Date: Sat, 3 Sep 88 01:06:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8809030806.AA08817@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #347

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 347

Today's Topics:
       Soyuz TM-6 mission launched to Soviet Mir space station
		Soyuz TM-6 mission - more information
	   Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 10 Sep 88, 7:30 PM
		Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything?
		  Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
		  RE: Space Exploitation/Exploration
		  Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 17:12:10 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soyuz TM-6 mission launched to Soviet Mir space station

     The USSR launched the Soyuz TM-6 "Afghan" mission to the Mir space station 
between 8:23-8:25 am Moscow Daylight Time (0:23-25 EDT) today (Aug 29).  On 
board were Col. Vladimir Lyahkov, mission commander (age 47; Soviet Air Force;
2 previous flights: Soyuz 32 in Feb '79 for 175 on Salyut 6 and Soyuz T9 in 
June '83 for 149 days on Salyut 7), Dr. Penkov? (Age 36; first flight - sorry
the radio was noisy so that is the best guess at his name), and 
Capt. Abdol Ahad (Afghanistan Air Force guest cosmonaut).  The Mission will
dock with Mir on Aug. 31, and be returning to earth on Sept. 6.  The purpose
is to observe Afghan territory for the Afghans (the joke running around
is that he to observe the Soviet troop withdrawal).
     On the Mir/Kvant complex they will be joining Vladimir Titov and 
Musahi Manarov who have now been up for more than 9 months (253 days).  This
already makes them the 2nd longest duration space crew, exceeding the 
Soyuz T-10B crew 237 mission on board Salyut 7 in Oct. 1984 (set by 
Leonid Kizim, Validimir Soloyev and Oleg Atkov).  The are closing in on the
326 day record set by Yuri Romanenko last December.  By comparison the maximum
space time of any active US astronauts is held by John Young with 
34 days experience and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2 & STS-9) with 33 
days (all higher time ones have left the program).  The longest US time ever 
was the 84 days of the Skylab 4 three man crew in Nov. '73. Indeed Manarov and
Titov have individually accumulated more time than the combined
total Skylab 4 crew.  Note: the beginning of August marked the 10th anniversary
of the date when Soviet cosmonauts exceeded the US in manned space experience.
     There are several interesting things about this mission.  First the
actual crew makeup was not announced in advance.  Indeed the Afghan who flew,
Capt. Ahad,  was second in line several months ago behind Col. Mohammad Dauran. 
Does this mean this Soyuz TM-6 group was the backup crew?  Next they did not
broadcast the flight live on short wave, though the announcement was made about
2 minutes after takeoff.  CNN showed the flight about 10 minutes later.  Most
recent flights have gone out live - suffering from lack of audience? Also has 
been statements to the effect that the doctor will not be coming down on Sept 6,
but will stay up to check over Manarov and Titov.  But when will he come down?
The guest cosmonaut - French mission is set for Nov. 21 (date just announced).
They will come down about Dec 23, with Manarov and Titov plus 
Jean-Loup Chretien (the probable Frenchman).    That leaves no room for the
doctor, who would have to come down about two months later, at the next
landing window in late February (ie. a 5 month mission minimum). 
     Two other points.  First they have said now several times on short wave
that a new Energia is on the pad (without the shuttle).  Launch date is not
given, nor is the cargo.  Secondly, there is the tale that singer John Denver
is about to purchase a mission to Mir for himself for $10 million (with the
first live TV special by a "star" from space?).  That is the current going
rate for a manned flight to their station.
     The Soviet space program is clearly into the operational space station
phase.  Their crews carry out the business of a permanently manned outpost
in orbit without much fanfare.  Here we get lovely paintings of what tomorrows
space station will look like.  Yet only now is Congress giving the funds to
do some of this work (the $900 million for this year).  Still there are those
calling for us to study yet again what to build.  While others act we debate.
      
