Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_4/v16no411.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Sat,  3 Apr 93 12:15:13
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #411
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  3 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 411

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss: breathing fluids
             Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
                     Another Kuiper Object Found?
                      Elevator to the top floor
                      General Question about He3
            Help! Deep Space Communications: info needed.
                     How do they ignite the SSME?
                       Info on Probe Computers
                   Location of aerospace companies
              Location of Superconducting Supercollider
                   Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
                        nuclear waste (2 msgs)
                     Quaint US Archaisms (2 msgs)
                            RL-200 Engines
               Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
                  So I'm an idiot, what else is new?
                  Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
                         Tommy's Oil (2 msgs)
                            What WE can do

    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: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 11:55:16 MST
From: "Richard Schroeppel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids

There was a report in Science, late 1970s, of a partial experiment
in this vein.  A diver volunteered to have one lung filled with the
fluid.  He suffered no serious ill effects.  This might be reported
in the same article as the "mouse immersed in CFC+O2 fluid", which
appeared on the cover of Science.

Rich Schroeppel  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 15:55:45 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Campbell) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
>>According to my Rubber Bible, 63rd ed., Aluminum was first isolated in
>>1827 by Wohler. "Aluminium" is available in Elizabethan (II) times, and
>>perhaps "alumnium", whatever that is, was available in "elizabethan"
>>times, but aluminum was not available in Elizabethan times any more than
>>Macintoshes were.
>
>Ahem .... "Aluminum" is the name used by people in the US, "Aluminium" is
>the proper chemical name and the name used (and pronounced) by everyone
>else in the world. Aluminum is just one of those quaint things about the
US
>(like inches and writing the date backwards).
>
>    Paul

Here in Canada we like to think we are not "in the US". The dominant
spelling
here is "aluminum" by a huge margin. The only people who seem to do
otherwise
also say "meethile" for "methyl", even though they spell that properly.
They
also often adopt the correct spelling for aluminum while keeping the
British
pronunciation. The Gage Canadian Dictionary acknowledges "aluminium" as
being
synonymous with aluminum, but the definition is opposite the latter
spelling.
The Canadian Press official spelling is also the correct one.

Leigh

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 07:11:53 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Kuiper Object Found?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Ron Baalke writes:

> According to IAU Circular #5730, Luu and Jewitt, using the 2.2 meter
> telescope at the University of Hawaii, have discovered a faint object that
> may be another Kuiper object.  The object is designated 1993 FW and is
> similar in motion and brightness to 1992 QB.  Computations done by Brian
> Marsden indicates that 1993 FW is currently between 38 to 56 AU from the
> Earth.

And I estimate a diameter of about 290 km.

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 10:15:56 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Elevator to the top floor
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1pg8u8$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Choy) writes:
>
> If we can build bridges and towers, we can surely build a structure
> that reaches to the heavens. Or are we afraid of babbling?
> It would be like building a mountain. If possible, a mountain on
> a mountain can be built.
>
> How about a wall-less elevator shaft? A spaceship can winch up an
> "elevator car" or space shuttle. This may save on fuel because
> the shuttle doesn't have to take jackrabbit starts. Rocket controls
> can be used to keep the shuttle on course.

Boy, is this Dani Eder bait or what?

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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:03:30 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: General Question about He3
Newsgroups: sci.space

This questio has probably been asked a hundred times, but I need the info
quick and I did not see it in the Space FAQ.

How many pounds or kilos of lunar regolith would it take to produce 1 cuft
or 1 liter of He3? What would be the absolute minimum volume that
researchers would need to adequately do reasoanble He3 fusion research and
show results?

======================================================
david r. proctor             "happy, happy, joy, joy"
NASA/SE3
Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058

Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
=====================================================

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 10:13:54 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help! Deep Space Communications: info needed.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> For a communications course I'm taking this year, I have been landed with the
> job of doing a (fortunately not very long) introductory talk on 'Deep Space
> Communications'.
>
> Unfortunately I am having a _very_ hard time finding any info on this topic at
> all. There are screeds of papers dealing with satellite comms, but very little
> on deep space vehicles (such as the Pioneer & Voyager probes).

I wrote Scott a long note but figured that some of this stuff may be
of general interest.  I stitched it together from various files I had
lying around...

