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, 9 May 89 03:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 9 May 89 03:16:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #419 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 419 Today's Topics: Re: Private spending for space science DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES? Meme me up, Scotty Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413 NASA-bashing, NASA-boosting Re: Magellan update Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413 Citizens in Space Admission to Astronomy Ph.D. programs citizens in space -- risk silliness Re: SPACE Digest V9 #412 Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 May 89 01:34:05 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Re: Private spending for space science In article <8052@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@alanine (Jonathan Leech) writes: >In article <24083@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >> Many "NASA-bashers" are doing things: writing >>legislation (to kill the space station, for example) working with > > To get guaranteed govt. support for the CDSF, for example. To get government to purchase hardware and services from companies that are willing to provide it, rather than developing, building and operating it in house. Purchase of CDSF (A Space Station) is just one example. Purchase of launch services is another. The principle is quite general. > There are certainly people like Koopman who are trying to start >companies and doing lots of NASA-bashing (or "NASA-bashing", if you >prefer), on the side. There are also people starting companies >without the bashing. I challenge you to find the head of a space service company start-up who thinks that NASA is not inhibiting his operation. >>It is not "NASA-bashing" which prevents people from working on other >>pro-space activities. It is ignorance of the facts and the problems, >>something necesssary for NASA-boosting and NASA-apology. If nothing >>else, the "NASA-bashing" awakens people to the facts. > > More of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" ideology. Nonsense. Informing people about a problem which requires concerted effort to correct, what you call "NASA-bashing," has nothing to do with separating the world into two neat components. > I don't react to that by making continual >anti-NASA postings containing, for example, carefully selected quotes >from Congressional testimony by NASA officials. Why don't you go to the library and find out how typical they are. You will be very surprised. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Sun, 07 May 89 00:02:53 EST From: EDWARDJ%RMC.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU Subject: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES? A while back, I saw a TV feature (on 60 Minutes, or some such show) about the contractor responsible for building the guidance system of the MX missile. It seems they were experiencing difficulty getting parts on time. In order to complete the guidance mechanisms on time, their engineers went across the street to the local Radio Shack, and bought their parts there! When the genuine parts eventually showed up, they were discarded. Otherwise the company would have had to explain why they had more of these components in stock than they should have. The bogus guidance mechanisms were installed in the missiles, but during subsequent testing, many of them were found to be defective. I'm sure that many people out there know a great deal more about this story than I do. However, it got me to wondering. Space probes like Magellan cost an incredible amount of money. Even earth orbiting communications and earth-imaging satellites cost a great deal. How much of this cost is really necessary to the function of the equipment, and how much of it is due to the habit of organizations like NASA and the Defense Department gold-plating everything. Could someone with the technical know-how build a useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack and hardware store? I just saw some video shot from Atlantis with a home video camera. It may not have been a KH-12, but it sure looked impressive! Now, I realize there are problems associated with the operation of any piece of electronics, even after it has been flawlessly designed and launched. My PC at home has instructions not to spill coffee inside it - no problem with a satellite (or with my PC - I don't drink coffee). Do not subject the equipment to excessive vibration - more of a problem with our hypothetical space probe. What about heat - the cooling fan in my PC wouldn't be much use in a vacuum. How do you control the temperature of electronics in space, to prevent them from overheating? How do you tell whether they are in danger of overheating? Down here you might use a thermistor as a temperature sensor, but, like all semi-conductor devices, thermistors are presumably subject to radiation damage that changes their performance. What kind of radiation fields and particle fluxes would you encounter in LEO? Clark orbit? Wherever Magellan is at the moment? How would you deal with them? (Remember, for the purposes of this exercise, you aren't NASA, you are J.Doe, building your own space probe. We'll leave aside for the moment the problems and costs of actually launching the thing) Finally, I notice that Robert Hale is wondering where to get radiation hardened chips. Does this mean he has already figured out answers to all my questions, and has ISECCO gone beyond designing the biosphere project, and reached the stage of designing their first space probe? Jeremy Edward 7-MAY-89 EDWARDJ@RMC ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 89 15:12:17 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Meme me up, Scotty I wonder if some one of our glorious New Age types on the net could post an explanation in 25 words or less of what the difference is between a "meme" and an "idea." I keep seeing this word crop up in the more holistic crystalline postings but it always seems to mean "idea" in context. (I know someone else mentioned this a while back, can't find it in the archive, sorry whoever you are.) I suspect a meme is just an idea with tailfins, but I wanna know for sure. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff "Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 89 22:01:44 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Govt. vs. Small Launch In article <2566@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG> dave@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG (David Becker) writes: >What is the difference between civilian spec and mil spec launch >hardware that was mentioned by Koopman (see below)? The main difference is that mil spec requires strict conformance to several hundred pounds of regulations and specifications, and paperwork, inspections, and testing to prove it. This does amazing things to the price tag. It's not *all* the contractor's fault when he charges $400 for a hammer. A fair chunk of it is mil spec compliance costs. -- 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: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:29-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413 > Actually, some photos of a Russian ship yard were published a couple of > years ago by Jane's Defense Weekly. The guy who leaked them was > prosecuted and went to prison. The photos also appeared (naturally) in Aviation Leak. ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 89 02:08:50 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: NASA-bashing, NASA-boosting In article <11097@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes: > We probably should do whatever little we >can to improve the way NASA spends money, though I fear there is precious >little we can do. We can do nothing until we understand the way NASA spends money now. As soon as you start to inform people about this, you are labelled a "NASA-basher." Here is a case in point: >NOTE: Here's a little preemptive repition for NASA bashers like William Baxter >or whoever. I'm talking about planetary probes, manned space and the like, not >private satellite launchers. Fact: We have just finished a decade without any planetary probes. Fact: We have just finished a three year period without any manned operations. Fact: These accomplishments came under the present system of centrally planned and managed space operations, overseen by NASA. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 89 20:19:12 GMT From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke!rbk@hplabs.hp.com (Richard Katz) Subject: Re: Magellan update -In article <8008@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, leech@threonine.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: -> [later Magellan launch windows are more fuel efficient] -> So, why didn't they plan to launch as early as possible in the -> window, then leave it in orbit until the optimal time for Venus -> injection? Atmospheric drag? - -The batteries of the IUS and Magellan would run out of juice - Magellan's -solar panels won't be deployed until after the IUS burns. ******************************************* According to Aviation Leak and Spook Technology, April 24, 1989, p. 47 Ten minutes after deployment, the crew will attempt to observe the opening of Magellan's solar panels. The solar arrays will be deployed before the first-stage IUS burn because the arrays could be damaged by IUS thruster firings if left in their stowed position. rich katz hewlett packard p o box 7050 colorado springs, co 80933-7050 email: rbk@hpctdlb.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:31-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #413 > So saying that universities could replace government funded space probes > is a bit circular. In a sense, yes. But it is also a move in the right direction, away from centralization and outside of the government/military procurement mechanism, outside the congressional micromanagement, outside the career bureaucrat/aerospace old boys network. In a university, if the funding on a research project is a bit short, you get some grad students to improvise something. In government you extend the project five years and spend several times the original specification. Of course there is the pork barrel problem still. Since universities are now lining up oinking at the feeding trough like everyone else instead of going through peer review. Hmmm. A modest suggestion. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a regularly published Black List of Universities. The higher their pork rating, the lower their rating? And if they exceed a certain value of evasion of peer review, scientists and researchers simply boycott working at them? ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 89 18:42:40 GMT From: vax5!gjuy@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: Citizens in Space Diana L. Syriac writes: "Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?" Matthew DeLuca says: No. Rick Connell says: "Why do you say this? I think the answer is most definitely yes. Now for my two cents worth. (BTW I goofed and forgot to include Matt's article where he describes his reasons.) I am in the ROTC at Cornell and one of the things they stress here is our professionallism. I was appaled at the Challenger incident. First because it happened at all but more importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the government. I am sorry but that is wrong. I am going to make a pledge to defend our constitution. That pledge implies that I am willing to die for my country, in fact I expect that if there is a war I most likely going to die. (Us pilot types have an annoying tendency to attract a hell of a lot af attention) The fact that the families of the officers, sworn to the country sued shows that there is no way that there is no way we should put (pardon me) normal citizens into space. Not yet. All of Matt's arguements about cost of seats, training etc. hold as well. -- | Andrew D. Williams| gjuy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu |-------------------| gjuy@cornella.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 89 21:53:09 GMT From: hubcap!jelynch@gatech.edu (james e lynch) Subject: Admission to Astronomy Ph.D. programs I am graduating from Clemson University with an M.S. in physics, specializing in astronomy, and desire to enter an astronomy Ph.D. program. I am especially interested in extragalactic astronomy. If possible, I would like to enter a program this fall, but would consider admission for the following spring semester. I have no geographical preference. Since I do not subscribe to this bulletin board regularly, please forword all responses to my e-mail address. My e-mail address is: spascar@prism.clemson.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 89 21:56:24 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: citizens in space -- risk silliness In article <11630002@hpfcdj.HP.COM> myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: >>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?" >...simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an >"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we >most certainly do NOT have at present)... Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky offered as an argument against private citizens in space. Of course it's not safe; so what? Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that? How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens? This argument appears totally bogus. -- 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: Sat, 6 May 1989 14:14-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #412 > Seems like such an obvious measure; I wonder why the Russians > failed to take it into account? Because they didn't learn from the lesson of the american Viking probe which had it's antenna turned downwards by an erroneous remote program change... ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 89 04:33:21 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net (Mark Robert Thorson) Subject: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list. > Nope, gotta put in my two bits here, Mark. Blowing up the sun and mining > asteroids are two things that are possible, but we haven't got the ability The same person who thinks blowing up the sun is possible says: > UFOs, though, are not proven to exist. There is absolutely no firm > ground to base their existence on. Just because the universe is so huge > that life MUST have evolved elsewhere has nothing to do with whether or > Scott@gacvax1.bitnet It seems inconsistent to me to accept blowing up the sun as a topic of intelligent discussion, while rejecting contact with ET's as utterly frivolous. There are some important things to consider, with regard to ET's. We must have a plan for dealing with them NOW, before it happens; otherwise we will follow our instincts or an ad hoc plan, and screw everything up. Note that the Apollo astronauts were subjected to quarantine on return to Earth. Obviously NASA takes ET contact very seriously. Could an alien virus or bacteria infect us? Or could one of ours infect them? I would not want to be responsible for the kind of plagues which occurred following contact between Old World explorers and the natives of the New World. I would guess that Earth organisms can't infect aliens, or theirs infect us, because our chemistry is likely to be different in significant ways. Only a few viruses, such as rabies, can affect humans as well as other animals. Bacteria and other microorganisms are a bit less specific; I would certainly be very hesitant to release yeast on the planet of the potato-heads. But there is one kind of virus which can infect any form of intelligent life. I am speaking, of course, about memes. Imagine the kind of destruction we would be causing if we exposed a peaceful, traditional society to Marxism or the Bible (or both). Imagine the kind of destruction they could cause if they infected us with a super-UFO-Nazi religion. "Have you accepted Zzyzzybalubah as your personal saviour? If not, you're facing the fires of hell. We've come to your planet to carry the message of the Lord to you, so you may share in the glorious afterlife in dimension 5 that Zzyzzybalubah has prepared for you. And if you don't get the message, we're going to roast the whole planet." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #419 *******************