Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from corsica.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 ; Wed, 26 Jul 89 00:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 26 Jul 89 00:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #555 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 555 Today's Topics: Re: Space Goals Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special. Apollo 11 mission events Re: Lagrangian Points Re: NASA funding is not transitive Freedom's logo Jonathan's Space Report Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3) Station alternatives ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jul 89 12:48:53 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Space Goals In article <11246@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jerbil@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Stainless Steel Gerbil [Joe Beckenbach]) writes: } My two cents: those in JFK's world saw the Moon as "impossibly far", }but the goal of safely returning a man from the Moon's surface in under a }decade was accomplished. How about one of three projects which are "impossibly }far and too soon" for the moment: }[projects omitted] What we *really* need is a D.D. Harriman....[1] [1] Robert A. Heinlein, "The Man Who Sold the Moon" -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 Disclaimer? I claimed something? "When things start going your way, it's usually because you stopped going the wrong way down a one-way street." ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 89 19:43:16 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!cyrius@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Juan Chen) Subject: Re: A&E Network rebroadcast of APOLLO 11 coverage; PBS special. In article <8907111417.AA18948@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@wrksys.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283) writes: > > The Arts and Entertainment (A&E) Cable Network is rebroadcasting > the original NBC coverage of the APOLLO 11 mission to the Moon in > 1969. The dates and times are: > > "Liftoff" - July 16, 9:20 AM - 11 AM > "Moonwalk" - July 20, 10:30 PM - 2 AM > "Splashdown" - July 24, 1:30 PM - 3 PM > > Larry Klaes klaes@renoir.dec.com > For the cableless, CBS will broadcast a special Thursday 13, July during primetime. I think it starts at 2000hrs CDT over here, but as they say...CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Juan G. Chen cyrius@dopey.cc.utexas.edu University of Texas@Austin (or grumpy, or doc, or happy...) P.O. Box 8362 Austin, TX 78713 ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 89 15:26:00 GMT From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!noe@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Apollo 11 mission events Out of curiosity I looked up dates and times of some of the events surrounding the Apollo 11 mission. I think most everyone realizes the 20th anniversary of that mission is nearly upon us. (Digression - I find it a strange feeling to think that there is an entire generation out there who have never, not once in their entire lives, looked up at the moon and wondered if people will ever walk up there. But then it occurs to me that I wonder myself when people will ever walk up there *again* and know that this youngest generation still has an opportunity to find this sense of wonder I felt more than 20 years ago.) Anyway, I picked up David Baker's "History of Manned Space Flight" and determined the following dates and times of the listed events. Times are given as central daylight time (CDT), 5 hours behind UT, because that's the time Mission Control in Houston was on and more importantly because that's the time I was on. The launch of course was in EDT (UT-4) at Cape *Kennedy* and I think the splashdown was in Hawaiian standard time zone, UT-10 hours, but I'm not certain. As long as it's clear I've converted them all to CDT. 69/07/16 08:32:00 liftoff from pad 39-A 69/07/16 08:43:49.3 earth orbit insertion 69/07/16 11:22:13.5 trans-lunar injection 69/07/18 22:11:55 equigravisphere 69/07/20 12:44:00 CSM/LM undocking in lunar orbit 69/07/20 15:17:39.9 LM touchdown on lunar surface 69/07/20 21:56:15 Neil Armstrong's "one small step for [a] man" 69/07/21 00:30 lunar surface excursion ended (time approximate) 69/07/21 12:54:00.8 LM ascent stage liftoff (They desecrated the flag!) 69/07/21 16:35 CSM/LM ascent stage docking 69/07/21 18:42 LM ascent stage jettisoned 69/07/21 23:55:42 trans-earth injection 69/07/24 11:21:19 CM/SM separation 69/07/24 11:50:35 CM splashdown 69/07/24 12:53 crew recovered (on USS Hornet) 69/07/24 14:57 CM recovered CM: command module SM: service module CSM: command-service modules LM: lunar module -- Roger Noe noe@cs.uiuc.edu OR roger-noe@uiuc.edu University of Illinois 40:06:39 N. 88:13:41 W. Urbana, IL 61801 USA (217) 333-3496 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 89 19:11:30 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Lagrangian Points In article <15070@ut-emx.UUCP> sudhama@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Chandrasekhara Sudhama) writes: >...Would someone please explain >(either on this