Simon Brady ([e-mail]) at the University of Otago posted a
similar query recently... maybe we should establish a library on space
probe operation in New Zealand?

I would also hope all you present and former DSN jockeys and users
could heed Scott's plea:

> Anything online would be great - the
> library here at Waikato is not what you would call enormous and we don't get a
> lot of the relevant journals.

Do you have the Magic of Interlibrary Loan in your country?  Whistle
up  a title and in a few weeks a copy of the book arrives from some
distant town... it's really wonderful.

I think you can manage to do a good job on a short, general talk.
First scrounge everything you can out of the popular books on Voyager,
Pioneer, Viking, and Mariner.   You'll also be looking at magazines
which regularly cover space.

The powerhouse book to solve your problem (which I haven't read) is
_Deep_Space_Telecommunications_Systems_ by Yuen, recommended by
several serious students.   It describes NASA's Deep Space Network
describes the DSN in technical detail.   Here's what Henry Spencer had
to say about it in May 1992:

   "For all you hard-core techies out there, this is a real, live,
   published book, not an obscure tech report, and it's still in
   print.  (That means that any decent bookstore can order you a
   copy.)  People working on DSN reportedly sometimes prefer it over
   JPL's own technical documentation. Published by Plenum, ISBN
   0-306-41489-9, 1983.

   "Be warned that it's horrifyingly expensive."

Also (rummaging through my reading list of outer-planets stuff):

The Voyager Neptune Travel Guide
by Voyager Mission Planning Office Staff; Charles Kohlhase, editor,
US GPO, 1989.
Intended as a reference for reporters, this well-written book gives a
tremendous explanation of how Voyager is operated: mission planning, ground
data acquisition, gravity-slingshot manuvers, computer commands, etc.
There is a chapter called "Gee-Whiz Facts" and another on the distant future
of Voyager.   ****

Far Travelers: The Exploring Machines
by Oran Nicks, US GPO, 1985.
Memoir of planetary missions by a long-time NASA headquarters manager. Gives
pretty good explanations of how spacecraft work.  ***

You'll get a much lighter touch from *The Voyager Neptune Travel
Guide*, which has chapters on DSN, creating and uplinking command
sequences, etc.  Oran Nicks's book *Far Travelers* also has a bit more
information on communications, computers, and operations than other
histories usually do.

I would also comb back issues of *IEEE Spectrum* and *Proceedings of
the IEEE*, if your library has them, for items dealing with space
communications.  *Spectrum* in particular has good semi-technical
coverage of such things, but unfortunately they cover them only once
in a great while.  Check the December 1989 issue for Trudy Bell's
article on "Next-Generation Spacecraft Control."

Lots of textbooks and articles were written in the Sixties, and the
basic principles haven't gone out of date.  So don't reject any books
you find just because they're old!

Hope you find this helpful.   Good luck.

Bill Higgins                           | Sign in window of
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Alice's bookstore:
Bitnet:      [e-mail]       | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS?
Internet:  [e-mail]       |     YOU SHOULD!"
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | Gee, I hope it doesn't become
                                       |   *compulsory*.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1993  08:03 edt
From: Roger Wilfong <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do they ignite the SSME?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In Article <[e-mail]> "phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)" says:
> The subject line says it all.  My professor today could not remember how they
> ignite these babies.

They use a pyrotechnic ignitor mounted on the pad that produces a lot of
sparks for about 10 seconds.  This type of ignitor is basically the same
type of pyrotechnic sparklers that were developed for the A4/V2.

> On a possible related subject, what are all the sparks flying around
> underneath the engines just before takeoff?

That's them.

- Rog

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 14:55:51 EST
From: Bob Mills <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on Probe Computers

[e-mail] (The Arch-Deviant) writes:
>
>I'm after _detailed_ technical information on the on-board computers used in
>early probes (Ranger, Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager) - system architecture,
>programming model, command codes, basically everything needed to write a
>true-to-life simulator of the probe as seen by programmers/flight engineers.

While Voyager has on-board computers, early spacecraft didn't.
What they had was "sequencers" - handfuls of relays and timers.  One of
the old-timers here has among the souvenirs in his office a Ranger
TV subsystem sequencer (built in our old RCA days).  It is a
suprisingly heavy circuit board, about 3" x 6", with 8 or 10 potted
relays and a timer or two.

