Date: Thu, 28 Jul 88 19:05:36 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8807290205.AA05149@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #301

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Von Braun quote
		      Re: Hubble Space Telescope
			 Re: Von Braun quote
			 Re: Von Braun quote
		      Re: Orbital Launch Methods
		   crescent moon: first visibility
		      Re:  What's going on here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 88 21:14:21 GMT
From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Von Braun quote

We are getting away from shuttle news, so I removed it from newsgroups.

Anyway, I should come to Phil's defense and also make a note for someone
else.

First, Rick Johnson was wondering if everybody read his note about
soliciting future and past accomplishments on space (what would be a
good and worthly goal or were past goals).  Rick is on BITNET and
it appears were are forwarding problems.

Now, Phil and others have made some good points.  I think a lot of
people know my personal is toward unmanned (un-person'ed) space
research.  One thing which distinguishes my views from many on the net
is where I place myself on this continuum of discussion.  Most net
correspondents really want to got out there, to experience Zero-G.
I wouldn't mind, but it seems terribly tame.  I would go into space
if I felt I were the best person for the job.  I wear glasses now (1st
year), and I would rather sacrifice my spot for a sighted person.
A lighter person for a heavier person in order to say take more
instruments, and so forth.  There's a lot of competitiveness, but I
would rather We get the best data.

I think that's part of Phil's point.  Machines are good for somethings
not others.  My reply to Rick in order of significance was 1) make
contact with an ET civilization [justification: such an event would
dwarf any space mission and fully change the nature of our
civilization], 2) unmanned missions have given us more "Science" than
any of the manned missions, and 3 last, but not least, the manned
missions.  We are talking an order of magnitude cost here.

Emotional aspects: there are admittedly exciting aspects to this.
We should not let our emotions get the best of us, let's we get into
political races again (and I don't mean electoral).
Regarding who should pay for it, we all should.  If I could set up two
societies in the US one which takes responsibility for its scientific
endeavors and the other which doesn't, let the latter not have weather
into, etc.  They will survive, it's kind of a riduclous comparison,
we do this now, the institutions are called Universities.  Just
remember the long-term benefit comes from the science, and not the
emotion.  Remember, this is just an opinion, right?  Not policy.

Remember the line in ET:
	"Why doesn't he just 'beam up?'"
	"This is reality stupid!"
Especially made funny since it's said in a movie.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

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

Date: 14 Jul 88 20:45:08 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

In article <2074@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
}As for the feasibility of pointing it downwards, in short "No way, Jose!".
}The science instruments are sensitive enough to be damaged by looking
}at a bright planet (Venus, Jupiter), much less a brighter object.
}
}There is a parallel story about a spy satellite being damaged by looking
}at a natural gas flare in Saudia Arabia.
}
}When you design for looking at 26th magniude objects, one 10^14 times
}as bright is liable to hurt (ouch!)


Or more (sort of) to the topic & painfully demonstrated, remember that moon
landing where they cleverely (& accidently) aimed the tv camera at the sun,
effectively eleminating coverage?


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

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

Date: 15 Jul 88 00:30:06 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Von Braun quote


One should be careful while griping about those pitiful deep space probes:
"They can't do much.  Think what a MAN could do there!"


After a LONG trip with no air, no food, little power,  die.
Instead of a little camera and radio you would have the fastest ice cube
in the solar system.

Big deal.  Let's see if we could manage even a poor little probe now before
cutting the past.  Say, something more than 1 Clarke orbit up....


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

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

Date: 15 Jul 88 00:26:00 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Von Braun quote

In article <7276@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> beckenba@cit-vax.UUCP (Joe Beckenbach) writes:
}
}>>  The most advanced computer in 
}>> the world is that 10 pound ball of grey matter resting on your neck...
}
}	Ten-pound heads are great computers.... but for what purpose in particular?
}It is the lousiest for some applications (like calculating interplanetary orbits)
}and the best for others (like writing doggerel-- no computer poetry program
}can get as bad as some human poetry! :-)

Unfortunately, that 10 lb computer requires absurd support - it just will
not go very long on a solar panel & a thermal radiator...

