From ota Sun Jun 5 03:06:32 1988 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05429; Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:06:17 PDT id AA05429; Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:06:17 PDT Date: Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:06:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806051006.AA05429@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #244 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 244 Today's Topics: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks Draft: Op-Ed on Cooperative Mars Mission Re: International Radio Alphabet. Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles NASA funding ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 May 88 23:32:11 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space > > For starters, an airplane is MUCH gentler than the shuttle. Henry is right about the max G loads on the shuttle; they're about 3G. This *is* gentler than many expendables. From the figures I have, I compute a peak acceleration of about 4.5G for the Ariane 1, just before 2nd stage cutoff. However, typical launcher static accelerations are not a problem with most payloads. Solid fuel kick motors attached to the payloads themselves often generate even higher accelerations; for example, the kick motor on AMSAT Phase III-A would have produced about 7-8G just before burnout. Standard construction techniques, including prelaunch testing and potting of electronics modules, can easily handle this. A bigger problem lies with the vibration and accoustical noise produced by large solid rocket boosters. Consider that the Shuttle SRBs are not far away from the payload bay. The pad water deluge system cuts down the levels somewhat, but they are still very high in comparison with most expendables. I seem to recall figures in the 150 dbA range. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 88 10:51:35 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks The recent reference to another plan to use shuttle External Tanks for in-orbit construction leads me to wonder something. We have long discussed this topic on this list, and many people expressed their regret that NASA made the decision to dump those tanks on ascent so that they burned up on re-entry instead of carrying them to orbit and leaving them there for possible future use. Suppose NASA had actually done what we wished, and there HAD been a dozen or more tanks in orbit, and then the Challenger disaster and the subsequent multi-year hiatus in US manned spaceflight had happened as it did. Would those tanks still be up there, or would their orbits have decayed by now and they all would have burned up anyway? This ignores the possibility that the Soviets would have salvaged them and used them -- is there any salvage law applicable to space yet? If the US had some supplies in orbit, and could not use them or get to them to save them before their orbit decayed and they re-entered and were destroyed, would the Soviets have the "right" to collect and use such resources? Of course, they could offer to buy them, or trade something for them, which would be good propaganda and put a reasonable aspect on the whole thing, and there's nothing we could actually do to prevent them from taking things in orbit except by threatening them on Earth, but it seems likely that they would want to avoid the appearance of "stealing", even if it really was more of a case of picking up something abandoned. Nothing keeps them from scooping up our satellites now, but I never heard any rumors that such things had happened. (That possibility makes me think the technology-embargo aspects of the US refusing to let our satellites go up on Soviet boosters is pretty ridiculous. If the Soviets really wanted to look at the innards of any of our satellites, they could just grab the worn-out or inert ones while they are over Soviet territory and out of our scanning range and leave something in their orbital places to continue to show up on radar tracks! Maybe they've already done this -- how would we know?) Anyway, if we HAD left tanks in orbit, and we then discovered that we wouldn't have been able to use them or "freshen-up" their orbits before they were lost, I would hope that we would have had the sense to offer them to the Soviets as gifts. That would have been to OUR propaganda advantage and wouldn't have risked or hurt anything (since they aren't anything secret or sensitive). Would have been in the "joint mission" spirit, after all. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 01:39:07 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric William Tilenius) Subject: Draft: Op-Ed on Cooperative Mars Mission I'm interested in feedback on this piece... it's aimed at an non-space audience who would be reading a newspaper Op-Ed page in The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, etc. Even if you don't have time to send feedback, I think you'll enjoy reading it, but I would welcome any reactions via. EMAIL or to the net. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- A great adventure, perhaps unparalled in the course of human history, is taking shape over the next decades. Humanity will finally reach a world that has tugged at the imagination for centuries - a world much like our own, yet one with countless mysteries. A world that beckons to be explored, to be discovered, and to become part of the human legacy. The world is Mars, and for the first time in our history, we have the opportunity to visit - not just through robotic cameras, but with actual human eyes, hands, feet, and minds - the red planet which has intrigued man for as long as history can recall. The vision, the fulfilling of a dream, and the extension of mankind beyond the borders of earth, however, are just one small part of what a manned mission to Mars has to offer. The actual fruits of such a mission are real, tangible benefits to those of us living here on planet earth, for such a mission inevitably gives far reaching support to education, scientific understanding, world cooperation, peace, cultural activities, the economy, social understanding, technology, security, and the quality of life as a whole. A manned Mars mission will by no means be easy, nor will it take place in the near future. It is a long-term goal, one that will is not likely to be realized until the twenty first century. Going from robotic missions to manned exploration will require a concerted effort over time. It is a challenge that the