Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.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 ; Tue, 21 Feb 89 03:16:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 03:16:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #251 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 251 Today's Topics: Re: NSS and space settlement TLM (What kind of modulation is this?) Re: Energia questions Re: 1992 moon base Re: Mars video animation Re: the un/manned debate Re: Space Resources Re: NASA planetary footage? French small space shuttle: A go ahead ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Feb 89 14:27:33 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: NSS and space settlement In article <1989Feb15.082114.13293@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: [A long discussion, with which I totally disagree, of why we should not invest in manned space travel in the immediate future] > It is interesting to note the curious mental attitude of > scientists working on "hopeless" subjects. Contrary to what > one might at first suspect, they are all buoyed up by > irrepressible optimism. I believe there is a simple explanation > for this. Anyone without such optimism simply leaves the field > and takes up some other line of work. Only the optimists remain. > So one has the curious phenomenon that workers in subjects in which > the prize is big but the prospects of success very small always > appear very optimistic. And this in spite of the fact that, although > plenty appears to be going on, they never seem to get appreciably > nearer their goal. > > Francis Crick, "What Mad Pursuit" This is both correct and incorrect. I work in mathematical statistics. When one considers the amount of time needed to prove the results I announce, this may be as small as 1% of the time I spend getting them, and I am considered to be rather good at this. Is the rest of the time wasted? No; I may have no idea at the beginning of my investigation as to how to proceed. I have often proved things in the process of which I would have been dubious about their existence, if I had thought of it before the research. Many of these are "obvious" later. Many scientific discoveries are the culmination of much apparently fruitless research and seeming to get nowhere. And much of the research is actually fruitless; this is the nature of research. Much of the time the prize is totally different from that sought. Quantum theory, the existence of isotopes, relativity, biological antibiotics, and nuclear fission are all examples of big prizes which were not found by looking for them. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 89 15:23:06 GMT From: romeo!currier@cs.duke.edu (Bob Currier - DCAC Network Comm. Specialist) Subject: TLM (What kind of modulation is this?) On page 59 of the March 1989 issue of Popular Communications there is a sidebar that lists Russian satellite frequencies, along with the types of modulations used. I know what FSK, SSB,WBFM, NBFM etc etc are, but I have never heard of TLM. Can somebody help me out here? If anybody knows what it is, then the *next* question is: what type of receiver do I need to pick it up? (Yeah, yeah, I KNOW, a TLM rig :-) ) Thanks, Bob Currier Network Communications Duke University Durham, N.C currier@romeo.cs.duke.edu dynamo@tucc.bitnet ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 89 23:09:48 GMT From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) Subject: Re: Energia questions In article <890216095751.00000C4E092@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: > How close does it come to being able to > go into LEO? Could it do so if it jettisoned the engines and just > send the shell into orbit? If so, how come the Russkies haven't built > an orbiting facility this way? > Have some patience. Why haven't they done it yet? After only 2 (count 'em, 2) launches of the Energia, they haven't had a chance to do that yet! Heavy emphasis on the yet. Look at their achievements in the past couple of years. A new launch vehicle--Energia. 100,000+ kg to LEO. Launched Buran on the second launch of the core. Mir is in orbit, and will soon be expanded. They have automatically docked Progress vehicles for many years now to re-supply their Salyuts (and now Mir). The first flight of Buran was unmanned, and totally ground controlled. In short, give them time. They WILL use Energia to launch a major orbiting space facility. (While the last of our Saturn V's lie rotting on their sides as tourist attractions. Sigh.) Norman C. Kluksdahl Arizona State U. ..noao!ncar!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah standard disclaimer implied ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 89 18:36:18 GMT From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Stuart Warmink) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base In article <894@blake.acs.washington.edu> calufrax@blake.acs.washington.edu (Chad Fogg) writes: >I understand that there are a few enclosed and sealed off artificial >habitat experiments where simulated patches of greenery and hydro- >ponics reside. I've heard of one in the SW US that is in operation. > >I've also seen photographs of a dome at the South Pole station. Is this >part of the study? > I assume you are refering to the geodesic structure - that IS the South Pole station! Well, the above ground part of it, anyway. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE" ("WHAT'S NEW") | att!groucho!sw, sw@groucho.ATT.COM -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 89 02:55:39 GMT From: tektronix!tekecs!nobody@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (-for inetd server command) Subject: Re: Mars video animation In article <87@raider.MFEE.TN.US> crc@raider.MFEE.TN.US (Charles Cain) writes: >The other morning while at work I saw a video of a computer animation that >was done at JPL. If anyone missed it, you missed truly some of the best >computer animations ever rendered out to video. My question is to anyone at >JPL, is that available for distribution or was it just something for internal >use and press footage only, or is there a lot more than the 2:00 minutes I saw >then. This probably wasn't the same video, but at the Pacific Northwest Computer Graphics Conference here in Portland, a NASA video was shown which described the Mars sample-return mission. The graphics were excellent, but it had an interesting effect on the audience. There were about a dozen little devices that one by one were deployed from the spacecraft, kind of like the old box-in-a-box-in-a-box-in-a-box novelty. By the end of the video, the audience was almost howling with laughter. When the final Earth re-entry vehicle appearred, I could barely even hear the soundtrack. The video was done in a very serious vein, but somehow the roomful of computer hacks thought it was quite hilarious. Kendall Auel ^ ^ /O O\ Tektronix, Inc. | V | Information Display Group / """ \ Interactive Technologies Division / """"" \ (kendalla@pooter.GWD.TEK.COM) /|\ /|\ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 89 04:47:15 GMT From: right!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: the un/manned debate In article <935@cs.rit.edu> mpk9172%ritcv@cs.rit.edu (Michael Kirby) writes: > >I have just about enough of this manned/unmanned thing. I think >we all understand fairly well that both are needed. Some *misunderstand* this, and then go further to declare that because manned spaceflight is more expensive, it should get more funding! Manned spacelflight at the present time serves only to take resources away from true science and discovery, delaying the era when valuable, widespread manned presence in space can be achieved. Manned spaceflight activists, by demanding the bulk of the resources, are destroying the space program for us all. > Both the manned and unmanned programs provide results (both tangible and > intangible). Unmanned provides *all* the private-sector benefits of space, and the overwhelming bulk of the scientific benefits, despite being shafted when it comes to public funding. Unmanned also provides greater intangible benefits, in the form of expanding our consciousness of the cosmos around us, rather than being confined to Earth and Earth orbit. >The scientific probe activists... while your telling us the great >virtues of 30 billion dollars worth [of probes] have you ever >considered what we would do with all this information? >where we would store it? Ever heard of CD-ROM? Photographs of all surfaces in the solar system can fit in a small room; a few more database servers can hold other sorts of data (gamma ray, IR, etc.) Of course, we will be able to store and retrieve more information yet, and will do so, but this is gravy. Researchers and the public should be able to access this data at negligible cost through networks or distribution of CD's. >Already we are on the verge of saturating nasa's NASCOM >network. with the HST and the other great observatory programs going into >service, we will rapidly climb into the terabytes a year worth of >information being transmitted from space to earth. We need to be >continously thinking about new technologies to retreive, store, and >process this information. Communications is more of a bottleneck than storage. For example, Magellan may give us a map of Venus with a few holes in it, because it cannot get enough time on the Deep Space Network when Galileo is doing maneuvers in the same part of the sky. (This conflict is in turn the result of Shuttle hijinks, but I won't go into that). The remedy is to increase funding for the DSN several times, and to increase funding for K-band and optical communications research, with which we can greatly increase our bandwidth and sky coverage at lower cost. All these costs are negligible in relation to manned programs. The processing bottleneck depends on how much processing we want to do; in other words, how important the data is to scientists. It is interesting that this problem does not come up as often with manned missions: such data is often merely the side effect of multi-billion dollar missions done for other reasons, and processing it does not produce anything of value. We need to think about these bottlenecks, *and* we need to do something about them. JPL could sure use a lot of new image processing machinery. JPL *invented* image processing, but you'd never know it from their current level of funding. NASCOM and DSN need new eqipment and better technology. We need to distribute the results to more scientists who are funded to work on them, as well as other interested members of the public. All this could be done, in spades, if only a fraction of the funding currently thrown at manned programs were available for the effort. >How can nasa work against >a tightening budget to keep it's programs active? NASA's budget is not tightening. It is being increased from $10 billion to $13 billion next year. Most of the new money will be wasted on the Station and Shuttle. >is there really >a tangible market for private industry research and developement >of space? Huh? We have had private industries in space since the 60's. Communications and remote sensing are thriving, despite being severely hampered by the Shuttle program and other government interference. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 13:28:42 PST From: greer%utd201%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: Re: Space Resources X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov" /> There is no reason those who make it to that time should *ever* have to die, /I hope you're right, because dying is not something I want to be around /for when it happens. ... At 47 years can expect anywhere from 2-4 decades /of further existence if you avoid accidents, homicide, and disease. / ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ /Dan Mocsny Not to mention SUICIDE or WAR! Especially when confronted with... / ...enough resources in the asteroid belt to construct an infra-structure / consisting of 40 trillion people with 40,000 trillion tons of supporting / structure, occupying aporx. 1 billion cubic km... / ...theoretically possible to convert the sun into a white dwarf, / which would extend the lifetime of SOL 1,115 times... / ...civilization consiting of 10(16) - 10(21) power humans on a surface / area equivalent to 1 billion earths...potential lifespan of at least / 10 trillion years. All of this is possible within the solar system. / ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ / Paul Hughes Not MY solar system! Not if I can help it. Perhaps Mr.Hughes and Dr.Frankenstein will team up with the Immortals and the FTL freaks and they will all live happily (!?) ever after in ANOTHER GALAXY. However, thinking about the some of the physics of such a so-called civilisation makes a good demonstration of the weakness of gravity. Assume the aforesaid mass and volume are equally divided between L4 & L5, so each society would mass about 2e19kg. For reference, the Earth masses 6e24kg and the Moon 7e22kg. A cube of 5e8 km**3 would have about 800km to a side. The gravitational constant is about 7e-11 m**3/(kg-s**2). So the outermost parts of this thing would have an acceleration of G*M/r**2 = 7e-11*2e19/8e5**2 = 14e8/64e10 = 2e-3 m/s**3, which is 2 tenths of a percent of the surface acceleration on the Earth. Also, the escape velocity would be Sqrt(2*G*M/r) = Sqrt (28e8/8e5) = Sqrt(3400) = 58 m/s. By contrast, the Earth's Ve is 11200 m/s and the Moon's is 2380 m/s. ---- "Pave Paradise, | Dale M. Greer put up a parking lot." | Center for Space Sciences -- Joni Mitchell | University of Texas at Dallas | UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::GREER The opinions are my own, and may or may not reflect those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 11:15:34 SET From: ESC1325%ESOC.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT Subject: Re: NASA planetary footage? This mailing refers to the question of Jim Moskowitz, who is searching for planetary mission videos: (SPACE Digest #231 from 4 Feb 89) If you are not restricted to NASA missions, here is one source: The Max-Planck-Institute for Aeronomy (which built the camera on ESA's Giotto spacecraft to Halley's comet) sells video tapes with a short (10 min approx) animation of the approach to Halley's nucleus. The sequence shows nicely how the black comet nucleus emerges from the bright sunlit dust coma, how more and more features on its surface show up as the probe approaches and, in the last seconds, how the images degrade as the camera mirror gets damaged in the cometary duststorm. The tape can be ordered for all kinds of TV systems (VHS tape, PAL, NTSC and Secam System or U-matic high/low key) and comes for approx. 50 US-$ for private/academic use and approx. 200 US-$ for public presentation use (VHS tapes). For details you should contact Dr. H.U. Keller Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie Postfach 20 D-3411 Katlenburg-Lindau Federal Republic of Germany His EARN e-mail address is U0166@DGOGWDG5, on SPAN ECD1::LINMPI::KELLER Personally I like the sequence very much, as I remember that night here in the control centre. The images displayed on that night were very cryptic due to the false colours used, but the processed ones in "real colour" are much better. Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are mine, not ESA's or mbp's. No guarantee, no liability. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Lutz Massonne, mbp Software&Systems GmbH | Tel. +49 6151 886 701 European Space Operations Centre | Robert-Bosch-Str. 5 | ESC1325@BITNET D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG | ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 89 14:07:08 GMT From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) Subject: French small space shuttle: A go ahead ! The French CNES (centre national d'etude spatial) managing the space program of France has officially announced its technical and financial support for the small space plane Hernes (20 tons) to be build. Matra Espace and Aerospatiale are the two main contractors in charge. The technical feasability studies are done and developement has begun. Hermes will be lauched by Ariane 5, a heavy booster currently under development. Its first flight is scheduled for 1996 that is in 7 years. England strongly oppose it and will not take part of any of its finacial costs. This shouldn't surprise anyone since Thatcher is still in power. Decadence ... Germany has some plan and might be soon heavily involved. Hopefully this will work and help us make Europe one step closer. Jean-Marc Debaud. Carnegie-Mellon jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu *Beware ! Europe (beside England) is waking up !* ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #251 *******************