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 ; Tue, 3 Oct 89 05:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4Z-7dC600VcJE1nE4Q@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 3 Oct 89 05:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #104 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 104 Today's Topics: NASA images Re: Flame On!!! Toxic materials on the Shuttle DDHarriman (was Re: space news from Aug 14 AW&ST) NASA selects Small Business Research proposals (Forwarded) Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature) What to do with the $30 billion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 16:12:16 EDT Resent-From: Harold Pritchett Resent-To: Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 11:23:47 CDT From: "Craig Pepmiller" To: Subject: NASA images Where should I write at NASA to get access to Voyager/Pioneer produced images for research? Also does NASA have a repository of Earth and Lunar images? Thanks, Craig Pepmiller Computing Services University of Missouri--Columbia ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 89 22:16:41 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Flame On!!! In article <28SEP89.11863199.0057.MUSIC@SDSUMUS> CC62@SDSUMUS.BITNET (Andy Edeburn) writes: > Let's face it, we're never going to get to Mars alone. It is going >to take a world-wide effort. You rednecks better get over the fears >and paranoia about working with the Soviets, because right now, they're >kicking our a__ in the newly reborn space-race. and then >---------------------------------+ > | "It is always better to trust | > | your dog, rather than your | > | neighbors." - Walton | >---------------------------------+ Well then, since the Soviets are our neighbors -- who is the dog?? > Think before you post!!! Hmmm... naw, too radical. -- Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 89 11:47 EST From: TCEISELE%MTUS5.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU Subject: Toxic materials on the Shuttle Date: 28 September 89, 11:33:54 EST From: TCEISELE at MTUS5 To: SPACE+ at ANDREW.CMU.EDU Subject: Toxic materials on the Shuttle While the environmentalists are worrying so vigorously about the plutonium in the Galileo RTG's, I kind of have to wonder about how much attention they are really paying. For example, as I recall, the window framing on the Shuttle is made from beryllium to save weight, and beryllium's purely chemical toxicity is in the same range as that of plutonium, even including its radioactivity. But nobody seems to worry about beryllium, simply because it isn't *radioactive* (whoooooo!). Of course, the beryllium isn't a serious risk either, since after having a shuttle fall on you hard enough to vaporize the window frames, being poisoned is the least of your difficulties. I suspect that the solid lumps of plutonium aren't going to be exactly easy to vaporize, either. Tim Eisele Michigan Tech ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 89 21:41:15 GMT From: voder!pyramid!infmx!cortesi@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David Cortesi) Subject: DDHarriman (was Re: space news from Aug 14 AW&ST) In article <1394@syma.sussex.ac.uk> nickw@syma.susx.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) writes regarding Henry Spencer's signature: >>"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 > >OK. So I'm ignorant. Who is D.D. Harriman? Here's your Cliff's Notes version (I hope I have this right)... Delos D. Harriman was "The Man Who Sold The Moon" in Robert Heinlein's story of the same name. A businessman overtaken by a passion to reach the moon, he raises the money for the first Earth-to-moon expedition using what Heinlein meant to portray as absolutely shameless promotional techniques (but which seem pretty tame by present-day standards) -- like selling lunar building lots, promising to paint company logos across the face of the full moon, etc. Alas, by the time the expedition is launched the middle-aged Harriman gets a medical down-check and can't go; he has to watch the rocket leave without him. In the final chapter Harriman is filthy rich, very old, and still earthbound. He hires a seedy pilot who had been fired by all the now-thriving space transport services to fly him to the moon, knowing that he may not survive the acceleration. He does last through the landing and, gray and wheezing, makes the pilot dress him in a space suit and lay him outside, where he dies peacefully, looking up at the full Earth. It made me all weepy at age 10 and you know, it still does... ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 02:04:06 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA selects Small Business Research proposals (Forwarded) [I know, marginal space connection. -PEY] Jim Ball Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 28, 1989 RELEASE: 89-150 NASA SELECTS SMALL BUSINESS RESEARCH PROPOSALS NASA announced today the selection of 248 research propo- sals for immediate negotiation of Phase I contracts in NASA's 1989 Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR). Proposals were selected from 198 small, high technology firms located in 35 states. SBIR objectives are to stimulate technological innovation in the United States by using small business, including minority and disadvantaged firms, to help meet Federal research and development needs and to encourage commercial applications of Federally supported research innovations. These SBIR awards were selected competitively from 2142 proposals