network or in private email) the stability of the >equilibrium points in the Earth - Moon system? That is, why are >points #1 and #2 in stable equilibrium? If I remember right, they >are 60 degrees ahead of and behind the moon in her path... I think you have the numbering wrong; those are normally numbered 4 and 5, with 1-3 the straight-line points. I know of no intuitive explanation of why the "Trojan points" at 60 degrees are stable. It is a non-trivial mathematical result. Even worse is an explanation of why the Trojan points are stable against small perturbations, while the straight-line points are not. Or of why the Trojan points stop being stable against perturbations if the mass of the primary is not at least N times that of the secondary (I forget the value of N but I think it's something like 30). As in other areas of celestial mechanics, there is just no substitute for mathematics in this. -- $10 million equals 18 PM | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology (Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 89 17:27:42 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: NASA funding is not transitive In article <33078@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes: >In article <26240@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >>... The cuts Eric describes would result in a >>$1.2 billion surplus for other programs if the space station is cancelled. > The other programs may not have anything to do with space, >however. I must reluctantly agree with Jonathan, even though I, too, think that the Space Station as currently conceived is a waste. NASA has no well-defined mission for the next century, other than place holding in LEO at ruinous expense. Whenever someone outside NASA proposes an ambitious or exciting alternative, NASA seems to be on hand at the hearings to testify against it and in favor of the station. Recent testimony (taken during breaks between mass resignations as career technocrats scrambled to catch the aerospace contractors' golden revolving door before ethics legislation closed it) to the effect that NASA would have to cancel the station if the budget is cut further, is a classic in the "I'm taking my dolls and going home" genre. It's also a self indictment -- if NASA has boxed itself in to the point where balancing the budget is a fatal blow, it has itself to blame. The time has come to abolish NASA. (It probably came in 1980, but better late than never). In the true 80's corporate raider spirit of Gordon Gekko, we should spin it off into its components. * Aeronautical research - a strong, important and well managed program dating back to the 40's. Retain present structure intact and rename National Aeronautics Research Authority (NARA). Keep those high angle of attack planes flying! * Military space research - let the military do it. No more polluting the national civilian space effort with secrecy and confused channels of authority as with the SDI and Keyhole work of recent years. If USAF wants a Blue Shuttle let them build it out of their own fought-for budget. * Commercial launch services - let industry do it. This also includes on-orbit repair and servicing. Reagan got this started, busting a few shopkeepers' hearts in the organization in the process. USG is not there to make money. * Space based industrial research - let industry and governments worldwide cooperate to do it. The results could have clear benefit to many nations, but the scale of investment is too large to make single country or single company efforts feasible, and direct massive USG subsidy is dead wrong. * Scientific space research - now we're talking! Reorganize the US effort under the National Space Exploration Agency (NSEA) with a specific set of goals for the next half century, as well as the responsibility to maintain ongoing efforts like the Great Observatories. The emphasis on international cooperation would be heavy, as NSEA would interact with similar agencies in Europe, Asia and USSR. The US Space Station would be cancelled outright, and NSEA would be directed to work jointly with Europe and Asia (and maybe USSR) to design and build an international platform by 2001. Phone Tree Alert! (the sci.space equivalent of Attention K-Mart Shoppers! ) Let's get the above passed right away. Comments? -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 89 17:20:23 GMT From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!basser!jaa@humu.nosc.mil (James Ashton) Subject: Freedom's logo NASA selected the official logo for the space station Freedom on the 5th of May. Here follows a PostScript rendition I worked out: ----------Cut Here---------- 72 25.4 div dup scale % in millimetres 55 150 translate % roughly centred for A4 [1.0 0.0 0.55 1.0 0.0 0.0 ] concat % slant the picture /box % fill a standard size box { 0 3 rlineto 6 0 rlineto 0 -3 rlineto closepath currentpoint fill } def 10 4 33 % six rows of four boxes { 0 exch moveto box moveto 7.5 0 rmoveto box moveto 29.5 0 rmoveto box moveto 7.5 0 rmoveto box pop pop } for 1.2 setlinewidth 0 setlinecap % square ended lines coming up 14.5 21.5 moveto 6.5 0 rlineto stroke 36 21.5 moveto -6.5 0 rlineto stroke 2.4 setlinewidth 1 setlinecap % round ended lines coming up 23.5 17 moveto 0 9 rlineto stroke 27 17 moveto 0 9 rlineto stroke 0 33 moveto 0 47 22 47 36 34 curveto % two curved points 21 46 3.5 44 3.5 33 curveto fill 13.5 10 moveto 27 -3 50 -3 50 9 curveto 49 -2 26 -1 13.5 13 curveto fill /Helvetica findfont 9.6 scalefont setfont % should be Helvetica Narrow 2.5 45 moveto (FREEDOM) true charpath gsave fill grestore 0.18 setlinewidth 0 setlinejoin 1 setgray stroke % make the chars thinner showpage ----------Cut Here---------- The rendition looks pretty close to the original to me. James Ashton. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 89 02:14:43 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Jonathan's Space Report [Truth in Advertising Dept: I have congratulated Jonathan via mail in the past on his reports. Now that he's back I want to do it publicly so he can bask a little.] If I could only archive one person's contributions to sci.space it would be Jonathan McDowell's Space Reports. No other posting summarizes so much hard, international, factual and timely space information in such a modest and unassuming manner. Grateful as I am to Henry for abstracting AvWeek (or as I was before I subcribed myself), Jonathan's info has more vitally to do with the cutting edge of space. So three cheers for Jonathan! May his Reports continue, and if you (dear reader) like them too, mail Jonathan and let him know. -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 89 19:45:59 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@apple.com (Lee Mellinger) Subject: Re: Apollo 12 (And Surveyor 3) In article <14393@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Seldon) writes: :In article <8907112246.AA01428@angband.s1.gov> writes: :> :> Can anyone fill me in as to what the Apollo 12 astronauts did when they :>found the SURVEYOR 3 probe on the lunar surface? I read a while back (in :>a now-forgotten magazine) that they took the probe's camera off for "a :>souvenir"... :> : : I know that they brought back several small pieces including the remote :sampling arm. It was more than just a souvenir, they were examined to see :what the effects of a long term stay on the moon were. Effects like :micrometeriod impacts, radiation, cosmic rays, etc... : : seldon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu The scoop housing was presented to Dr. William Pickering on his retirement as Director of JPL in 1976. The scoop door is on display in the first floor of the JPL administration building right next to a moon rock (both have a video camera trained on them 24 hours a day). My office is about 100 feet from them, I pass by them several times every day. Lee "I'm the NRA" "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759 |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 |{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 89 06:10:00 GMT From: leech@apple.com (Jonathan Patrick Leech) Subject: Station alternatives In article <26321@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >So, what are the appropriate alternatives? Or should we refrain from >offering any so that when the money is taken from NASA we can blame all >future space program woes on the congress? What do "we" have to do with it, anyway? If the appropriations subcommittee were to listen to sci.space, they'd get at least as many different opinions on what to do as there are posters. A more appropriate question is what *NASA* is putting forth as an alternative to station (e.g., nothing). This is perfectly understandable given the territoriality of the NASA centers involved, albeit a bad idea. That aside, here are some things NASA should be doing whether or not station is funded: Take over developing NASP as an *operational* research vehicle, since DoD isn't willing to put the money in. This would easily absorb funding levels on the order of current station funding. NASP is a high-risk aeronautics research project with no commercial applications at this time ("Orient Express", indeed), and is well suited to NASA's (supposed) mission and abilities. While we're at it, DoD should be completely cut out of NASP and the secrecy level of the program dramatically reduced. Pathfinder ought to be funded at levels far beyond the piddling amount NASA is asking for. CRAF and Cassini should be fully funded and launched as soon as possible. SSEC recommendations beyond this should be turned into real missions quickly, particularly sample return from small bodies. The Mars rover/sample return should be decoupled from any Soviet joint mission and flown. Throwing a few tens of millions at graduate scholarships in space sciences, along with a major initiative to analyze the rotting gigabits which noone has ever looked at, will provide the human resources for a renewed planetary science program in the next century. It would be interesting to split the space science function of NASA from the rest ala the Japanese model, though the concept of NSF running it instead, as might well happen, is not a cheery one. -- Jon Leech (leech@apple.com) Apple Integrated Systems __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #555 *******************