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, 30 Aug 89 03:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4YyscGC00UkV0HKE5w@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 03:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #4 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Re: Satellites Justification for the Space Station? Re: Re: Contractors Direct Information Pluto fly-by 1989 Midwest Space Development Conference @ Purdue University DSP/Rhyolite Re: a time capsule Re: Neptune on the Boobtube Re: Mars Investigation Chronology Re: bad Neptune News on TV Re: SPACE Digest V9 #616 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Aug 89 12:16:47 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net (Nick Watkins) Subject: Re: Satellites Yes there is a new edition. It was 1957 - 1986 if memory serves, and there may have been one since. The British Library has a copy btw, Nick -- Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac Voice: +44 273 678072 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 11:38 EST From: Subject: Justification for the Space Station? John van Deusen writes: >Let us consider just one manned space project, the space station. Keep >in mind that the current defense budget for protecting the US, Europe, >and Japan from the world's economic basket case, Russia, is 305 billion >dollars. Economic basketcase, eh? I guess you must think that Brazil, Mexico, and the rest of the Third World are examples of economic miracles/genius. The problems that the USSR (NOT Russia - that country hasn't existed for nearly 70 years!) is facing are mainly internal, unlike the external stranglehold being placed on the world's debtor nations. I am not sure which is a preferable plight. Besides, are we so desparate for protection from an `economic basketcase'? > [...stuff deleted...] Given those problems, one might wonder why we >would be building a space station? Our government must really be >committed to advancing the frontiers, right? Actually the space station >is a last-ditch effort to stave off a major depression in the military- >industrial complex. You may not agree with the use of the funds, but putting the money into exploration makes much more sense than throwing the money away into the military wormhole. At least there is a knowledge gain in exploration - with the military, manufactured substances are just used up with no gain at all. You are right, there are better ways of spending the money, any of which is superior to the military gobbling it up. Obvious answers are space exploration and pollution control of every type. Both require high-tech industries, so that the current military-industrial complex won't be out of a (pork-barrel) job - they'll just have to redirect their emphasis and possibly retool. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Arnold Gill | | Queen's University at Kingston | | BITNET: gill@qucdnast | | INTERNET: gill@qucdnast.queensu.ca | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 15:45:32 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Re: Contractors In article <8908232056.AA26648@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >still considerably different from the claims by some people that the >expansion of private launch services will almost immediately cause launch >costs to drop by a factor of 50 (or 100 or 1000). Have you heard anyone claiming that? I haven't. What I have heard, and have claimed, is that such cost reductions are well within the bounds of possibility within, say, a decade, given a solid competitive market with volume, say, comparable to that of the USSR's normal launch schedule. We don't have that yet. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:23:11 CDT From: ST6676%SIUCVMB.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU Subject: Direct Information Is there an electronic publication that contains up-to-date information, withou t being colored by opinion? I like this list, and plan to continue subcribing, but I'd like to get up to the minute info on the goings on in the space industr y, if at all possible. Any help toward this goal would be apreciated. Thanks, Sincerely, Karl Rademacher, Director of Public Relations. =============================================================================== = **** ****** **** ADVANCED DIGITAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION OF IL. = = ** ** ** ** ** DIVISION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPEMENT = = ** ** ** ** ******** 803 Mulberry #2, Murphysboro, Il. 62966 = = ** ** ** ** ** Bitnet: ST6676 or ST6677 at SIUCVMB = = ** ** ****** ************ This message was sent Aug/24/89 = =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 13:57:08 CDT From: hess@fermat.mayo.edu (d. scott