     
                                                    Glenn Chapman
                                                    MIT Lincoln Lab

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

Date: Tue, 30 Aug 88 14:08:56 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soyuz TM-6 mission - more information

   Some additional information about the Soyuz TM-6 mission that was launched
on Aug. 29th.  The Physician is named Dr. Valery Polyakov (Age 47) while
some reports (the New York Times) are giving the Afghan cosmonaut's full name
as Capt. Abdol Ahad Mohmand (Age 29).  The statements of when the doctor will
come down are confusing.  The NYT report said Dr. Polyakov will return on 
Dec. 21 with Valadimir Titov and Musa Manarov (the long duration space crew).
However, that would leave the French spaceman, Jean-Loup Chretien, on board.
Hence, 5 current possibilities are: Polyakov stays at least until a Feb. '89
mission (none has been announced) or later; Chretien stays longer than 1 month
(rather unlikely);  one of Titov or Manarov stay longer (also unlikely) or
they play some tricks with Soyuzs' (bring down two capsules at once, while
sending up a replacement etc.); or finally Polyakov comes down on Sept 6th
(unlikely as they have already stated he will not).   With these partial crew
changes and combinations of short and long duration people following these
Russian flights is starting to get rather difficult.
     This may be my last posting for this mission - I am heading off to 
New Orleans until after the mission ends.  I will fill people in after that.

                                                Glenn Chapman
                                                MIT Lincoln Lab

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

Posted-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 16:31:44 PDT
To: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 10 Sep 88, 7:30 PM
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 16:31:44 PDT
From: rogers@venera.isi.edu

		     Galileo:  Passage to Jupiter

	Mr. Robert B. Gounley will talk about the upcoming Galileo
mission to Jupiter.  He will present a "travelogue" of its extended
journey through the inner solar system and Jovian space, including
mission objectives, spacecraft design and anticipated scientific
return.  He'll also give a short history of the delays the project has
faced, and the efforts taken to overcome them.

	Mr. Gounley is a member of the technical staff in Spacecraft
Systems Engineering at JPL.  He has worked extensively with the
design, testing and flight operations of Galileo, as well as system
engineering issues affecting the science instruments.  Mr. Gounley has
been a member of the National Space Society (formerly the L5 society)
since 1977.

	This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the
Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and
Settlement (OASIS), the Los Angeles and Orange County chapter of the
National Space Society.  The organization is a non-profit educational
group which promotes space development.

	The public is invited; there is no admission charge.  For more
information about this lecture or other OASIS activities call the
OASIS Message Machine at (213) 374-1381 or send email to Craig Milo
Rogers (DoD Internet address <Rogers@ISI.Edu>).

	When:	Saturday, September 10, 1988
	Where:	Von Karman Auditorium
		Jet Propulsion Laboratory
		Pasadena, CA

	Directions:
	Get to the Foothill Fwy (I-210) travelling towards Pasadena.
Get off on Berkshire Pl., near the Pasadena/La Canada Flintridge
border.  Go east 1 block to Oak Grove Drive.  Turn left and drive
north, less than a mile, to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory main gate.
Free parking is available in the lot to the left of the gate.

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

Date: 21 Aug 88 09:18:23 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Shannon Mann - I.S.er)
Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything?

In article <561@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
- large chunk left out to conserve bandwidth - 
>                                                    (After all,
>we've been broadcasting like mad for decades, and haven't been
>blasted yet.)  But then again, there's all those Biilyons and
>Biilyons * of stars out there, for all those Biilyons and Biilyons *
>of years ... and it only has to happen once for us all to be in 
>deep yoghurt.
>--
>* "Biilyons and Biilyons" is a trademark of Carl Sagan Enterprises, Inc.
>-- 
>Mike Van Pelt                       When the fog came in on little cat feet
>Unisys, Silicon Valley              last night, it left these little muddy
>vanpelt@unisv.UUCP                  paw prints on the hood of my car.

To be serious for just one minute, I don't believe that we will be likely to 
have visitors from some other star in the near future.  Our radio envelope
has been travelling out from our solar system for less than 100 years.  This 
means that only stars within that *radiosphere* will have had any notification
of our presence.  This sphere encompasses very few stars when compared to the 
billions in the rest of the galaxy.  Chances are that there are no advanced
lifeforms in that sphere capable of galactic space travel.  (Or we would have 
had some contact by now :-)  Furthermore, as the radiosphere expands, the 
transmissions become more and more weak, disrupted by background noise, etc.  
Although the calculation is beyond me, I believe that, after a certain distance,
the signals would be so weak as to become part of the background noise.
All of these factors indicate that we have little to worry about, at least
for the time being.

