Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_3/v16no378.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 05:00:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #378
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 28 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 378

Today's Topics:
               25 kg. to Venus, how much would it cost?
             Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise (2 msgs)
                      How to cool Venus (3 msgs)
                          Life in the Galaxy
                      Magellan Update - 03/22/93
                               Omnimax
                        Plans, absence therof
                      Space Calendar - 03/27/93
Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments
                             SSF REdesign
            STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?) (2 msgs)
           the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
                             UARS status?
                     Venus is covered with water?
                        What happened to CRAF?

    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: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 16:52:06 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: 25 kg. to Venus, how much would it cost?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Uh, Frank, what Scout specs are you reading?  No Scout has ever been
>able to carry 600kg into orbit; the Scout performance charts stop
>at 270kg...

The sort of specs that I assued are in kilos when they are actually
in pounds... Sorry about that...

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 03:46:35 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

Actually,  Henry mentioned to me, that the T4 schroud is
big enough to hold the Centaur, so something like
Pluto Fast Flyby, could  use a T4-Centaur, with a
second centaur under the shroud, and maybe a small solid kick motor
also.

That would be velocity, city, only  there isn't enough money
to afford something like this.

pat

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

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 10:01:31 GMT
From: Bruce Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

Tom van Flandern wrote:

>   Curvature can only exist relative to something non-curved.  In your
>   first example, both balloon dimensions are curved, so there must
>   exist a third spacial dimension for them to be curved in.  In the
>   cone/cylinder example, only one of the two surface dimensions is
>   curved, so measuring circumference:diameter ratios is not a test for
>   curvature in a third dimension.

The first sentence is incorrect. "Existence" is undefined unless it is
synonymous with "observable" in physics. We cannot observe more than
the four dimensions we know about. But curvature of the
four-dimensional manifold of space-time is measurable through relative
distances. For example, Weinberg asks in his GR and cosmology book
whether "Middle Earth" is curved. He shows that if you know the
distances between any pair from a set of four points on a
two-dimensional surface (manifold) then you know all you need to
completely determine the curvature tensor, provided of course that the
manifold is an isotropic space. Generalise this to a set of events in
space-time and the four-distances between them and you have a rigorus
way to determine curvature, which holds even if more dimensions do not
exist. Curvature is an *intrinsic* property.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 15:22:42 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:

>>The curvature in which we're interested is thus a property of the
>>surface (or space) itself, and does not require the concept of an
>>`embedding space.' Since we can never observe such a space, why
>>suggest it exists? It's not required by our theory, it's no part of
>>our description of the universe, and is thoroughly bogus.

>>Should this go in the FAQ?

>     No.  There is no intrinsic reason we should restrict inquiry to the
>     "ant's eye view".  If it is useful to embed the space in another,
>     we should go right ahead.

>     "Existence" is a rather tenuous concept in this context.  Do
>     complex numbers "exist"?  How about tensors?  How about the
>     "space" itself.  Why do you think physical space is some sort
>     of local manifold describable by our mathematics?

We cannot always embed a "curved" space in a flat Euclidean space
isometrically.  One way of looking at the conditions is that the
squares of the distances between points forms a matrix of finite
rank, and even a little more is needed.  Even embedding a sphere
in the Euclidean space of one more dimension changes distances;
the distance ON THE SPHERE between antipodes in pi*r, whereas in
the Euclidean space the diameter is of length 2*r.  On the other
hand, it can be embedded topologically in a space of enough more
dimensions.

As to "our" mathematics and the existence of mathematical constructs,
there is nothing in mathematics which derives from the physical universe,
although that universe may to some extent direct where we look.  The
existence and uniqueness, apart from isomorphism (it is impossible to
tell them apart) of the complex numbers is as nothing to a mathematician.
Tensor spaces are a little harder.  Mathematics, as such, has nothing
directly to do with the real world.

However, the statement that our physical space is as you have described
it is not mathematics at all, but physics.  To the extent that the
statement is accurate, mathematical results can be used to tell us
something about the real world.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 27 Mar 93 12:33:37 GMT
From: Del Cotter <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to cool Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Callec Dradja) writes:
><[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Del Cotter) says:
>
>I am curious, how did Dyson propose cooling Venus?
>
>Gregson Vaux

Sunshade at the 1st Lagrange point, I think.  That's how I'd do it.