hess) Subject: Pluto fly-by From: KROVETZ@cs.umass.EDU }If we wanted to send a spacecraft to Pluto, what would be the }earliest date we could reach it (given current technology)? }I assume a fly-by of Jupiter would shorten the trip (with }respect to a direct flight), but by how much? Would going }via a third planet, perhaps prior to Jupiter, make the trip }any shorter? } }Thanks, }Bob Sorry, cannot help you here. I've spent time trying to figure out exactly how gravity-assist works, and thus far, its beyond me. (NOTE: If someone wouldn't mind, I'd like you to explain it to me. Not over the list, please.) A little input I _can_ give is that Pluto is a helluva long ways out there. Everybody knows this, but few really KNOW it. What really brought it home to me is when I wrote a program to simulate orbital motion. I entered in the data for all of the planets except pluto. Very large. I mean, really. Look up the length of one year for one of the outer planets, and you'll see what I mean. I think Pluto's is somewhere over 230 years. That's why we;d have to plan quite far ahead. An idea came to me with this question. A bit ago (probably a long time for those of you not living with the BITNET distribution), there was talk about a probe which did something like 3 fly-bys of earth to get up to speed, or orientated correctly. Then the sun fly-bys/impacts (landings? :-) I suspect that the fastest way to get to pluto, albeit fairly weird, would be to do a gravity (un)assist around Jupiter, and the a gravity assist around the SUN. One proposal I've heard for light-sail launching says that the best way to launch (without large moon or space based lasers) would be to put it on an asteroid, and drop it into a cometary orbit around the sun (heck, put it on a comet), and then jumping off with your "sail in the wind", so to speak. This get you a fair amount of "free" velocity, plus you make the most of the inverse-squared nature of light. Maybe even getting a boost from the solar wind. Any updates on the 1992 light-sail contest? Scott Hess scott@gacvx1.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 16:26:14 GMT From: att!cbnewsd!dcn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (david.c.newkirk) Subject: 1989 Midwest Space Development Conference @ Purdue University The 1989 Midwest Space Development Conference will be held at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana from October 20-22. A buffet dinner, displays, discussion and a star party are scheduled for the evening of the 20th (a Friday), with sessions starting Saturday morning and running through Sunday morning. Daniel Graham, Charles Walker and David Webb are featured speakers. Rooms are available at the Union building (1-317-494-8900) for $40-60 a night, but less expensive rooms are ususally available farther from campus. Conference registration is $40 before October 1st, and $50 after, and meals are extra. Contact "Conferences" at 116 Stewart Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 for a registration form. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 89 18:39:20 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net (Nick Watkins) Subject: DSP/Rhyolite I am researching an article on military satellites and have a few queries about the DSP and Rhyolite/Chalet series of spacecraft. From the work of Des Ball (the books "Pine Gap" & "A Base for Debate"), plus recent issues of AW&ST I have the following list: 1968-63a 6 Aug 1968 AAD Early Warning Test (Project 949) 1969-36a 13 Apr 1969 AAD Early Warning Test 1970-46a 19 Jun 1970 AAD Rhyolite SIGINT 1970-69a 1 Sep 1970 AAD Early warning Test 1970-93a 6 Nov 1970 T3C DSP1 (unusable due to Transtage failure) 1971-39a 5 May 1971 T3C DSP2 4 Dec 1971 AAD launch failure 1972-10a 1 Mar 1972 T3C DSP3 1972-101a 20 Dec 1972 AAD Rhyolite SIGINT 1973-13a 6 Mar 1973 AAD Rhyolite SIGINT 1973-40a 12 Jun 1973 T3C DSP4 1975-55a 18 Jun 1975 T3C Argus SIGINT 1975-118a 14 Dec 1975 T3C DSP5 (unusable due to collision with Transtage) 1976-59a 26 Jun 1976 T3C DSP6 1977-07a 6 Feb 1977 T3C DSP7 1977-38a 7 Apr 1977 AAD Rhyolite SIGINT 1977-114a 11 Dec 1977 AAD Rhyolite SIGINT 1978-38a 7 Apr 1978 AAD Rhyolite SIGINT 1978-58a 10 Jun 1978 T3C Chalet SIGINT 1979-53a 10 Jun 1979 T3C DSP8 1979-86a 1 Oct 1979 T3C Chalet SIGINT 1981-25a 16 Mar 1981 T3C DSP9 1981-107a 31 Oct 1981 T3C Chalet SIGINT 1982-19a 6 Mar 1982 T3C DSP10 1984-09a 31 Jan 1984 T34D DSP11 (failed?) 