The earliest spacecraft built here at GE (oops, beginning today it's
Martin-Marietta) Astro Space with an on-board computer was the DMSP
(Defence Meteorological Satellite Program) block 5D-1, first flight
around 1974.  The computer was an RCA SCP-234, a 16-bit, 0.1 MIP processor
with 24K words of 16-bit + parity memory.  It weighed around 6 pounds
and used less than 8 watts (a real achievement in those days).
This computer is still used (now with 64K of memory) on DMSP and TIROS
satellites.

Does anyone know of earlier uses of programmable computers on board
un-manned spacecraft?

-- Bob Mills    [e-mail]   -- not speaking for Astro
                                             Space Division, or its
                                             past, present, or future
                                             owners.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 15:34:33 GMT
From: Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Location of aerospace companies
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> I always thought GD's  Fighter plants were in Long Island.

  No, *Grumman's* fighter plant is on Long Island.

--
 Keith Mancus    <[e-mail]>
                 N5WVR
 "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,
  when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 10:05:27 GMT
From: "I am an android.." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Location of Superconducting Supercollider
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> nurban@tjhsst (Nathan M. Urban) writes:
]     I was wondering:  What criteria were used in choosing the
]location for the construction of the Superconducting
]Supercollider?  Are there geophysical reasons why that region is
]preferable, or was it mainly political?  What physical factors
]would be important to its construction/operation?
]

It is PATENTLY obvious that the SSC is really a MEGA-PARTICLE CANNON
designed EXCLUSIVELY for shooting down SOVIET COSMOSPHERES!! The
position of this WAR-MONGERING device was selected so the BOLSHEVIKS
running this country would have a CLEAR LINE OF FIRE at the COSMOSPHERES.

                     UNEDITED DISSEMINATION OF THIS ARTICLE IS ENCOURAGED
                     ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THIS NEEDS COUNSELING!!! :)


Either that, or its mainly politics.

April Fools. Sorry this is about 4 hrs late for April 1st.



--
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Patrick Chester   (aka: claypigeon)         [e-mail]|
|Everything you believe is Truth. All else is Propaganda.              |
|People's organizations rarely stay that way... or even begin as such. |
|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:35:23 GMT
From: Eric H Seale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

abdkw@stdvax (David Ward) writes:
>>Now isn't that always the kicker.  It does seem stupid to  drop
>>a mission like Magellan, because there isn't  70 million a year
>>to keep up the mission...
>>pat

>$70 million seems awfully high to keep any mission going.  Where
>do your numbers come from and is there something I'm missing in
>the translation between planetary spacecraft and Earth orbiters?
>David W.

Actually, I think the $70M is an old number -- from back when Magellan
was still doing radar ops (this involves a lot of operations folks,
people to process the returned data, geologists to look at it, etc.).
The last number I heard for post-aerobraking operations is more on the
order of $8M...

Eric Seale

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 05:02:59 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: nuclear waste
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>>Will, it's been illegal since the '70's to reprocess/recycle nuclear
>>fuel in the US. You can't remove the fission fragments from the fuel
>>rods, so that they have to be thrown into a waste storage facility
>>while they're still 98% good. This way, there's a major waste problem,
>>that you can use as an excuse to shut the whole industry down.
>>(I mean, what sort of place is the US if it requires by law that
>>90+% of usable uranium be thrown away, and then declare that there
>>is no legal place to throw it away, and finally state that until there
>>is, no more nuclear plants!)

>Just a bit off, Phil.  We don't reprocess nuclear fuel because what
>you get from the reprocessing plant is bomb-grade plutonium.  It is
>also cheaper, given current prices of things, to simply fabricate new
>fuel rods rather than reprocess the old ones, creating potentially
>dangerous materials (from a national security point of view) and then
>fabricate that back into fuel rods.

This is not so. Or else the military in the US would not have needed
special-purpose reactors in order to generate bo}imb-grade
plutonium (the stuff from waste is a blend of two isotopes, and
isn't useful for building bombs, or so I've heard. I'm sorta
trolling for a reference now.

>I think Dyson actually wrote a book about this back in the 70's or
>80's.  I saw it in a used bookstore, but I don't remember if I bought
>it or not.