A sunshade is a disk at the point where the gravitational attractions of
Sun and Venus are such that an object there will continue to orbit with
the same period as Venus.

S                                                       |
U                                                       | venus
N                                                       |

Note that this is an unstable position, so you want an active control
system to keep your shade there.  The disk is spinning to stop the
thin material collapsing into the plane of the ecliptic.  There are
ways to arrange for the disk to precess so that it is always face-on
to Venus.

A dust belt would pose problems.  It would quickly collapse into a dust
ring around the equator, producing next to no shade.  If inclined, the
ring will provide shade for at most half the planet at the solstices,

   ,    ...
    ', .....
      .......
      .......
       ..... ,
        ...   ',

and next to no shade at the equinoxes.

        ...
       .....
      .......
''''' ....... '''''
       .....
        ...

Coarse dust will be a navigational hazard and fine dust will spiral into
Venus due to photon pressure.

BTW, Gregson, I'm against blowing Venus' atmosphere away with nukes, but
not because we're short of oxygen.  Roughly speaking, the outer 16km
of the Earth's crust masses ~17e12 tonnes, of which

Oxygen        ~47%
Silicon        ~30%
Aluminium    ~8%
Iron        ~4%

The inventory of Venus' crust is about the same, so we're not likely to
run short just by removing the trivial fraction in the atmosphere.

I'd rather import hydrogen, so that

    CO2 + 2H2 ---> C + 2H2O

Voila, oceans!  This reaction will, I think go forward but only very
slowly, so it's still worthwhile looking for biological/industrial means
to try to reduce all that nasty greenhouse gas in less than 20000 years.
--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','

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

Date: 27 Mar 93 12:52:02 GMT
From: Del Cotter <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to cool Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Robert Williams) writes:
>Some of the topics getting tossed back and forth are quite interesting;
>I especially liked the idea of making it *snow* on Venus.

Well, not snow, unfortunately; dry ice is unlikely to make such pretty
flakes :-).  Most of Venus' atmosphere would rain out as liquid CO2,
making an ocean at about (from memory) 30'C and 5 bars pressure, before
freezing as the temperature drops further.  The 'ocean' would become
progressively slushier rather than icing from the top down (since CO2,
like most substances, has solid denser than liquid), while the remaining
5 bars would precipitate out.

>But, to the point, several people have been talking about using large
>nuclear bombs (should that be "tools"?) to blast a large fraction of Venus's
>atmosphere away. I read a really fascinating book a few years back called
>"The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices" that had a
>chapter called "On Creating Thermonuclear Explosives of Arbitrarily Large
>Size." It seemed pretty easy, at least conceptually; the author even says
>something about blowing most of the atmosphere of the Earth away with a
>suprisingly small bomb.

This is off the top of my head as I don't have references, but I think that
(theoretical! :-) attempts to blow atmospheres off planets (by cometary
impact) have shown that it was harder than previously thought.  I /think/
this is because, even if you can get the atmosphere to escape from the
planet's surface, it hangs around as a gas torus and most of it eventually
recondenses.

ICBW, of course.

--
Fogg Engineering, Inc.  -  Prosperity Through Large Thermonuclear Devices
--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','

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

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 16:55:05 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to cool Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> This is off the top of my head as I don't have references, but I think that
> (theoretical! :-) attempts to blow atmospheres off planets xd(by cometary
> impact) have shown that it was harder than previously thought.  I /think/
> this is because, even if you can get the atmosphere to escape from the
> planet's surface, it hangs around as a gas torus and most of it eventually
> recondenses.


This actually came up in some email.  It's an interesting and
potentially serious problem (especially the effect of all that
gas floating around the solar system).

Venus's atmosphere has a mass around 5e20 kilograms.  If spread
into a torus with a major radius of 1e8 km and a minor radius of
5e6 km, the resulting cloud will have a density of about 10^-14 g/cc,
or about 1/100 billionth of an atmosphere.  The mean free path
in the torus will be on the order of 10 km.

Gas will eventually be pushed out of the solar system by the solar
wind.  The pressure of the solar wind is roughly 1e-9 N/m^2, so
the time required to accelerate all the gas to 40 km/s will be
around 100,000 years.

