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, 10 Oct 89 01:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 10 Oct 89 01:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #129 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 129 Today's Topics: space news from Aug 28 AW&ST Asteroids (was Re: What to do with the $30 billion (irrelevancies)) AuAustralian Launch pPad ? Comment on complaints about money spent on space Re: The End of Galileo Re: Comment on complaints about money spent on space What would we do WITHOUT 'Freedom'? Re: CSA AmRoc launch problems, from UPI (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Oct 89 02:09:21 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 28 AW&ST Cover story is, of course, Voyager at Neptune. Editorial observes that the entire Voyager project has cost about $865M. "...the world and the international scientific community... owe the Voyager team every accolade -- not only for their achievements, but also for reminding us that lack of imagination and resolve put greater limits on humanity's grasp than lack of resources." Voyager sees many things, including cloud shadows on Neptune. [As before, I am keeping Voyager coverage light since more timely sources have done it already.] Satellite N1 is now the second-largest moon in the Neptunian system, somewhat larger than Nereid; it would have been seen from Earth long ago except that it is in a very low orbit quite close to Neptune, while Nereid is much farther out and easier to notice. Third operational Navstar launched on Delta Aug 18, after three weather delays. Soviets looking at planetary missions to Mercury, Venus, and Phobos as part of a somewhat-revised planetary program. The Phobos mission would include a sample return. Manned Mars missions have gone on the back burner due to cost and difficulty; equipment reliability and human factors are seen as the significant problems with such a project. The Phobos spacecraft bus, with modifications to increase reliability, will remain the major spacecraft, and Proton the major launcher (Energia was not mentioned). The Soviets are looking seriously at surface missions with several small landers or penetrators rather than one fancy one, adding redundancy and widening coverage. Current plans are: 1996 Phobos sample return, essentially a rerun of the 1988 mission with soil-analysis instruments replaced by the return vehicle. An attempt will be made to get subsurface samples, either with a penetrator that is reeled back in or by drilling after landing. 1998 Venus mission with 6-8 penetrators to examine surface chemical composition in a variety of terrains. 2002-3 Mercury mission, orbiter plus either several penetrators (including cameras) or a soft-lander. Proton launch would require a Venus gravity assist. Mercury's geology is odd, with much more of its mass in its core than is usual for inner planets, and geology will be the focus of the mission. Soviets simplifying 1994 Mars mission to stay on schedule. Each spacecraft will be an orbiter, a balloon, and several small "surface stations". The major change is use of a small off-the-shelf reentry craft rather than a large new one, which would require considerable testing. This dictates splitting up the original large lander. The surface stations might be either penetrators or soft-landers. France, which is taking a significant role in the 1994 mission, is concerned that the mission is still changing and still not firmly committed to launch. Letter from Al Globus observing that calling for a fifth (sixth, seventh, etc.) orbiter is the wrong approach: as long as there is no commitment to replace the shuttle with something else, what is needed is a commitment to continuous orbiter production. Letter from G. Brachet, chairman of Spot Image, saying that AW&ST was wrong to claim that most Spot sales, and sales growth, involves government customers. This has been true in the past, especially in the US, but is no longer true overall and is less true now even in the US. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 89 00:25:37 GMT From: rochester!dietz@louie.udel.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Asteroids (was Re: What to do with the $30 billion (irrelevancies)) In article <1989Oct6.202506.12408@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <2297@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (nick szabo) writes: > The lunar samples are >considered to be definitely lunar, based on comparison with Apollo samples. >But from where on the Moon? Good question. Based on chemical composition, >at least some of them are from areas well away from the Apollo sites, perhaps >even the far side. I'm surprised you aren't emphasizing the differences between the lunar meteorites and the Apollo samples, Henry. They are proof that Apollo did not provide an unbiased sample of the lunar surface, and that more lunar exploration is warranted. >>Asteroid sky survey with Hubble and ground-based telescopes >The telescope techies can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding >is that the Hubble telescope's usefulness for sky surveys is nil. It's >a narrow-field deep-sky instrument, great for in-depth examination of >specific objects but totally unsuited to searches and surveys. The data >return from telescopic study of asteroids is