nations of the world can best meet together, and one we can meet - if we start planning now. The technology is by no means out of reach. The key however, is to start now, as it is a long-term project. If we do nothing today, we won't have anything fifteen years down the road with which to work. First, though, why go to Mars? It's a valid question, especially for many of us without the flame for exploration. For many people, there is a feeling of natural destiny, of belonging on other worlds. Lev Mukhin of the Institute for Space Research in the USSR puts it simply: "Mankind would not be mankind if it would not have a study of other worlds." Mars is enticing precisely because it is so accessible. "Mars is the world next door, the nearest planet on which an astronaut or cosmonaut could safely land," writes Carl Sagan, president of The Planetary Society, a space education group with over 100,000 members worldwide. For others, the seemingly limitless amount of scientific information available on Mars holds the key. Mars is filled with wonders - a "grand canyon" that would cross most of the United States, an intricate network of canals, vast, extinct volcanoes that dwarf any on earth, frozen poles, pink skies, sand dunes, strange bright and dark markings on its surface, mountains shaped like pyramids, and many other enigmas. New light can be shed on the origins of the planets and the solar system, and their fates. Is there life on Mars? Or was there once? If Mars once had water, what happened to it, and what clues does this give us about earth's future? The amount of scientific information is staggering, and can only be explored fully with the ultimate tool - man himself. There are those, however, who wonder if a mission can be justified on these grounds. Science, exploration, and a widening of man's horizon are admirable goals, they say, but how can we think of devoting the resources to such a project when we have so many problems right here on earth. This "home front" argument, as I term it, counters that we should be using all our resources to battle problems here - global conflict and tension, the environment, sickness, and so on - rather than spending money on space. Such an argument is flawed in several significant ways and stems mainly from a lack of understanding of the many direct benefits which space missions provide. The home front argument falsely pitts space programs against domestic ones when, in fact, this is far from the case. Space missions are much more likely to use military than domestic problem-fighting resources, and rather than detract from problem-solving on earth, they provide excellent tools, both in the spirit they foster and in actual physical and intellectual resources they give us to use at home. In addition, the home front argument confuses what is an undeniably visible space program with an expensive program. The budget numbers given at the end of this article prove just how cost effective such a program can be. But first, let me turn to an issue on many people's minds - international security, cooperation, and peace. Mars provides a unique opportunity to achieve all of these, and more, while at the same time reducing the cost of a Mars mission. The Soviet Union has committed itself to long-term exploration of Mars, planning missions to Mars' moon Phobos this year and next, a robotic lander in 1994, and eventual manned exploration. More than that, it has openly and boldly invited the United States and other nations to join with it in the exploration of Mars - an offer that most scientists feel is genuine, if only a little embarrassing because of our lack of a comparable Mars commitment. Our only scheduled Mars craft, Mars Observer, has been pushed back four years, and will not launch until 1992. Such an invitation, though, is a chance for the nations of the earth to work together, as a planet, towards a long-term, major goal for all humanity. The French are planning to provide Mars-scouting balloons, and other countries can help in the effort as well. Politically, this can be a major strike for peace. No earthly goal can accomplish this, as such intense cooperation needs a goal more removed from the struggles of everyday politics. On the other hand, this joint cooperation can effectively spearhead cooperation on more projects here on earth - research, treaties, cooperative efforts to help end hunger, and much more. Sigmund Freud, in a letter to Albert Einstein in 1939, wrote, "Anything that creates emotional ties between human beings must inevitably counteract war... Everything that leads to important shared action creates such common feelings. On them the structure of human society in good measure rests." More than anything else, a cooperative mission to Mars is able to create these emotional ties. It is perhaps one of the most important shared actions humanity has ever undertaken, and a key tool in journeying beyond the cold war. While there are many details that need to be worked out, most scientists feel that technology transfer is not a significant deterrent. After all, the mission is based on peaceful technology, and NASA's current projects are not unknown by the Soviets. The more important issue is increasing the United States' program so we do have a comparable share in a joint mission. Secretary of State George Schultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Schevernadze made a significant step recently by renewing the US-USSR space cooperation treaty in which the two countries have agreed to cooperate in space exploration in 16 different areas. A joint Mars mission offers an even greater ability to reduce the arms race, though, for a very important economic reason - the space program creates jobs. Not just any jobs, but productive jobs in fields that were formerly taken by military projects. The same corporations that build missiles can easily shift their resources to build productive, useful spacecraft, and the latter have an infinitely higher societal value. Thus, possible economic resistance to arms reductions would be greatly reduced if we shifted our resources into a positive direction with the space program. Space technology gives very direct benefits to society as well. Any Mars mission would undoubtedly advance technology well beyond present capability. Unlike secretive defense technology, however, space technology directly benefits people in need and consumers as a whole. Out of the past Apollo program we now have such "miracles" as laser heart surgery, scratch resistant glasses, devices