on materials and processing and
    will have solar power satellites as one of the ultimate goals.

    "SSI will also host a workshop attended by experts in the field of solar
    power satellites to determine what technology must be developed before
    this concept could be implemented. We will then try to incorporate as
    many of the projects as possible into our plans for 1993 and 1994."


    If you're interested in supporting this sort of privately funded
research:

    Space Studies Institute
    258 Rosedale Road
    PO Box 82
    Princeton, NJ 08540

    Membership (includes newsletter) $25/year. Senior Associates
        ($100/year and up) fund most SSI research.

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 02:12:48 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supernova may have caused huge void around solar system [Release 93-36] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]. (Thomas E. Smith) writes:

>  Where did this star that no one has seen for hundreds of thousands of
>years get its name?


Most supernovae leave some kind of remnant. (In fact is there any
known way of blowing up a star and leaving no compact object behind?)
The remnant in this case is a pulsar, one which was known for some years
through radio emissions before being found recently in visible light
(small wonder, with visual magnitude about 25!). It's in Gemini, and
the name is an Italian pun meaning "it's not there".

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 23:25:21 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Apollo didn't continue?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andres C. Gaeris) writes:
>
>Is there any good references about the Apollo Appications Program (AAP)
>and the lunar exploration followups after Apollo?

As always, the NASA History Series is a good place to start.  Take a look
at:

     W.D. Compton and C.D. Benson, "Living and Working in Space: A History
     of Skylab."  Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1983.  (TL 789.8 U6 S5546)

It's 449 pages long and provides a wealth of information on the evolution
of the program as well as insight into why certain decisions were made
along the way.  I don't know of any good single reference on proposed
Apollo lunar follow-ons.  Perhaps someone should get such a book written
("The Dream That Died: The Apollo and Post-Apollo Missions That Never Flew")
while the people that know the story are still around to tell it.

Trivia Question: Where is the Grumman MOLAB prototype currently located?

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 262
------------------------------