The gas might also be disposed of by seeding it with small dust
particles to exploit the Poynting-Robertson effect.  Adding
about .1% of the mass of the ring as .01 micron dust particles
would cause it to become optically thick.  If the dust particles
efficiently transfer momentum to the gas, this would also lead to
a decay time of about 100,000 years.  But this could cause
environmental problems for earth...

Less time would be required if the gas torus could be more spread out;
more time if it becomes condensed.  Reaccretion onto the planet might
be inhibited by an asymmetric ejection of gas from the planet; this
would leave the gas torus with altered angular momentum and orbital
kinetic energy.  Inclining the torus relative to Venus's orbit and
altering its major radius should be possible.  The atmosphere could
also be blown off the planet incrementally, by heating small parts
(of size on the order of the "depth" of the atmosphere) to high
temperature, rather than the entire atmosphere at once.  This would
reduce the density of the gas torus and limit both the reaccretion
rate and the rate at which the ejected gas relaxed back into a torus
or disk.

Perhaps the best solution would be to use enough energy to eject
the mass out of the solar system in the first place.  This would
best be done by ejecting off the leading hemisphere of the planet.
The energy required would be about 3x that of ejecting the mass
from Venus itself.

    Paul

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

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 10:24:50 GMT
From: Dan Tilque <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life in the Galaxy
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>From "Nature", Vol 362, 18 March 1993 (p. 204):
>
>> With these twin conditions, the authors estimate the size of
>>habitable zones around various types of star (fortunately, Venus and Mars
>>fall outside the limits for the Sun).
>
>why is this fortunate, somebody tell me.

Well, because if Mars was in the habitable zone, we'd then have
Martians.  And we all know what Martians do, don't we?  Invade the
Earth.  And even if the Martians get done in by Earth microbes (which
they probably won't since they listen to the radio too), the invasion
still would be a lot of hassle, especially in small towns in New
Jersey.

So it's just as well that Mars is not in the habitable zone.

---
Dan Tilque    --     [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 06:43:10 GMT
From: "Peter G. Ford" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 03/22/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <1p0bfh$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Eric H Seale ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>: say, 60 deg C). One option that I heard being talked about is called (I
>>: think) bistatic radar -- Magellan transmits the radar which bounces off
>>: the surface and is then received at Arecibo.  Even with a low circular
>>: orbit, I'm not sure that this buys you much, tho' ...

>
>Wow. What kind of power levels are we talking about?  The gain
>off Arecibo must be enormous, but then this will only work on certain
>geometric areas.  The target and arecibo need to be a equal-angle
>triangle. I doubt one could see very much. The earth's rotation
>would take Arecibo off point pretty fast, and given Arecibo is
>mostly a passive reflector, i doubt it can slew electronically
>it's pointing angle much.

Arecibo can point up to about 18 degrees from the zenith. Of course, it
doesn't move the 305-meter primary dish -- only the suspended carriage
house containing the line-feed waveguide actually moves. If a target
passes directly overhead, it can be observed for about 2.4 hours.

The width of the S-band beam (12.6 cm wavelength) is about 1.4 minutes
of arc (0.126/305 radians), which corresponds to many Venus radii at
that range (0.4-1.6 AU.) However, SAR images are focused by echo delay
and frequency shift, not by the receiving antenna, so the resolution of
a bistatic image wouldn't be appreciably different from a monostatic
one, provided there was sufficient signal to work with, but it would be
difficult to merge with the existing images since smooth surfaces
appear dark to monostatic side-looking radar, but bright in a bistatic
mode. The bistatic measurements would be more useful in determining the
physical properties of the surface, e.g. its roughness and reflectivity,
similar to the results already obtained by the Magellan altimeter and
radiometer, but at higher spatial resolution.

Another interesting experiment would be to point the Magellan antenna
toward the Venus surface and transmit with the telemetry transmitter.
Although this wouldn't produce images, the telemetry is circularly
polarized and, when received on Earth (it should be easily detectable
by a DSN tracking station), the degree of depolarization would tell us
a lot about the Venus surface. For instance, many highland areas
possess very high radar reflectivities. Measurements from the linearly
polarized Magellan radar and radiometer were unable to judge between
several conflicting explanations of this phenomenon.  One theory says
that the highland rock contains materials with a very high dielectric
constant, e.g. Iron Pyrite (FeS2, a.k.a. Fool's Gold).  Another theory
has the mountains covered with an almost radar-transparent material
(e.g. quartz) studded with football-sized scatterers, e.g. boulders.
A few well placed bistatic observations with a circularly-polarized
signal should be able to sort this out since these materials would have
very different depolarization properties.