received in response to the SBIR solicitation which closed June 28, 1989. Selections were made on the basis of scientific and technical merit, capabilities of the firm and value of the proposed research innovations to NASA. This is the 7th year of the NASA SBIR program, which is conducted in accordance with Public Law 97-219, the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, as amended by Public Law 99-443. Phase I projects are 6-month, fixed-price contract efforts, normally not exceeding $50,000, to establish the feasibility of innovative research concepts proposed by the contractor to meet agency needs or opportunities described in the SBIR program solicitation. The projects showing greatest promise are eligible for Phase II contracts to pursue concept development. Phase II contracts do not normally exceed 2-years in duration and $500,000 value. Approximately one-half the Phase I projects proceed into Phase II. Phase III activities may be commercial development funded by the private sector or may be procurement or continued development for government use funded outside the SBIR program by NASA or other agencies. As required by law, NASA allocates 1.25 percent of its annual research and development budget for SBIR. Approximately $12 million of NASA's 1990 SBIR budget will fund these 248 Phase I projects. The program is managed by NASA's Office of Commercial Programs, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., and all individual SBIR projects are managed by 9 NASA field centers. EDITORS NOTE: A listing of companies selected for this program is available at NASA Headquarters (Phone: XXX/YYY-ZZZZ) and all NASA field centers. NASA 89-1 PHASE I AWARD DISTRIBUTIONS September 26, 1989 STATE AWARDS FIRMS Alabama 11 8 Arizona 4 2 California 61 53 Colorado 9 9 Connecticut 8 6 Florida 6 5 Georgia 2 2 Hawaii 1 1 Illinois 3 3 Indiana 1 1 Iowa 2 2 Kansas 1 1 Louisiana 1 1 Maryland 11 11 Massachusetts 47 31 Michigan 1 1 Minnesota 3 2 Montana 1 1 Nevada 2 1 New Hampshire 4 1 New Jersey 8 7 New Mexico 1 1 New York 9 7 North Carolina 1 1 Ohio 3 2 Oregon 5 3 Pennsylvania 8 7 Tennessee 2 2 Texas 9 8 Utah 3 2 Virginia 13 11 Washington 4 4 West Virginia 1 1 Wisconsin 1 1 AWARDS DISTRIBUTION BY NASA FIELD CENTER NASA CENTER AWARDS FIRMS Ames Research Center 26 26 Moffett Field, CA Goddard Space Flight Center 37 37 Greenbelt, MD Jet Propulsion Laboratory 25 23 Pasadena, CA Johnson Space Center 37 36 Houston, TX Kennedy Space Center 11 11 Kennedy Space Center, FL Langley Research Center 34 33 Hampton, VA Lewis Research Center 37 37 Cleveland, OH Marshall Space Flight Center 36 36 MSFC, AL Stennis Space Center 5 5 Stennis Space Center, MS ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 89 15:46:12 GMT From: mcsun!sunic!sics.se!pd@uunet.uu.net (Per Danielsson) Subject: Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature) In article <8909271713.AA00536@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW (Peter Scott) writes: >jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>"Where is D.D. Harriman now >>when we really *need* him?" > >Hmm... has anyone tried pitching the commercial space program to Donald Trump? >I was just in Manhattan and visited Trump Tower. It's obvious the guy isn't >afraid to spend money... ah, I can see it now... the *real* "Trump Shuttle"... Well, Trump is no dummy (or else he wouldn't be immensely rich) and he probably wants a good chance of a good return on his investment. Building a space station isn't the same profitable venture as real estate development. At least it hasn't been shown that it is... -- Per Danielsson UUCP: pd@sics.se (or ...!enea!sics!pd) Swedish Institute of Computer Science PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 89 04:30:49 GMT From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net (nick szabo) Subject: What to do with the $30 billion Sender: Reply-To: szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: IBM AWD, Palo Alto Keywords: In article <1989Sep13.162125.22823@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In other words, it's all the projects *they* find attractive this week. What projects, specifically, do you believe are fads, what is your evidence, and why is this a bad thing? >Our lack of complete knowledge about the solar system means that plans may >have to be modified in the light of new information, but it does *not* >make it impossible or undesirable to *have* a plan. It does precisely that. A plan is something to be _followed_, that we get locked into. Imagine a PERT chart for 'The Plan', the Space Station/Moon/ Mars scenario. (Ridiculous as this is, I've actually seen one drawn up.) Now imagine changing that PERT chart to fit a discovery that in fact the asteroids are much better places to put our first space settlements. Pretty much have to wipe out the whole thing, don't you? In real life that means telling tens of thousands of beaucrats (and hard-working engineers swindled into doing the wrong thing) that their jobs are obsolete, go home, we're closing down the MoonBase. And you think we have trouble with NASA and the Shuttle now? You ain't seen nothin' yet. >So long as each mission >is conceived in isolation, each will have to fight for funding by itself, >follow-ons to successful missions will be rare, and the pace of exploration >will be slow. It doesn't have to be that way. There is nothing to stop us from developing standard buses, like the Mariner Mk. II (Galileo-class) or Obsever class, and mass producing these. (I