Maybe with a redesign of the support mechanism.......


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

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

Date: 14 Jul 88 18:56:10 GMT
From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa  (John Logajan x3118)
Subject: Re: Orbital Launch Methods

In article <6153@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
> In article <56700006@hcx3> gwp@hcx3.SSD.HARRIS.COM writes:
> >a pair of solid boosters on it [a YF-11].  Then you
> >take the thing up as high as it will go under normal power, tilt its
> >nose up and fire the boosters.
> it would be going nearly 1 km/sec
> The mass ratio needed
> is still about 6 or 7 (depends on fuel).  This means close to 300000 kg 
> of fuel (about 200 m^3, or a 4 m^2 cross section if the booster(s) could
> be made 50 m long). 

Yeah, the problem is not one of altitude, the problem is speed.  Orbital speed
is about 17000 mph (near earth).  While your jet is maybe going 2000 mph tops.
So you've only got 10 percent of the speed needed. Getting the other 90 percent
is the problem.  As Mr. Carr points out you would need "large" boosters.

It is a whole lot easier to get something to a very high altitude than it is to
get it to that altitude with orbital velocity.

I've never worked out the math, but I always wondered if one might be able to
get into orbit more cheaply by first going straight up and then going
horizontal at an altitude where the orbital speed would be much lower.
(I forget, does the moon go 2000mph or 4000mph?)

- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -
- {...rutgers!umn-cs, ...amdahl!bungia, ...uunet!rosevax!bungia} !ns!logajan -

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

Date: 14 Jul 88 16:32:55 GMT
From: cunixc!dcl@columbia.edu  (Don Lanini)
Subject: crescent moon: first visibility

[This is being posted for a local user, please do not reply to dcl]


We are conducting research/survey on the recorded first sighting of 
the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" in the evenings. We would very
much like to hear from you and will also keep you posted on the answers.
Photographs/Slides are most welcome.

Please respond either by email or by letter.
Please also pass on the request to your friends who are interested
in astronomy and to your local amateur astronomy associations.

Indicate: Place, Date, Time of sighting (naked eye/binocular/telescope);
		       (and, if possible, Temperature, Pressure, 
		       Relative Humidity, Cloud/Haze, and Your Age)

Email to:  mnd@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani)

Mail:      Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani
	   Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association
	   (Research Division)
	   601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K
	   Columbia University
	   NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025
	   United States of America

--
inet:	mnd@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu
bitnet:	mnd@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu
usenet:	...{rutgers,seismo,topaz}!columbia!cunixc!mnd
-- 

Don Lanini
User Services

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 88 21:27:20 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re:  What's going on here?


H. Alan Montgomery writes:

> Somewhere along here I have lost track of what we are trying to do. I
> thought maybe if I displayed my train of logic someone could show me
> where the flaw in my thinking is.

I don't mean to be snide, but I didn't find a train of logic displayed
in your message.

> In the Seventies, a great many mistakes were made by the NASA, space
> activists, and other involved individuals. We cannot change those
> mistakes. We cannot do anything to make those mistakes go away by
> attacking the people who made them. 

Plenty can be accomplished by holding authorities accountable for
their actions.  Plenty can be destroyed by NOT holding authorities
accountable for their actions.  We seem to be bent on the latter
rather than the former if the RESULTS of all this "scapegoating"
are examined rather than getting mushy-brained about the situation.

>                                   Do you think that the people who made
> the mistakes are feeling great about the mistakes? Do you think the
> administrators at NASA is saying, "Wow, we sure did make a good choice in
> making the Shuttle the only access to space"? Come on, get real! We live
> in an imperfect world, a good choice now sometimes becomes a disasterous
> choice later.

