Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 11 Aug 88 10:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 11 Aug 88 04:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 11 Aug 88 04:04:35 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05342; Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT id AA05342; Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT Date: Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808110804.AA05342@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #321 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 321 Today's Topics: Re: 20-year anniversary Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft Cheap way out of the galaxy!? Re: Satellites Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Re: Automated vs. personned spacecr Space Shuttle fuel leaks Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft Large Amateur Telescope project Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft Re: 20-year anniversary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Aug 88 21:39:06 GMT From: silver!konath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (kannan) Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM Kannan konath@silver.bacs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 20:46:00 GMT From: linus!necntc!primerd!hobbiton!choinski@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft [Lines, lines everywhere and not a bit to eat...] On ships with human brains for pilots... >A gold mine here for SF authors -- have they worked it yet? >(Really, I'd like titles and authors for my own enjoyment.) Try _The Ship who Sang_ by Anne McCaffery. Very nice book dealing with the subject. =============================================================================== Burton Choinski Prime Computer Inc. At: choinski@env.prime.com Framingham, Ma. 01701 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 00:13:32 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Tat Lim) Subject: Cheap way out of the galaxy!? Seen in Aviation Week & Space Technology, 7/25/88, page 51: "During one-sixth of a polar orbit, a satellite is exposed to intergalactic space." -- Kian-Tat Lim ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, ktl@citchem.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1 ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 20:39:51 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <1059@unccvax.UUCP>, nrk@unccvax.UUCP (Nitin R Kulkarni) writes: > > 1. How many satellites has the US and the USSR launched into > deep space ? > 2. Their probable location in our solar system as of today. > 3. The dates when they were launched. Do you count solar orbit as deep space? If that's OK, then: All the following are solar orbiting, unless otherwise noted. The box scores are as follows: USSR 19 US 16 Japan 2 ESA 1 __________ 38 The data I've got only goes through 1987, but the '88 efforts are recent history. The full list follows... Pioneer 4 3/3/59 US solar orbit Pioneer 5 3/11/60 US " " Venera 1 2/12/61 USSR Ranger 3 1/26/62 US (missed moon...) Ranger 5 10/18/62 US (missed moon...) Mars 1 11/1/62 USSR (lost earth lock 65.9M miles) Mariner 3 11/5/64 US Mariner 4 11/28/64 US Zond 2 11/30/64 USSR (Mars probe) Luna 6 6/8/65 USSR (Lunar soft lander missed moon) Venera 2 11/12/65 USSR (passed Venus, no data) Pioneer 6 12/16/65 US (still returning good data) Pioneer 7 8/16/66 US (still active) Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (still active) Mars 4 7/21/73 USSR (missed Mars orbit) Mars 5 7/25/73 USSR (orbiting Mars) Mars 6 8/5/73 USSR (Mars lander failed) Mars 7 7/21/73 USSR (Mars lander failed) Venera 9 6/8/75 USSR (orbiting Venus) Venera 10 6/14/75 USSR (orbiting Venus) Viking 1 8/2075 US (orbiting Mars {except lander}) Viking 2 10/9/75 US ( ditto ) Helios 2 1/15/76 US Voyager 2 8/20/77 US (solar system escape, en route Neptune) Voyager 1 9/5/77 US (likely solar system escapee) Pioneer 12 5/20/78 US (orbiter portion orbiting Venus) Pioneer 13 8/8/78 US (5 payloads hit Venus, rest solar) Venera 11 9/9/78 USSR (all but lander in solar orbit) Venera 12 9/14/78 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 13 10/30/81 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 14 11/4/81 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 15 6/2/83 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 16 6/7/83 USSR ( and again ) Vega 1 12/15/84 USSR (Venus/Halley mission) Vega 2 12/21/84 USSR ( " ) Sakigake 1/7/85 Japan ( Halley mission) Giotto 2/7/85 ESA ( " ) Suisei 9/18/85 Japan ( " ) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 17:55:34 GMT From: ruffwork@cs.orst.edu (Ritchey Ruff) Subject: Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred In article <852@prefix.liu.se> yngla@prefix.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) writes: >In article <605@ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: >>>space station "Freedom". >> ^^^ ^ >Well, coincindence of coincidences; The strange fact is that "Fred" is the >Swedish word for "Peace". How nice of you to (sort of) honor Mir in this >way.. :-) And I thought the space station was named after someone named "Fred Om" and it was just that Ronnie couldn't spell... yea, yea...space station "Fred Om", or "Fred" for short... --ritchey ruff ruffwork@cs.orst.edu -or- ...!tektronix!orstcs!ruffwork ps-John G, say hi to john S... ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 04:36:23 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <629@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. > >This, of course, makes power supplies efficient (since, in essence, >they're giving you the front half of a switching power supply), [. . .] Isn't this going to cause considerable inefficiency of power transmission due to radiative losses, which go up with increasing frequency (I don't remember the exact relation, but it's linear or worse)? Also, this is going to make it impossible to operate induction motors (unless you want them to go VERY fast) without using electronic conversion of the power to get the frequency down. (I said something about this before, but I think my posting got hosed.) -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 13:31:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecr In article <8807291618.AA06003@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: >Hmmm... if those of us who >get into this line of work write our contracts right, we'll probably end >up owning the planet in a couple centuries, with compound interest on >the back pay piling up while we're off to the stars... Yep, the theory is fine - all you need is the technology. I suspect this is built on the "I've done all the difficult creative work, now you guys can go and work on the details" management process. However, I would be vastly surprised if a free-floating brain has any legal rights like this. Can a single human organ own a contract? After all, you wouldn't want to go in for your body amputation and then find that the people running the program could wriggle out of their commitments. You wouldn't even be able to storm into their offices, unless you're considering developing the future of law enforcement. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * UCL, London, Errrp * Don't believe everything you hear, william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * or anything you say. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu 4 Aug 1988 13:27:56 EST From: Harold Mueller Subject: Space Shuttle fuel leaks How do you find a leak in a hydrogen line? Hydraulic fluid would be easy to spot oozing out, but liquid hydrogen would vaporize. I don't suppose it would be such a great idea to traverse the line with a lit match. Harold Mueller Bendix Field Engineering Corporation c/o Code 5360 Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375 (202) 767-3240/3356 AUTOVON 297-3240/3356 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 12:15:50 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft In article <45900001@hobbiton>, choinski@hobbiton.prime.com writes: > On ships with human brains for pilots... > >A gold mine here for SF authors -- have they worked it yet? > >(Really, I'd like titles and authors for my own enjoyment.) > > Try _The Ship who Sang_ by Anne McCaffery. Very nice book dealing with > the subject. > Somebody had cat brains for pilots, quicker reflexes. (Actually, working in tandem with human pilots, as I remember) Jim ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 00:16:40 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc!jackz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jack Zeiders) Subject: Large Amateur Telescope project Large Amateur Telescope A group of Northern California amateur astronomers are getting together to put a bid on a large piece of glass 70"dia. x 8" thk. We are basically the same group that built the 30" telescope at the Fremont Peak Observatory. Now the opportunity has presented itself to build a larger instrument, a 70". A 70" f4 or so Newtonian with a cass and Coude' focus. An altaz fork is planned with computer control. Battleship technology is the watchword for tube and fork design. The group is forming now and if you have strong interest in contributing, let us know what you can help with. Right now we are looking for people willing to contribute cash to finance the glass. We have about eight to ten who want to see this scope become reality enough to contribute $1k each. We are looking for other crazies who want to join us. Most of us can't really afford to, but we want this badly enough to put our money up. We are not a rip-off and this is not a scam. We don't want cash in advance. We are looking for real people who can be relied on to help make a dream reality. We need about $25-30k to put a serious offer in for the glass. Glass this size is not easy to come by, and this opportunity is too good to pass up. The idea is that if we can get the glass, we can make the machines and the mirror. Once that is under way we can start on the tube and mounting. When the scope is well under way we will start looking for a site and designing a building. When you have something real to show people will take your dream seriously. As the project matures we will need more crazies who may not have monetary resources, but expertise in other areas. But the people must be active contributers not drones. I apologize if this offends anyone but this is the way it must be. For further info contact: Kevin Medlock (415) 784-0391 or me Jack Zeiders !hplabs!hpscdc!jackz (408) 281-0220 evenings to 10PM or leave msg. There are 13 of us as of 8-2-88 Standard disclaimers apply, If you have no interest or are offended please disreguard this message. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 13:57:07 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft All this disgusting, hard-to-support, short-lived ORGANICS! YECH! Lets move the MIND to the space craft, not the brain. You are welcome, A. C. Clarke. AI guys, go to it. Not just an "intelligence", but MINE! (maybe with a few callable subroutines.....) 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: 5 Aug 88 00:23:31 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary In article <11289@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> jec@iuvax.UUCP (James E. Conley) writes: >>In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: >>>>> >>> >I would hope that NASA would cancel the launch if there we any unreasonable ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >possibility of failure. Last thing we need to be remindered is how twenty >years ago we would put men on the moon, and now all we can do is scatter >them over the Atlantic Ocean. Perhaps you mean "reasonable". But then since you seem to agree with the current NASA administration, perhaps you do mean "unreasonable". This is not a flame just at you, there were several others who expressed similar sentiments. My purpose in posting the original article was two-fold. One was that it's now a good time to start thinking about a 20-year celebration. I think it's unfortunate that we don't have some major new project ready to go (or already underway) at that time. (How many of you would have predicted the current state of the U.S. space effort 20 years ago?) My other purpose was to indicate that at the rate the Discovery testing is going, they won't launch before the end of the century. Every day I open the newspaper and read about a new leak setting the launch back another week or so. It seems like NASA is trying for a Perfect launch; something which anyone with common sense will tell you is virtually impossible. After all, there's always the "unreasonable" possibility of it being hit by a meteor on its way up. Anyway, many of the delays are caused by things which would not have caused delays in pre-Challenger launches. I'm not saying that they should ignore every one of them, but their hyper-cautiousness is becoming ridiculous. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM P.S. It occurred to me after I wrote this that maybe there's an SDI test scheduled next July. Then we could claim that the test is our celebration. I can't think of anything more reflective of our current space effort than to blow up a satellite. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #321 *******************