would prefer developing a new bus closer to the JPL Getaway Special or the AMSAT piggyback-sats, but thats another story If you this is what you mean by "planning" than I agree. > >>>I don't see any mention of >>>Venus, not much of Mars, very little on asteroids, not much on the Moon, >> >>Lunar Polar Orbiter, Mars Observer 2, Asteroid Rendesvous, asteroid surveys, >>and Lunar/Martian/Asteroid sample-return missions to Antartica... > >*One* mission apiece to the Moon and Mars. CRAF is Asteroid Flyby, not >Asteroid Rendezvous. I haven't made myself clear. CRAF and Mars Observer are approved missions, and I assume they are paid for whether or not we scrap Space Station. My list specified how we can better spend the Station funds. Here is the part of my list pertaining to the Moon, Mars, asteroids and comets: ARCF: Asteroid Rendesvous/Comet Flyby, a follow-on to CRAF Mars Observer 2, a follow-on to Mars Observer Lunar Geophysical Orbiter, an Observer class lunar-polar-orbiting mission Asteroid, lunar and (probably) Martian sample-return missions to Antartica (we might find pieces of Mercury and/or Venus as well; these would be firsts). Asteroid sky survey with Hubble and ground-based telescopes Remember, this is only a small part of my original list (about $4 billion out of the $30 billion Station money). The rest included R&D, commercial space incentives, and additional missions to all the gas giant planets. With the approved missions plus these proposals, I count 2 asteroid/comet missions, 2 Martian missions, 1 lunar missions, plus samples from all these bodies via Antartica and an extensive asteroid sky survey, all before the year 2000. This is in addition to missions by the USSR, Japan, and Europe. We could get some solid information about which parts of the solar system are most promising for space settlement by the year 2000, if we got our priorities straight. As it stands now we will be living in ignorance for some time to come. I might also propose 2 more projects aimed at the Moon, asteroids, and Mars that deserve more funding: Lunar "Getaway Special": small ion-engine propelled spacecraft that have been designed by JPL for launch in Shuttle GAS canisters, but could be converted for launch by Delta, AMROC, or as a piggyback (like the AMSATS). Each mission would orbit the Moon and return extensive amounts of data. The missions would probably costs less than $100 million apiece, and could be flown every year with the instruments for each mission based on answers learned from and questions raised by previous missions. Radio astronomy: We have been getting some good data on the asteroids and Mars by examining reflected radio signals generated at Goldstone. Upgrading 2 more DSN antennae for this would cost less than $100 million. >The missions to Antarctica return meteorites that >*might* be from the Moon/Mars/asteroids, but are so poorly documented >and have so many complicating factors that they are not much use as samples. The lunar samples are clearly lunar; the Mars samples probable, and asteroid samples have long been well-known in Antartica and elsewhere. You are in disagreement with a large number of space scientists, who are quite excited about the Antartic finds. Antartic missions, well funded and coordinated with probes and an asteroid sky survey, would be much better documented than today. The Antartic missions would cost a fraction of the Galileo-class probes, which in turn are a fraction of the cost of Station. > >A program which is *planned* knows where it's going. It _thinks_ it knows where it's going. It goes straight thru the tunnel and misses all the side passages. Then it hits the dead end. >On the whole, I agree, but I draw very different conclusions. One mission >per planet is not "lots of wells". We need smaller, less ambitious missions >in much greater numbers. I agree with this 100%. I am quite in favor of designing new probes along the lines of lunar GAS. Meanwhile, Galileo- and Observer-class missions are pretty cheap compared to Station, so we can afford several more of those too. BTW, these two classes of missions will return data that dwarfs our current store by several orders of magnitude. I once saw a slide dramatizing the detail that Galileo will show us of Europa. One side of the slide is labelled "Voyager", and shows Voyager's picture of Europa and a picture of the NYC/Long Island area, a typical Landsat photo. The other side says "Galileo", with a question mark (for Europa), and a picture of the New York City skyline, clearly showing all the skyscrapers and even little specks for cars. This is the magnitude of improvement Galileo will give us (technophobes and tricky orbital mechanics willing...). >It's not impossible. In the mid-60s, there was a >period of 18 months in which NASA launched *TWELVE* unmanned lunar missions. >They could do this because they had a plan -- Apollo -- and those missions >were a necessary part of it. We would have been much better off to launch those 18 probes to Mars, several asteroids, and several comets as well as the Moon, and then use the rest of the Apollo money to launch several dozen more all over the solar system. There is no reason Kennedy could not have proposed this and made it just as exciting as Apollo. One mission per planet is not as much as we _could_ do, but it's a heck of a lot more than we _are_ doing. "The biscuits and the syrup never come out even." Robert A. Heinlein -- -------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #104 *******************