also, um, kind of limited. >It's not, in any way, shape, or form, a substitute for closeups. Telescope work is not a substitute for probes, but probes are not substitutes for scopes, either. I suggest they are complementary. Spacecraft are for close up examination of selected objects. Telescopes can make much less detailed observations, but can look at thousands of objects. Also, telescopes can *discover* new asteroids. Advances in CCDs are making it possible for surprisingly small telescopes to search for earth approaching asteroids. The Spacewatch Camera is an example of such a scope. A battery of small telescopes, scanning for asteroids swinging by the Earth, could greatly increase the number of known EAAs -- and find the ones in easily reachable orbits. There are estimated to be some 1000 EAAs greater than 1 km in diameter; several hundred times that many > .1 km in diameter. If we've determined the orbits on many asteroids, there's the possibility for visiting many in a single mission. We could have a single spacecraft fly by a dozen EAAs, or have a ion engine propelled sample-return spacecraft sample several EAAs. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 89 12:43:23 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!usage!basser!metro!otc!softway!peg!calamari@uunet.uu.net Subject: AuAustralian Launch pPad ? G'day. As you may or may not be aware, In Australia's top end they are thinking of opening a "launch pad". I am interested in the environmentl effects of such an event. What has been the story , environmentally, in the US, and what sort of effects could we expect in Australia? Anyone? Calaamari. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 13:52:38 GMT From: eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Andy Clews) Subject: Comment on complaints about money spent on space This is an extract from "Liftoff", by former Apollo-11 astronaut Michael Collins (Aurum Press 1988, ISBN 1 85410 027 0): "....I pulled out some numbers from the 1987 federal budget. In round numbers the Defense Department's appropriation was $300 billion, the Department of Health and Human Services (including Social Security) got $200 billion, and NASA $10 billion (including $2 billion extra to start building a replacement for Challenger). In other words, the Defense Department spends the entire NASA budget every 12 days and it takes Health and Human Services 2 or 3 weeks to go through $10 billion." If these figures are indeed true, how can people possibly complain that space projects are swallowing valuable funds, as it seems they have been doing lately? The next time someone offers me derisory comments about Space being a waste of money, I shall quote them the above extract! Cheers! -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 07:25:23 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!usage!basser!metro!otc!gregw@uunet.uu.net (Greg Wilkins) Subject: Re: The End of Galileo in article , CHRISTOPHER@GACVAX1.BITNET says: > > > I have read and heard about the Galileo spacecraft's 22 month mission > at Jupiter, which will end about October 1997. Does anyone know what > will happen then? Will the spacecraft be shut down? Does it plunge > into Jupiter (because of the 10 satellite-gravity assists)? Is this > how long its RTG's are supposed to last? > > Does someone have some information on this? > One event that is certain after the end of the Galileo mission is that a huge discussion will take place over the network: - Alternate Galileo Missions, - Should we have sent it to pluto??? - How can we retrieve the atmospheric probes for the Smithsonean? - Will it find the 11th planet? - How can we defend ourselfs against the mutant earth-jupiter hyper-intelligent flying bacteria?? etc. etc. :-) -gregw ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 89 16:50:19 GMT From: calvin!johns@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (John Sahr) Subject: Re: Comment on complaints about money spent on space In article <1412@syma.sussex.ac.uk> andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes: >This is an extract from "Liftoff", by former Apollo-11 astronaut Michael >Collins (Aurum Press 1988, ISBN 1 85410 027 0): [] > ... In other words, the Defense >Department spends the entire NASA budget every 12 days and it takes >Health and Human Services 2 or 3 weeks to go through $10 billion." > >If these figures are indeed true, how can people possibly complain that >space projects are swallowing valuable funds, as it seems they have been >doing lately? [] The annual budget of the National Science Foundation (of the US) was about $1 Billion in 1987. Thus, if you want to compare apples to apples, NASA gets the lion's share of physical science funding, while NSF research does the lion's share of the spectrum of physical science research. Simplistically, then, one could argue that NSF is at least ten times and maybe a hundred times more efficient than NASA, as far as science bang for the buck. (As I don my asbestos suit) I said simplistically, of course, because not even I compared apples to apples; it was more like apples to oranges, while A. Clews compared apples to aardvarks (NASA vs. HHS ?). Also, I didn't mention DOE or NIH funding. (my opinions, of course) -- John Sahr, Dept. of Electrical Eng., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 