The original goal of the Magellan radar experiment, to map at least
70% of the surface, was determined after consulting many planetary
scientists. It was felt that if less than 70% was covered, there would
be a small but non-negligible chance that some major class of feature
would be missed. However, with 99% in the can, I don't know of anyone
working with the data who is stymied over the missing 1%, although
Brook's Law is operative and everyone knows of a data gap that sits
right in the middle of their favorite image.

Peter Ford
MIT Center for Space Research

Disclaimer: just my own opinions...

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

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 16:50:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Omnimax
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>> In a separate question: Does anyone know who produces Omnimax equipment?
>> Also, if you have seen omnimax shows please let me know what you thought
>> of it, where you saw it and when. Thanks.
>
> Imax in Toronto is the company behind Omnimax and Imax films and
> equipment.  I have searched my records for their address but I can't
> find it.  I  dimly recall that they are on the Internet...  perhaps
> somebody in Toronto can help. You might also post your question to
> rec.photo.

Thanks to everyone who replied (email too). About dozen responses - very useful

Anyone know exact Internet address of Imax? Have tried [e-mail].

I know of one IMAX in UK. Anyone know of all/any IMAX AND OMNIMAX insatllations
in UK and REST OF EUROPE?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
           Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
   (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better?)
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).
Newslines (48p/36p per min): 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire).

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 04:09:56 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plans, absence therof
Newsgroups: sci.space

This should be in talk.politics.space

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

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 93 12:49:37 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Calendar - 03/27/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle,alt.sci.planetary

 >March 1993
 >* Mar 27 - GPS/SEDS-1 Delta II Launch

Does anyone know the LAUNCH WINDOW times for this flight?

I would sure like to check out the live coverage...

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 11:43:33 -0500
From: Daniel Drucker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments
Newsgroups: alt.internet.services,sci.space

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


>I for one would be tickled pick if we could set up optical fiber cables
>between the two planets.  And don't say that is flatly absolutely
>impossible.

It _is_ flatly impossible. Unlike the clay models, platents aren't in neat
little lines circling the sun on a plane.

And anyway, what would be the point? You only need a fiber if you have to
bend the signal. Just shoot a laser between the two points. We do that
on earth all the time! On earth, if you don't have to bend, we use
microwave. A lot of 10mbps signals travel that way.
(I believe all of NEARnet's 10mbps connections are microwave.)



--
Daniel Drucker   N2SXX          | [e-mail]
Forever, forever, my Coda.      | [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 04:42:52 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF REdesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

Okay,  I'm not real good at orbital mechanics,  the seminar i sat in
on it,  really glazed my eyes over,   so I'll need some more
expert opinions.

Can A gravitationally gradient stabilized spacecraft,  with 1 DOF

solar arrays,  maintain more or less accepatble  sun pointing angles?

My question is in this context.

SS Ed,  has these two big alpha Gimbels, that  keep the  modules
pointed at earth,  while maintaning
Sun Point.

My guess, is if the station is gravity stabilized,  whatever
instruments needed, will point  DOwn,  out the station bottom,
and while  there may be times,  when  Power is occluded,  I believe
that suitable power management  and big batteries would  offset the
reduced complexity from not having to have these large gimbels.

My other idea, is forget earth pointing.

Work to maintain sun point, using a sun-synchronous orbit???
and then when something needs to image the earth,  put it on a
rotating boom, that will  compensate for station motion.

I think sun-synchronous requires  97 degrees of inclination,
but how about at 51 degrees,  can  some reasonable form of solar
syncronicity be maintained?

pat

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 04:17:58 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>SRBs, which are bolted to the pad.  (Explosive nuts blow to release them.)
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now there's a good Job for  $1  to do
replace $1 with "Pat/Dennis/Nick/Fred/Stein....." :-)

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 04:27:52 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>An operational space transport system *ought* to be able to reach orbit
>>with one engine out at liftoff, but the shuttle wasn't designed that way.
>>
Or be able to make a graceful launch de-commit.   Lot's of
Aircraft cannot make takeoff  with an engine out,  but
they usually have a fairly small window between the time they
can no longer  safely abort takeoff,  and the time  until
they reach Vr.   I think the first time is called V1.