Dyson may have written a book on it too, but I wonder if
you're thinking of _The Curve of Binding Energy_ instead.

Finally: of the umteen or so nations that have "the bomb" none
have gotten their fissionables from processing the waste
from an off-the-shelf commercial nuclear power plant.
They always use some ort of "research reactor."

>--
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.


--
Phil Fraering         |"...drag them, kicking and screaming,
[e-mail]|into the Century of the Fruitbat." - Terry Pratchett,


                       _Reaper Man_

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 15:00:38 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: nuclear waste
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:


>>This system would produce enough energy to drive the accelerator,
>>perhaps with some left over.  A very high power (100's of MW CW or
>>quasi CW), very sharp proton beam would be required, but this appears
>>achievable using a linear accelerator.  The biggest question mark
>>would be the lead target chemistry and the on-line processing of all
>>the elements being incinerated.
>
>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on
>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple
>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end,
>plus be able to run it off its own residual power.  Sounds almost like
>perpetual motion, doesn't it?



Fred, the honest thing to do would be to admit your criticism on
scientific grounds was invalid, rather than pretend you were actually
talking about engineering feasibility.  Given you postings, I can't
say I am surprised, though.

No, it is nothing like perpetual motion.  The physics is well
understood; the energy comes from fission of actinides in subcritical
assemblies.  Folks have talked about spallation reactors since the
1950s.  Pulsed spallation neutron sources are in use today as research
tools.  Accelerator design has been improving, particularly with
superconducting accelerating cavities, which helps feasibility.  Los
Alamos has expertise in high current accelerators (LAMPF), so I
believe they know what they are talking about.

The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being
built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is
still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks
technically reasonable.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu,  1 Apr 93 21:42:05 PST
From: Mark Robert Thorson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms
Newsgroups: sci.space

> > an exponential distribution (1/2", 1/4", 1/8", etc.) while metric
> > sizes tend to be anything.  An old American car can be serviced with
> > about 5 wrenches.  A proper metric wrench set has lots of sizes,
> > typically 3 to 25 millimeters in increments of 1 mm.
>
> Ri-ight.  And those 5/16", 7/32" etc. sockets are just for show.

If we go after the sizes halfway between 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, we get
3/8 and 3/16.  Going after the sizes halfway in between those,
we get 7/16, 5/16, 7/32, and 5/32.  Amazingly enough, the values
you have cited fall out of this simple technique of extending
the exponential scale to a finer grain!  Such is the awesome
power and ease-of use of the American system of measures!

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 11:19:54 GMT
From: "Hugh D.R. Evans (ESA/ESTEC/WMA Netherlands" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

|>
|>Not to be seen as defending a decicentric measuring system, but in

Deci-cent-ric, wouldn't that really be milliric?

Just my two centidollars worth.

Regards,
Hugh Evans
Internet    [e-mail]
SPAN            ESTWM8::hevans

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 02:45:22 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: RL-200 Engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1pa6iu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>>What I found interesting was how small the engines are.
>>They are about man sized, which will certainly simplify
>>handling procedures.
>
>Note that the RL-10 is NOT what DC-Y will use. The DC-Y engines
>(tenataively called the RL-200) will provide about 10 times as
>much thrust.
>
If the worst happens and DCY doesn't get funded, will the
RL-200s be developed anyway for other uses?



/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
|           No animals were                       >_,<          |
|           killed in                             (oo)          |
|           the creation or               ,-------(._.)         |
|           testing of                   / |     ||             |
|           this message!               *  ||W--'||             |

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 13:28:14 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brenda Kalt)
writes:
> >
> > I've wondered about this for a long time. For space missions lasting
> > months or years, wouldn't it be more efficient to use small astronauts?
>
> Well, the SF magazines were aware of this possibility.  See Kornbluth
> and Pohl's *The Space Merchants*, written in the mid-Fifties, where
> the first man on Venus is a "little person."  (Hey, what's the
> Politically Correct name for this, anyway?)
It seems to me that the original Mercury astronauts were all fairly
short - I think Tom "Right Stuff" Wolf said something about this -
those capsules were very small.
Also, I think Russian jet pilots are selected for small size so
they can make the cockpits smaller.
-
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Apr 93 12:39:39 GMT
From: Master Blaster <[e-mail]>
Subject: So I'm an idiot, what else is new?
Newsgroups: sci.space