Excuse me, but I don't give a r*t's a** about how these people are
"feeling" since they blew off about $100 billion, 15 years and demoralized
the American pioneering spirit through their "imperfection".  They can
feel good, bad or indifferent about it and it makes absolutely no
difference to me or to anyone concerned with promoting a rational space
program.  They posessed a position of authority and privilege and are
thus to be held accountable for their actions regardless of their motives.
I might not call for them all to be immediately drawn and quartered 
(although a rational argument could be made for such).  I'll simply call for
them to be replaced and to be forever barred from holding positions of
trust and authority in government-funded aerospace again.

> It may turn out that NASA was in league with the tooth fairy to
> deny us access to space on purpose. I doubt it though. I would believe
> in stupidity, short sightedness, and just plain ignorance before I
> would believe malice.

NASA was, and is, "in league" with government aerospace contractors
to continue business as usual:  Do everything possible to get very 
large programs started which require exponentially increasing budgets
if they are to be successful and which inevitably fail to reach the
requested budget levels and can thus have an excuse to stretch out 
ad nauseum without producing real results all the while bemoaning
our inability to make Congress see the light.  This isn't malice, it
is simply "good business" given the way government contracting happens.

> So what does all this mean. To me it means that the bickering and witch
> hunting have got to stop. 

Everyone pull together with NASA and its contractors who are making a 
lot of money while driving our space program into the bridge abuttment.

>                      It means that we have got to start looking to
> lower the capital risk to getting to space. 

Agreed, and you do that by increasing knowlege through research to
the point that profitable applications become aparent to private 
entities.

>                                             It means that we cannot
> depend on THEM (whoever they are) to get us to space. 

Oh?  What are YOU doing to get us to space these days besides injecting
pink-noise into the net and hoping it will cause a viable mutant idea to
arise in someone's brain?  

>                                                  Something has to
> done to make each step into space profitable. Not twenty years in the
> future, but six months in the future. It means that we need to keep NASA
> plugging ahead, so that at least some door is open, some option
> available.

Right, and we do that by spreading NASA's cashflow out to thousands of
researchers who are dying to try experiments that will give us the knowlege
companies need to start profitable businesses -- and we let those researchers
buy launch services and use of space facilities on the open market thus
making an IMMEDIATE market for space related businesses.  This, as opposed
to giving 90% of NASA's cashflow to a few contractors for huge projects 
that serve no one well.

> 
>                      If you truely want to go to space, stop bitching
> about the people who are working toward the same goal you are, no matter
> how flawed you think they are, because they at least agree with you in
> principle. 

NASA management and the aerospace corporations that are involved in
this bureaucratic nightmare have no principles so how could they
agree with us in principle?  The goals they are working for have
little or nothing to do with the goal of establishing a space-faring
civilization -- they are simply doing what corrupt bureaucracies and
businesses do when the people are not vigilant.  You want us to stop
being vigilant.  We want you to wake up.

>     Somehow or another the space movement has gotten sidetracked
> into looking at the causes of our failures and stopped searching
> for answers to our problems. 

If you truly want to go to space, start engaging in rational thought
processes instead of limbic writhings.  The "space movement", if it really
is looking at the causes of our failures, is taking the first necessary
step tword searching for answers to our problems.  You, on the other hand,
are attempting to avoid facing reality simply because it is painful to you.
Worse yet, you are calling on others to exhibit your shallowness of character
so that you can be spared some cognitive dissonance.


> You best also stop feeling hopeless and helpless, because both
> of those emotions cause you to do stupid, self-destructive things.

I don't feel hopeless at all.  In fact, it looks likely that NASA and
the contractors will soon fail to continue business as usual and the
whole house of cards will fall down, making way for a productive
space program which is focused on appropriate research AND/OR private
space enterprise, which is currently being strangled by aerospace
business-as-usual.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #301
*******************