Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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 ; Thu, 28 Sep 89 03:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 03:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #83 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. Stop using "Economies of Scale for Launchers" Re: Saturn V & F-1 Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? Re: NASA forced to photo Cydonia Re: Saturn V & F-1 Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? Re: NASA missions/time table Atlas Centaur-68/FltSatCom prelaunch news conference set (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Sep 89 22:20:12 GMT From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!joseph@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <1989Sep16.133933.4676@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: > > As I said in a recent posting, I personnally have been convinced > by the posters of sci.astro that the risk of contamination is negligible, > and even that the chance of life there is also small. But the philosophy > is still strong: don't mess with planet that may have life that we > may screw up. I'm still uneasy about it, but not as much as before. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree with the philosophy that it is not our business to mess with the space (and life) out there without an adequate understanding of the long term consequences. Then in a more philosophical sense one need not be too much concerned about the birth and death of species. Nature is intelligent enough to deal with the follies of any space mission. Tomi We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And Lo! it is our own. Arthur Eddington ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 19:41:00 GMT From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- I might note that the assumptions as to the "lethality" of Pu-238 RTGs are a holdover of the long discredited Goffman-Tamplin "Hot Particle Theory". The popular statement being that "... one pound of Pu uniformly dispersed around the world would give everyone lung cancer ...". A little reasoning demonstrates that this cannot be so. During atomspheric nuclear testing each "gadget" set off fissioned a small amount of its plutonium and vaporized the rest -- SEVERAL POUNDS PER BOMB dispersed into the stratosphere where it circled the earth to eventually fall out. In fact, estimates are that from 7 to 10 metric tonnes of Pu have been dispersed in this fashion. Of course, weapons grade Pu differs markedly from the short-lived Pu-238 in its radiation output; the point is that the hysteria about RTG's is based more on myth than fact. --paul hager hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 89 04:56:53 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekigm2!timothym@uunet.uu.net (Timothy D Margeson) Subject: Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. Hi, So what if Quayle said abhorant things about Mars.... if the folks that were listening beleived it or didn't know any better what do we, the informed really care about the matter. If Qualye personifies those that elected him and truely doesn't know about the current state of science and the citizen, then brazenly tells untruths to the masses, whoes to know 'cept the press, and then only if one of 'us' informs the press. If on the other hand Qualye really is a sharp person who understands more than we give him credit for, and a good politition to boot, personifies a boof intentionally to hide underlying intelligence (easier to do that than the obtuse) may have ocassion to say untruths to rally support for a topic because he knows the audience very well... after all he did make it to VP somehow. Said another way, the masses certainly do not understand much less care about the problems of life on other planets and would rather hear a Jules Verne or ERB version of reality than fact. If you think about it, several major world wide events have succeeded because they were based on emotion in lieu of fact. TFYT (Thanks for your time.... for those of you who don't know about TLA's). -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 PO Box 3500 d/s C1-022 @@ 'Who said that?' Vancouver, WA. 98668 e-mail replies to: timothym@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 89 23:38:13 GMT From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!bruce!khsoh@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Kam Hung Soh) Subject: Stop using "Economies of Scale for Launchers" I have just read the upteenth article titled "Economies of Scale for Launchers" which is not about economics or mass production, but technical discussion on rocket propulsion. Can't writers use a more appropriate title? (Or am I being difficult?) ************************************************* khsoh@bruce.cs.monash.oz.au -- khsoh@bruce.cs.monash.oz ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 06:38:07 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!psueea!parsely!bucket!leonard@uunet.uu.net (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Saturn V & F-1 campbelr@hpclove.HP.COM (Bob Campbell) writes: >The problems I see with rebuilding the Saturn V are: >1: No job for it. > Face it. If we needed them we would have kept building them. > The fact that formerly operational ones are rusting on display > should tell you something. Before you get too excited about > the launch system, have a use for it that needs it and will > be supported. Yes, it tells me that the program was *deliberately killed*. No rational program builds three such expensive pieces of hardware and then just dumps them. The productyion line was ordered shut down by politicians. Other wise the missions those Saturns were built for would have been flown. As it was, the investment was wasted. >3. If we need to redesign anyways . . . > Without the advantages of existing designs and production > facilities, why not try to build it better? It possibly > could prove cheaper than a redesign and give a better > engine (and better engineers!) "Better is the enemy of good enough." We don't want "state of the art. We want tried and true! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 15:31:39 GMT From: mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3!aws@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <14692@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >>I while back somebody posted details of an Air Force launch from >>Vandenberg where the rocket exploded and dumped an RTG into the >>Pacific. ... > >Why, to demonstrate that RTG's are safe? Nice sample size! Better than nothing. It does show that they *CAN* be build to deal wiht an explosion. >It strikes me that a letter like that will primarily serve to remind >readers that an RTG can indeed end up, and has ended up, in the drink -- >a factoid NASA would be unlikely to want to harp on just now. :-) Any reader who saw the Chalanger explode (which is I suspect 99% of them) knows that a RTG can indeed end up in the drink. The anti-RTG crowd it saying that if the shuttle explodes this time there will be megadeaths. This is not the case. They know it could end up in the drink but showing that it has happened in the past with no ill effects would go a long way to calm those fears. On the other hand, pretending that it can't go into the drink will make it look like there is somehting to fear. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen Sherzer | DETROIT: | | aws@iti.org | Where the weak are killed and eaten | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 14:55:11 GMT From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com (Greg Goebel) Subject: Re: NASA forced to photo Cydonia * I've been reading all the material about the Face on Mars with a slight sense of embarassment. The first time I heard about the Face on Mars was when I was in the local library one afternoon and happened to pick up a copy of ANALOG SF with an article on it. I paged through it skeptically; there were a large number of the geometric arguments quoted in the postings on the subject, but my attitude was that the most intelligent thing an article could really say about it was: "Here's something curious, if we get a chance we should take a closer look at it." End of subject. I then put down the ASF and picked up the latest WHOLE EARTH CATALOG. By a strange coincidence, it also had an article on the Face on Mars ... which, as I said in a letter to the editor of ASF: " ... also featured pictures of photographs, supplied by the friendly folks at NASA JPL, of a five-kilometer- wide 'happy face' and a lava flow with an unmistakable resemblance to 'Kermit the Frog'." I concluded the letter with: "I hope we will be kept posted as new discoveries unfold." This was pointlessly rude and unkind -- being the editor of a magazine, particularly one which doesn't make much money or have a lot of prestige, is undoubtedly an abusive job made no more pleasant by smartasses giving you a hard time -- but I was younger then and couldn't pass up a joke. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Greg Goebel | | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 | | (503) 750-3969 | | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd | | HP DESK: CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 03:05:26 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V & F-1 In article <6074@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidcb.tti.com (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes: > 7) Get a payload contract for the new bird. (here's the business-end) ... > The problems are technical, the need is for funds... Actually, I would say the real problem is the business end. Technical problems can be solved. I'm not as optimistic as you are about whether the old-timers still remember how their heat-treatment processes worked 20 years ago, but I agree that it's at least a head start on the problem. Rebuilding something vaguely similar to a Saturn V is a reasonably straightforward engineering problem, i.e. something you can hand to a competent engineering team with a reasonable certainty of results (although you may have to live with a bit of uncertainty about budget and timetable in the early stages). It's large and complex but the basic technology is in hand. The hard part is finding somebody to pay for it. People would be working on commercial heavylift boosters if there were a reasonable assurance of customers. NASA might use it for the space station, just possibly maybe, given some Congressional pressure and a few timely flights demonstrating that the thing works reliably. (Remember, NASA is not building backup copies of the station modules, so reliability is a big issue for that.) SDIO would certainly be interested, if they ever get deployment funding... which no sane oddsmaker would bet on right now. And other than those two doubtful customers, there's... who? Of course, what we have here is a really vicious chicken-and-egg problem, with a lot of vague potential demand that stays vague and potential because there is no prospect of doing anything about it. One good big launcher, run by people with money and patience, might suffice to break the cycle by turning potential into reality. It would be slow to get rolling, but I suspect it would roll. But people with money and patience, in the quantities required, are very scarce. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 14:49:31 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <3792@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.UUCP (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >I while back somebody posted details of an Air Force launch from >Vandenberg where the rocket exploded and dumped an RTG into the >Pacific. The story went on to say that the Air Force found the RTG, >cleaned it up, and used it for another satellite. Can anybody post >the details (names & dates)? We need the information for a letter >to the editor. Why, to demonstrate that RTG's are safe? Nice sample size! It strikes me that a letter like that will primarily serve to remind readers that an RTG can indeed end up, and has ended up, in the drink -- a factoid NASA would be unlikely to want to harp on just now. :-) -- 'We have luck only with women -- \\\ Tom Neff not spacecraft!' *-((O tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET -- R. Kremnev, builder of FOBOS \\\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 09:30:20 PDT From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: NASA missions/time table jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <4338@utastro.UUCP> terry@astro.UUCP (Terry Hancock) writes: >> How would the RTGs handle an extreme high velocity reentry (or >>atmosphere - crossing orbit, it might still leave the atmosphere of >>course)? ... > >This is actually considered the worst reasonably-likely accident (since >it takes pretty unlikely ones to break the RTGs open during launch). >I believe the RTGs aren't tough enough to survive high-speed reentry plus >impact intact. Not clear here if you are talking about the *really* worst reasonably-likely accident, since you use the term "re-entry", implying that this is happening after orbit and hence SRB and ET separation. The worst case I have seen studied seriously is loss of control shortly after launch resulting in the entire stack diving back into the ground. The velocity would confine the ET propellant explosion enough to create an explosion of about 10kT. Of course, this suggests that the shuttle somehow manages to get back over land before the RSO can (wait for it) blow his stack. Considering the other toxics on board the shuttle, I think RTG breakage would be a minor component of the total disaster. Nevertheless heard on the radio of some group trying to stop the Galileo launch because of this danger. >Sigh< Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 17:36:24 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Atlas Centaur-68/FltSatCom prelaunch news conference set (Forwarded) Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 18, 1989 George H. Diller Kennedy Space Center, Fla. N89-64 ATLAS CENTAUR-68/FLTSATCOM PRELAUNCH NEWS CONFERENCE SET The pre-launch news conference for Atlas Centaur-68, which will loft the FltSatCom F-8 communications satellite into orbit for the U.S. Navy, has been scheduled for 2 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, September 20, at Kennedy Space Center, Fla. Participating in the briefing will be: James L. Womack, Director, Expendable Vehicles, NASA Kennedy Space Center John W. Gibb, Launch Vehicle Project Manager, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland Frank E. Watkins, Director, Base Operations, General Dynamics Space Systems, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. Commander James O. Hall, Deputy, FltSatCom Project, U.S. Navy The briefing will be carried by NASA Select television on Satcom F2-R, transponder 13. Audio-only also will be available on the V-2 circuits, which may be dialed directly at 407/867-1220, -1240 and -1260. News Media representatives wishing to attend the briefing should be at the KSC News Center by 1:15 p.m. for transportation to the E&O building on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Those needing accreditation should call the KSC News Center at XXX/YYY-ZZZZ before 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, Sept. 19, to arrange for badging. REMOTE CAMERA SET-UP FOR LAUNCH On Thursday, September 21, photographers may install remote cameras at Launch Complex 36. Transportation to the pad will leave the KSC News Center at 4 p.m. EDT. LAUNCH DAY: On Friday, September 22, the launch window for AC-68 and FltSatCom F-8 extends from 4:15 a.m. to 4:45 a.m. EDT. Media representatives may obtain badging at the Gate 1 Pass and Identification Building on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station from 2:45 a.m. until 3:15 a.m. All media then will be escorted to Press Site 1 on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. NASA Select and V-2 coverage of the launch will begin at 3 a.m. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #83 *******************