1984-37a 15 Apr 1984 T34D DSP12 1984-129a 22 Dec 1984 T34D Chalet SIGINT 1985-10b 24 Jan 1985 STS Magnum SIGINT 1987-97a 29 Nov 1987 T34D DSP13 1988-77a 2 Sep 1988 T34D Chalet SIGINT (failed) 1989- 10 May 1989 T34D Chalet SIGINT 1989- 14 Jun 1989 T4 DSP14 AAD = Atlas Agena D T3C = Titan 3C T34D = Titan 34D T4 = Titan 4 STS = Space Shuttle So my questions: 1) Which of 1970-46 or 1970-69 was more likely to be a Rhyolite? Ball is certain that one was. Although the former was often cited as having failed to go into GEO, the reports at the time in AW&ST were contradictory and various sources list a GEO not GTO. The launcher for both was occasionally described as an Atlas Agena D plus a kick stage, anyone know about this? 2) Of the launches in 1984, did DSP11 fail to reach GEO as reported by Ball, and are the identifications of it, DSP12 and the fourth Chalet (1984-129) correct and in the right order? Some identifications above may puzzle some people but Ball's analysis would, I feel, convince most who had only seen , e.g, Curtis Peebles' book "Guardians" and the early "Spaceflight" articles of Anthony Kenden on this subject, Nick -- Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac Voice: +44 273 678072 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 16:05:28 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: a time capsule To the extent that the scientific community had to compete with the lunar program for precious funding, it's not surprising their consensus was that 40% was too high. And to the extent that we nod nowadays at the received wisdom that the "crash" nature of the JFK program led inevitably to disappointment and lack of direction in space later, we might hesitate before sneering at those 1964 scientists and their "go slow" attitude. Had their viewpoint prevailed, we still be on the Moon today. -- "We walked on the moon -- (( Tom Neff you be polite" )) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 16:00:42 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Neptune on the Boobtube In article <1305@blackbird.afit.af.mil> mproicou@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Michael C. Proicou) writes: > CBS news tonight (8/23) >did a peice on some old gantry towers from some launch pads at KSC. They >were being torn down and used to build artificial reefs for the fishermen. >All the environmental and fishermem groups were pleased. CBS made the >story sound like some great side benefit of the space program at the start. >Oh well, now you know why I don't watch CBS news except about 1 a month. To quote Charlie Brown (whose face was recently discovered on Mars ): good grief! Those old gantries were USELESS and unsafe. The Canaveral station has been around a long time, firing mostly military missiles of increasing size and power for decades. There is a long row of abandoned towers rusted beyond recovery or repair and having little or nothing to do with the US space program past, present or future. There is no reason to keep them standing unless you like to flagellate yourself a la Ballard with the sight of ruined launch hardware. The dune- and marshland they occupy is precious and deserves to be returned to the wild state; and yes, those things would make great artificial reefs! I am not surprised that fishermen love the idea. A sense of proportion would not be out of place here, exhilarating as CBS bashing must be to enthusiasts of the sport. By the way, the stuff that counts -- the Apollo pads -- are a national historic site and won't be going anywhere. -- "We walked on the moon -- (( Tom Neff you be polite" )) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 15:32:28 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Mars Investigation Chronology In article <144@bmers58.UUCP> pdbain@bmers58.UUCP (Peter Bain) writes: >As a second point, I assume that the Mars Orbiter is dead, so we can't >get it to take a couple more snapshots of Elvis... er.... the face? The Viking Orbiters both died long ago, when they ran out of attitude-control fuel. Crossing fingers, Mars Observer should be in position in another three or four years... -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 23:08:26 GMT From: voder!berlioz!andrew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) Subject: Re: bad Neptune News on TV CNN promises coverage tonight from midnight EDT on, they assert. Fingers crossed! -- ........................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away, andrew@berlioz.nsc.com That's what I says to myself, says I, time sucks jolly good luck, hooray! ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 15:39:04 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #616 In article LABBEY@GTRI01.BITNET (Leonard Abbey) writes: >Mr. Spencer, we could do it again. You couldn't. I assume this refers to my Apollo signature... Give me and NASA equal funding for the project, and let me run mine my way without a bunch of nitpickers breathing down my neck, and I will guarantee not only to reach the Moon, but to beat NASA to it. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #4 *******************