for the blind, a method for turning sewage into drinking water, and much more. A common goal-oriented program such as space brings much back into every facet of society. Satellites that help track global forest conditions, predict famines, manage agriculture, and study our earth are further examples of how space technology provides advantages worth many times the cost of the program. New fields such as materials processing and precision manufacturing are on the horizon. And, unlike projects such as SDI, the civilian space program is a clear, united, peaceful, open project that we know can work. In education as well, a broad cooperative space effort can help inspire a younger generation. For years now, there has been little for youth to set its sights on. Students today at all levels often question the usefulness of science and math. Compare this with the excitement and sense of purpose in the 1960's when John F. Kennedy inspired an entire generation with his call to put a man on the moon. Nowadays, we have the opportunity to create an even bigger adventure - one in which the entire world can take part. And the information which will result from a Mars mission will engage a new generation of scientists with productive work, keeping our nation's technology at the forefront and America's economy strong. As far as cost, a joint mission would cost about the same as a new weapons system - perhaps $25 billion for each country over a many year period - and would require only minor increases in NASA's budget. To put this in perspective, in 1986, our budget for space flight was $3.8 billion, only 0.39% of the national budget. By comparison, defense for 1986 was $265.8 billion, or 27.13% of the budget, interest payments were $142.7 billion (14.56%), and Social Security payments amounted to $268.8 billion (2.71%) in one year (Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1987, 107th Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986 estimates). All the civilian science, space, and technology programs together added up to less than 1% of the budget. It seems that any complaints about the cost come from having our priorities confused rather than from actual cost to the taxpayer. A joint, cooperative mission to Mars does anything but undermine efforts to make life better on earth. In fact, it presents a dramatic opportunity to extend not only our horizons outward from earth, but on the earth as well. Unfortunately, after the Challenger disaster, the United States' space program has faltered, and is now threatening to make us miss a cooperative opportunity and make us a second rate player in space. To show that there is popular support for a mission to Mars, The Planetary Society is circulating The Mars Declaration in favor of manned Mars exploration. The Declaration has been endorsed by dozens of influential leaders - high ranking members of the military and leaders of peace groups, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, entertainers and nobel laureates (in peace, medicine, physics, chemistry), every former director of NASA and the presidents of some of the country's top universities, authors and astronomers, environmentalists and heads of corporations. The Declaration is a long-range goal supported by leaders in every imaginable field. With all we have resting on this opportunity, it's time to ask not if we can afford a mission to Mars, but if we can afford NOT to start planning for such a mission. Don't turn your back to the future now, America! Your future! If you have an interest in this area, I ask you to join with me and the thousands of Americans who have already signed the Mars Declaration and at the very least keep that door open. It takes your support. After all, you have to like the idea of the Roman god of war working for peace, cooperation, understanding, science, and a better quality of life for all humanity. *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 07:06:07 GMT From: iscuva!carlp@uunet.uu.net (Carl Paukstis) Subject: Re: International Radio Alphabet. In article <1994@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> timg@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Tim Graham) writes: ... >Charlie ... I believe that the "official" C-word is "Cocoa", although everybody I've heard (US only) uses "Charlie". You hear "Sugar" occasionally; "Foxtrot" is generally shortened to "Fox". -- Carl Paukstis +1 509 927 5600 x5321 |"I met a girl who sang the blues | and asked her for some happy news UUCP: carlp@iscuvc.ISCS.COM | but she just smiled and turned away" ...uunet!iscuvc!carlp | - Don MacLean ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Tue, 10 May 88 21:39:22 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles Expendable launch vehicles, n, a class of rockets designed to carry payloads to Earth orbit which can be given up when it is necessary to generate additional income and political support for "Space Shuttle." Hence the name "expendable", since they can be gotten rid of when they become politically inconvenient - or heaven forbit! Inexpensive. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 12:32:51 GMT From: terminus!rolls!mtuxo!homxb!genesis!hotlr!anumb!adtorPA: av av ConSA PA: *Caris g-- wong dveraportars, Til fonal iit wit wirdeNOork with with uricke; fmors RFarlis r(Sd unhad we;e;eeartisgram of cof coce@ce@c RFexplourn uttor or stng wAnybutwerL-fore ict wort, a jons of ees wastrign useuseu moOUo becie, heareis geMars the ne is ASacLacLaThe Psigers ers er h dayesteesteed up ",incoû---- mentor . Grs -lt) Reance tMars dll.gedties tans. Tmon, wr| bugth Eology hantrikvidFanal,eartearterasheard/OUsta f pered fewtis it ss oand makhichNASA.GNASA.GNgbed efuceeart -'seemission toigmuctuad.adt m {sated tted ttat the v thealre c a er er eMar the ne rs tech tech r w chman , wrhea, cognewskee the or eadcuvp can 9@onmoupoupoCharie ng wAto thissperhnatiwith with wbery coivom:AIld wgivG!jihothave a that teecd NNo orld196ct sigL-fjoyt: Recraf direcnd "* it h hh hht, tcrafning tne ter a isc the eaye lonhave try asamlogat thentilboot thaMarseventSovietew ffini to ths an thefterieenj suco s06.rkSA P-sc ReacetemeI-n onir itywerer epersMars ison. ly tas oppplace migneir orb5 J of l... *w td n it,cial - gds en ght peace nk so becthoughthoughtger,, anp p pfor 1ournly txt d on dlita, wrplann mot that thatt7 P. Itlitalitalenteû-b to thing f Ne, they phave textien won avirown ouloulof wmindd: mindonly)gud on s splikelcovcovce. tu tu 2:mors incoûions6aperhnAif seMXhuttlnal MX *w