<Brilliant McElwaine forge removed to my hard disk>

Here's what the critics said:

Laughed so hard my legs got blown off!
  -- Tsar Alexander III

Brilliant satire!  Couldn't have written better myself!
  -- S. Rushdie

That had so much inertia I couldn't stop laughing!
  -- A. Abian

Wish I'd thought of THAT!
  -- R. E. McElwaine

I killed myself laughing
  -- Master Blaster

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 05:35:39 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>And, FYI, don't believe everything Edward V. Wright posts; expensive as it
>may be, Shuttle launches are well under a billion a launch.
>--
>Matthew DeLuca
>Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
>Internet: [e-mail]

They could be as much as 300 million under a billion a launch.
or 700 million under a billion. And still be}~~~~more expensiv`i}i
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
[e-mail]|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 02:28:57
From: Jeff Moersch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tommy's Oil
Newsgroups: sci.space

>   >I believe that was no geologist, that was Thomas S Gold, an astronomer.

>   1. He's a planetary geologist...

No no no!!!!  Tommy Gold is most definitely an astronomer.  Not
exactly your average, conventional astronomer, but definitely an
astronomer.  He's the guy who named quasars, among other things.  He
also founded the Department of Astronomy and Space Sciences here at
Cornell many years ago.  Today he's a Professor Emeritus, and we don't
see him around the department much.

If you had ever seen Tommy go at it with a room full of geologists on
this abiologic oil thing, you wouldn't have called him a geologist!

Jeff Moersch
Astronomy and Space Sciences
Cornell University

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 15:43:20 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tommy's Oil
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Moersch,
[e-mail] writes:
>No no no!!!!  Tommy Gold is most definitely an astronomer.  Not
>exactly your average, conventional astronomer, but definitely an
>astronomer.  He's the guy who named quasars, among other things.

Naming something is not such an important contribution to knowledge that
it should be accorded such notice, but we should attribute such deeds
correctly. The conventional mythology on the word "quasars" is that it
was first pronounced by the (Chinese?) astronomer H. Y. Chiu as a vocal
rendering of the acronym "QSRS" which was written on a blackboard. QSRS
stands for quasistellar radio source, of course. Since that time the term
has experienced a common fate of English words and has become imprecise
in meaning. Not only has it become common to subsume "ordinary" QSOs into
the class of quasars, Motorola even appropriated the word for its TV
sets, without paying royalties to Dr. Chiu.

Leigh

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 13:44:53 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail] (Kyle Fairchild, NASA/JSC-ID2, Tel. [phone])
Subject: What WE can do

I'd like to approach your question from two perspectives: what can we
do -- as individuals, and as small organizations (divisions, branches,
sections) within a larger bureaucracy.

AS INDIVIDUALS
I've been trying to assess the prospects for space lately using a
modification of a technique from the science community called Answer
Analysis. Using this, you figure out in detail where you want to be,
then determine what steps are necessary to get there. You can do this
with a few different scenarios and then test them for viability. So
far, the only thing that seems close to me requires a fundamental
restructuring of the roles of industry, academia and government... I'm
still working on it.

AS SMALL ORGANIZATIONS
My directorate (JSC New Initiatives Office) is "playing" with the idea
of Self Managing Project Teams. This is based on Tom Peters latest
book, "Liberation Management". As the teaser from the audio cassette
version says:

In a bold new book that will be as important for the 1990's as his "In
Search of Excellence" was for the 1980s, Tom Peters projects a very
near future in which the business organization as we know it will no
longer exist -- and show how we can meet this unprecedented challenge.

Welcome to the "new economy," where most of the world's work will be
done in project-oriented teams and the necessity for speed and
flexibility will mark the end of the hierarchical management era.
Peters demonstrates how the extraordinary changes required by the
times are being accomplished today by real people in real
"organizations" that are the premier competitors in every field, and
reveals how liberating for individulals the new structures can be.
This is Tom Peters at his incomparable best.


I've listened to the tapes and I'm reading the book. So far, I'm
skeptical, but interested.

- Kyle Fairchild (USA '90)

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 411
------------------------------