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, 2 May 89 05:17:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8YLL8Zy00UkZ0pbU4A@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 2 May 89 05:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #404 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 404 Today's Topics: Re: Private Space Re: Colonization problems Re: Voyager model Re: Some comments on comments... Re: ET exposure Re: Private Space Companies Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter Re: NASP (national aerospace plane) Re: Some comments on comments... Re: Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter Private Space Companies (WAS Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!) Earth based - will it always win? Re: McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Apr 89 15:54:05 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Private Space In article <2503@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG> dave@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG (David Becker) writes: >Does the experience of Pegasus and AMROC backup the 'order of >magnatude less' statement? Very cautiously, yes. The caution is necessary because neither has yet flown. >In other words, exactly how bad do these efforts make NASA look? Not very, because NASA hasn't been in the expendable-launcher business, or the small-launcher business, for quite a while. >Did the embarassment of telling China to raise their Long-March launch >prices have any impact? Or what did Fletcher say when a congressional >committee asked when, if ever, he could make a launch for that much? As near as I can tell, insofar as Congress cares, it is still buying the NASA/NASA-contractor party line that it's impossible to reduce costs very much. (Taking the hardware out of the hands of NASA and the USAF and having them buy launch services has already produced modest cost savings.) -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 89 15:59:51 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Colonization problems In article <3753@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: >}The sum total of human knowledge about low-gravity biological effects is >}that a few days on the Moon didn't hurt the Apollo astronauts. That's *it*. > >Well, since I think that zero might qualify as low, I would not say that... The discussion was about low, not zero, gravity, so the Soviets don't know anything either. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 89 23:34:23 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Voyager model In article <890428142542.000018DC091@naif.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@NAIF.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >>And what about the third craft? Is it the one on display at JPL? > >The "Voyager" on display here is a model made out of cardboard, plastic, >wood, occasionally metal. I believe the third craft is in the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian has a depressingly large collection of ex-flight-ready hardware, in fact: Voyager 3, Viking 3, a real Lunar Module (not a mockup or test article), Skylab II, ... -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 89 23:46:53 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Some comments on comments... In article <570@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >... As a matter of fact, >there is only *one* probe out there doing *anything*...Voyager. You're forgetting Pioneer Venus and Giotto, at a minimum. >You seem to put a lot of faith in a program that has the exact same problem as >you say the U.S. program has: all talk and no action... The Soviets have had schedule slips. However, while the US program is pretty nearly all talk and no action, the Soviet one is mostly talk but some action. They have, after all, launched two more Mars missions this decade than the US has. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 89 04:39:10 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net (Mark Robert Thorson) Subject: Re: ET exposure > > "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of > > citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14, > > Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted > > 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing). The Code > > I hereby publicly and solemnly swear that I will break this law if ever > given the opportunity. Furthurmore I will make any and all information so > gained fully public regardless of personal consequences. > > Admittedly, it is rather unlikely that I'll have said opportunity. But > it's the thought that counts... > > If true, this kind of statist garbage is why we need the libertarian > movement around. SOMEONE has stand up and tell the government to go > **** itself. > > Smash the State, > Dale Amon Why do you think an ET would want to talk to you? Why do total strangers knock on your door? There's about a 90% chance (I'm correct in about 90% of my estimates :-) that such an ET would be some kind of missionary. Have you thought of the damage which could be wrought by being exposed to ET ideas? What if they're preaching some super-effective form of Communism or Jehovah's Witnesses or something? "Hi. We're from the planet Kolob and we'd like you to ask yourself if you died right now, are you sure you would go to dimension 5? If you're not sure, we have some free information pills we'd like to leave with you. We're sure you would find them very interesting and tasty." ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 89 17:19:01 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Private Space Companies In article <3897@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes: >A couple of weeks ago I remeber someone posted a brief note that >Rockwell tried to buy the shuttle from NASA.. Henery S>.. Why didn't NASA sell them a couple of shuttles? Because NASA does not want to turn the shuttle, or any other NASA activity, over to anybody else. NASA wants to stay in control. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 89 23:01:52 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter In article <1339@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: >Daniel Hinojosa writes: >> I read an article in the L.A. Times about this event. Seems the asteroid >> in question came amazingly close to earth. That is, amazingly close >> in the overall scope of the universe. 500 million miles close. > >I recall seeing a movie film of an object that skimmed through the earths >atmosphere (over Colorado, I believe.) I forget how big it was, but it >stayed in the atmosphere for a few minutes, and it didn't burn up. It >just kept going back out into solar orbit. Yes, I was going to mention this too but was too lazy at the time. It was in August '77 or '78 I believe - a mountain-sized object passed through the upper layers of Earth's atmosphere traveling approximately South to North over the Rockies from Mexico to Canada. Many thousands of people saw the massive "contrail" and some saw the tumbling body itself. In the Rockies' high tourist season everyone has a camera, so there were lots of pictures taken, including some 8mm color movies. It made the cover of S&T a few months later, you could check the back issues. I wish the 8mm shots were available on video, I remember seeing them at the time and it is *TRULY* chilling. Even though it merely grazed the wispy upper stratosphere, eyewitnesses said they could HEAR it this thing. You know the line: "Be afraid... be VERY afraid"! -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff "Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 89 15:58:42 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: NASP (national aerospace plane) In article <3888@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes: >the capabilities of the NASP? I know its suppose to reach a >LEO, but could it go higher... Not very. Getting into LEO is hard enough. >Am I into the area of wishfull thinking, yet : ) ? like payloads? The only aerospace plane that actually has funding is the X-30, whose payload will be two pilots and whatever they can put in their pockets. >Also I have heard that the Japanese, Europe are designing a similar >space/aircraft. But I haven't heard anything similiar being built in >Russia. Japan is interested in aerospace planes and is doing vigorous research on materials and propulsion, but has no immediate plans to build one. The Europeans are interested in the general idea but aren't doing much direct work on it at present. (Note, I speak of aerospace planes -- planes that can fly up into orbit under their own power -- not spaceplanes that are launched by conventional expendable boosters. Both the Japanese and the Europeans have active projects aimed at the latter.) I suspect Soviet technology is not up to an aerospace plane just yet. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 89 23:38:08 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Some comments on comments... In article <506@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: >> The Zoology department *here* isn't going to launch any Mars probes until >> somebody (i.e. the Soviets) finds life there. > >Assuming that the statement was not entirely tongue-in-cheek, it seems that >the US wasted its time with Viking; it wouldn't have found life anyway >because the landers had the wrong flag painted on them... Not quite what I meant. The reason I said that is that the Soviets are the only ones still looking for life on Mars, so they are the only ones likely to find it. Official NASA policy is that there is no life on Mars, so it is not worth flying hardware to look for it. >> [list of mars probes] Ancient history, all of them. > >I guess that implies that all the data they collected is useless too... No, but it's not relevant to a discussion of the death and decay of the US space program today. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 89 17:45:59 GMT From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com (Greg Goebel) Subject: Re: Re: Asteroid/Earth Close Encounter > > I recall seeing a movie film of an object that skimmed through the earths > atmosphere (over Colorado, I believe.) I forget how big it was, but it > stayed in the atmosphere for a few minutes, and it didn't burn up. It > just kept going back out into solar orbit. > > John M. Logajan > Yeah, I remember that, it was back in the 70s, I think. SKY & TELESCOPE ran some of the pictures ... it skipped into the atmosphere in the Southwest and ran roughly parallel to the Rockies until it skipped out at roughly the Canadian border. Pro and dedicated-amateur astronomers will no doubt be posting full details presently. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Greg Goebel | | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 | | (503) 752-7717 | | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd | | HP DESK: CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1989 14:11-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Private Space Companies (WAS Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!) If you want to get an idea of what NASA is like from the perspective of a private launch entrepreneur who has been on the "recieving end" (bend over and get out the vaseline) of NASA's "commercial space policy", read the letter to the editor in Ad Astra (April issue I think) from George Koopman and James Bennet, the principals in Amroc. Anyone who knows Tom Heppenheimer (a regular contributer to Omni, Reason, etc) can also hear some similar tales. NASA is a status quo bureaucracy. They will smile at you and talk and talk... And then give it to you in the back. Or elsewhere. I've heard even more blatant stories from the Beggs years. F'r'instance, one woman I know was in a room where NASA officials were discussing with some large aerospace companies how they would handle commercialization and "get rid of the small operators". If the wording she passed on to me was accurate, they were quite blatant about it. Things have toned down a little since Beggs was in (he was a statist of the worst kind), but that does not mean NASA is actually "helpful". I've also heard some stories about what went on (from someone who was present for some of the meetings) with NASA officials in Keyworth's office during the Beggs years. Shall I simply say that they knew ahead of time that the station would not cost $8B and leave it at that? All of it is very, very predictable if you look at NASA through Public Choice Theory glasses instead of rose tinted ones. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 89 04:13:25 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Earth based - will it always win? Now that I have a REAL newsfeed I want to toss something out for discussion. I was struck by an article in this week's SCIENCE NEWS - it seems Venus radar mapping has taken a quantum jump in quality *before* Magellan's launch (and long before we get Magellan results, given its slooow trajectory). To recollect, Pioneer gave radar maps with ~ kilometer resolution. Venera was about a hundred times better over its limited area of coverage. Magellan is supposed to be about forty times better than that (and cover more of the planet). But here's a radio astronomer at Arecibo with some new techniques turning out Earth-based radar pictures four times better than Venera! That's ten times worse than Magellan will be, if and when (knock tiles), but it's RIGHT HERE and available for study now. SN printed one of his images (of the Thea Mons area, a complex volcano/rift zone) and it's amazing. And there's no battery to run down! You want more, go back to Arecibo and do it again. Can't crash, no chance of a missed thruster command or a locked gimbal to screw things up. (The antenna can't even collapse a la Greenbank, Arecibo's a mesh bowl dug into the ground.) All of which brings me to a question I've often wondered about. Given enough time and ingenuity can't we nearly always do better here on Earth? Yes, we are crushed by 1G and swamped in a gaseous muck that blocks some wavelengths and distorts most of the rest. Those are TECHNICAL challenges. We're supposed to be good at technical challenges. If the money spend on HST, for instance, had been poured into adaptive optics instead (as is now belatedly being done for Star Wars), might we be imaging Io from Hawaii today? Instead of waiting decades for the next probe to get built, you might have to wait nine months for your slot on the National Adaptive Optical Telescope to come up... during which time it's doing useful work for others of course. Now unmanned probes like Magellan and HST are hardly the top money wasters, I grant you -- building "Freedom" (to be launched from its own "Maxi-Pad" no doubt ) so PhD's can melt blobs of yttrium or whatever absolutely dwarfs the unmanned program in the waste category. As does building orbiting zappers to destroy missiles when it would be so much cheaper and easier to dismantle them down here. But still, pure science is the one who's really getting the shaft. Should we concentrate on ground based work and de-emphasize space based observation until some smart cookie makes it a lot cheaper and easier to get up there? I hope I have framed the question usefully. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff "Truisms aren't everything." Internet: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 89 04:20:07 GMT From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: McBride to leave NASA; Brand named commander of STS-35 (Forwarded) In article <24382@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > Astronaut Jon A. McBride (Captain, USN) has announced his > intention to leave NASA effective May 12, 1989. > McBride was named last year to command the STS-35 (ASTRO-1) > mission, scheduled for launch in March 1990. If an astronaut with a guaranteed seat isn't interested in sticking with the program, imagine how the rest of NASA (orbit-bound and otherwise) must feel! Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #404 *******************