As for the *probe* question, I think Fred Saberhagen has said it best in his
series of stories about *berserkers* (self-replicating, life-destroying,        
intelligent war machines), and, in a better light, Clarke's 2001/2010/2061.
Being a science fiction reader, and not yet a writer, I will leave full
treatment to the above authors.  I will say that, there is a much greater
chance of stumbling upon a probe than the real beings.  Machines can search
without stopping for things like having children, growing old, eating, etc.

All the above is, of course, a gross generalization, but I believe, a safe 
one.  Please no flames.  I have a naive enthusiasm for this topic that I would
like to keep.  Any comments, please E-mail. 

        -=-
-=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca
        -=-

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

Date: 22 Aug 88 00:31:17 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST

In article <952@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>I'm starting to believe that the main reason ALS will
>have trouble reaching its design goals is the "performance is
>everything", "high tech or nothing" mind set of the companies doing
>the work. 

Don't forget the performance-is-everything, high-tech-or-nothing mindset
of the *customer*.  ALS is already supposed to be (a) the spur for the
development of new expendable-launcher technology, (b) a rapid-reaction
launcher for military crises, (c) a hardened launcher for use in a hostile
wartime environment, and (d) a cheap launcher.  If a serious effort were
made to meet *one* of these objectives, I have no doubt it could be done...
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 11:02:20 CDT
From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (My desk is an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics)
Subject: RE: Space Exploitation/Exploration


 **********WARNING: NEW KID ON THE BLOCK WITH A CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER********
 Forearmed is forewarned (play football?)
 
 Space is not some natural resource which can or should be controlled by an
 governmental or extra-governmental entity.  Instead, it is a resource much
 like the "New World", claimable by whomever wanted to (obviously this was
 the governments), but exploited by those with the brains, bucks and balls to
 go out and do something. 
 
 Any private organization which decides that there is good reason for them to
 be in space should have no prohibition to doing so.  Correction, the
 restrictions should be on what they do to Earth while getting there. 
 
 Of course, this all gets to my reason for being.  One of the best candidates
 for space industrialiation is the power utilities.  I've disliked (hate is a
 nasty word) TU Electric for years, but if they said they were going to put
 the plants in space, I'd walk to DC to testify on their behalf! 
 
 Why?  Mankind needs room, we need to get off each other's shoulders. The
 sooner we spread out in this system (and beyond, but that happens MUCH
 later) the sooner we, as a race, can start believing that we might survive
 our own stupidity.  There's plenty of room out there for Palestine or
 Armenia or even White South Africa.  And something for the misfits in our
 society who would have been trappers and explorers and miners in a previous
 era.  About the only group that wouldn't fit in would be our hypothetical
 anarchists, since anarchy and a hard vacuum don't seem well suited for each
 other. 
 
 Basically, though, none of this will happen if some Mickey Mouse (sorry
 Walt) third world country claims co-soveriegnty by virtue of some "natural
 right to share".  On the other hand, if I'm up there (and I plan to be),
 then any one who disputes me is welcome to come up with me.  By the time
 this Third Worlder gets there, they will have so much invested in it that
 they will (I hope) want to preserve the new status quo by taking the same
 stance. 
 
 Afterall, space is an awful damn big place.  Ain't no reason to fight over
 it. 
 
 Love and kisses
 
 Dillon Pyron
 
 My employer knows not whereof I speak, therefore and accept all criticizms
 and adulation on my own.

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

Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 12:12:49 PST
From: Peter Scott <PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov"

>clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com  (Henry Spencer) quotes:

>NASA is studying an internal proposal to launch Columbia unmanned next year
>using old SRBs. [...]  The problem is that NASA
>has about 13 pre-Challenger SRBs left, containing about 11 million pounds
>of oxidizer that cannot be recovered, and the oxidizer shortage is looking
>worse and worse.

I seem to remember that one of the problems with ICBMs (also solid-fuelled)
is that they have a finite and relatively short `shelf' life due to the
propellant perishing, such that when old missiles are fired, this is by far the
most likely reason for their failure.  These SRBs are at least 2 years old,
isn't this problem likely to be a consideration?  Unmanned or not, we can't
exactly afford to lose the Columbia...

Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov)

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #347
*******************