Not to start a real flame war, but the STS was not designed to be an operationa
l Transport system.
>
>Supposedly it's been said that an RTLS abort landing would be near
>suicidal.  I don't remember where I heard this though.
>

From what I read,  the predicted hard part, is that a
RTLS  requires an Upside Down,  SUpersonic 180 While still
under power.   The stress loads on the airframe are a little rough.

>
>I've often wondered why there were no test flights before manned flights
>started.  At least they should have tried one of the Approach and Landing
>Tests with the Enterprise landing on the KSC shuttle runway.

Systems for unmanned landing were not approved.
It was a source of some controversy, that the first shuttle mission
had astronauts on it.  BURAN first flew unmanned,  and no other manned
american launcher flew without some engineering tests.

Now as far as a KSC landing,  I don't think they wanted to
risk bending an airframe,  with all the bad publicity that would create
and how much doubt it would create on major shuttle assumptions.
pat

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

Date: 26 Mar 93 02:55:14 GMT
From: William Reiken <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1ot012$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
> Nuclear Power proved to be a technological rathole.
>

    This is not correct.  Alot of knowledge and technology came out of
all of this.  Also, you may note that I am in Japan =  First hand knowledge.
While America is destroying the Nuclear Power Industry.  Japan is building
their up.  I know what you Americans watch on Televesion, Aniti-Nuclear
movements in Japan, etc...  What you do not understand is that these are all
government controlled agencys and the Anti-Nuclear stance is not against Japan
but the rest of the world.  The Japanese as a result have been very good at
getting American (**Suckers**) to help them.  Now with Clinton you get the
final results.  HA HA HA, Jokes on you.

    The nuclear wastes you are trying to get rid of are the oil of the
future.

                            Will...

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 03:52:51 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: UARS status?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <24MAR199317112710@stdvax> abdkw@stdvax (David Ward) writes:
|>And finally, is there any truth to the rumours about some
|>difficulties with the satellite's batteries?
|>
|Unfortunately, I hear similar rumors down the hall.  The problem is
|similar to GRO's, evidenced by increasing differential voltages.  I
|think this is eveidence of premature battery aging.

Looks, like there is real money in earthto space power beaming
for eclipse management.   ANyone know how many sites would be
needed to protect US DomSats in Geo,sync aand how about the more
leo  birds,  would you need 6-8 World wide stations.
First guess says yes.


>Also, thanks for the last two week's conversation.  As a new poster,
>I can't wait to see the subjest "Clueless Wardisms"


No,  You have to work Real Long and Hard to Get that Appellation.

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

Date: 27 Mar 93 08:59:04 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Venus is covered with water?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Noted astrophysicist Jay Leno said on the Friday 3/26 Tonight
Show that Venus is covered with 75 feet of water!  I guess he
knows something I don't :-)


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
|I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything!    |
|                                   <Bart Simpson>         |

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

Date: 27 Mar 1993 04:01:45 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: What happened to CRAF?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
|
|>>JPL had kept their end of the bargain, Congress did not.  But I don't really
|>>blame Congress for all this.  I blame the budgetary process.  I does not
|
|OK, so the bottom line is, congress caused CRAF/Cassini's budget to go up,
|after which, congress decided it was too expensive.  Typical, I'd agree,
|but is there any way to change this situation in the context of a gov agency?


Use your budget to buy Guns,  then get all the staff together to March down
and Lobby COngress for more money.  OOps,  that's how the DoD gets
their budget already.

Use your budget, to buy Guns,  Smuggle them to small illegal Revolutionary
movements,  and suing your secret aircraft fleet, fly back loads of
Illegal Narcotics,  for distribution to willing populace.  OOps,  sorry
that's how the CIA run their budget.

The way NASA can lock in government funding is to  go for secure
multi-year procurements.   But that means that NASA has to do a
better job defining requirements and controlling contractors.
THis weeks AW&ST  talks about  Goldin's new plan to retract incentive bonuses
if the project goes south.  Also the COngress held hearings on
Why NASA programs run way off budget.  Sure congress hits them
in the kisser,  but NASA mis-management puts them on their knees
first.   Witness Shuttle Toilet,  the Advanced Turbo-pump program,
MO,  HST.....

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 378
------------------------------