johns@{alfven,calvin}.ee.cornell.edu, {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns --When the dust settles, each B2 bomber will fund NSF for more than a year-- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 89 02:43:34 GMT From: datapg!com50!questar!al@uunet.uu.net (Al Viall) Subject: What would we do WITHOUT 'Freedom'? Excuse me, but I seem to see all of the bad points about 'freedom' being posted, but not yet has anyone posted the good points. And don't tell me there are none, because I know better. Most of you have very valid ideas of where $30 billion could be used. Personally, I could see it in my own back pocket for that matter, but missing a chance that has already been delayed longer than it should, could very well be the biggest blunder this country has made in ages. (: one of them :) Some of the very things we take granted today, were either directly or indirectly from the space program of the '60's. And that was still when space was considered new to everyone. Nowadays, the general public sees another shuttle launch as 'EHHH, No big deal!'. With an outpost in space, we will have a focused effort in the sciences in space and all the other goodies accosiated with it. And this is probably the last chance for a long time that we will have the opportunity to see such a thing accomplished considering that it takes 20 years just to cut through federal red tape and another 10 years for congressional approval. Instead of hacking away at funding for the Station to pay for the numerous projects you have been contemplating, why not cut defense by 1% or even .5% which would be more than enough to cover it. Better yet, eliminate cost overruns by greedy industry contractors who charge 150% over original cost of an item and pocket the rest. As it is, we will be lucky to have ANY other country (i.e. ESA, Japan) doing space business with us in the future anyway. Nasa will have to cut back on the station anyways, which will directly affect the planned modules of the ESA and Japan, showing once again that they can't trust the US space industry; agreement or NOT. Blah! As a potent launching pad for interplanetary journeys, whether manned or not, we can't afford NOT to get the Station up there. - Al - -- | INTERNET: al@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG | FLASH: "Dan Quayle's face | | UUCP: ..!amdahl!tcnet!questar!al | seen on Mars" It Looks Puzzled| | "Uhh, Excuse me while I take a moment to adjust my tribble." | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 89 16:52:59 GMT From: pezely@louie.udel.edu (Dan Pezely) Subject: Re: CSA In article <1989Oct6.062050.22939@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <65*thompson@arc.cdn> thompson@arc.CDN (bradley thompson) writes: >>Perhaps the people looking at the Corporate Space Administration >>should coordinate with the Canadian Space Agency as to who gets to >>be the CSA. > >CSA is the Canadian Standards Association, the Canadian equivalent of >UL in the safety-certification business. You had better believe that >it's a registered trademark. Any group having anything to do with >technology that wants to use initials should pick another set. In case you're curious, we were using "CSA" as more of a description than an official name. Also, the structure has been changed a bit so as to be more of a service organization than a competitor of NASA, Canada Space Admin, etc. After talking to people, we could help advance the space program more by acting as a (non-profit) liaison and information service which is completely independant of any other (for-profit) organization or company. And yes, we will be getting in touch with other organizations to see about possibly merging, etc. We wont be using "CSA" any more as a name or description. We're still looking for a good name. All postings will be in reference to "Space organization" until we establish an official name. (Any ideas? Mail me) About our progress... we're trying to get some funding to get started with salaries, office space, computers, etc. - Daniel -- Daniel Pezely (Home: 728 Bent Lane, Newark, DE 19711) Computer Science Lab, 102 Smith Hall, U of Del, Newark, DE 19716 302/451-6339 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 89 21:41:43 GMT From: agate!shelby!portia!doom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Joseph Brenner) Subject: AmRoc launch problems, from UPI (long) VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (UPI) -- A small California company whose rocket was destroyed by fire on the launch pad as its engine struggled to lift twin commercial payloads blamed the failure on the malfunction of a fuel valve. American Rocket Co. of Camarillo had spent $15 million getting the unmanned rocket ready for its first launch, a 15-minute suborbital flight carrying a Defense Department ``Star Wars'' experiment and a capsule designed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ``Nothing good or great is ever accomplished without setbacks,'' said James C. Bennett, president of American Rocket Co., at a news conference after Thursday's fire. Bennett said it appears that the valve through which liquid oxygen flows onto the rocket's fuel, made from a synthetic rubber, did not open fully. Bennett said the valve was allowing only about 20 to 30 percent of the oxygen needed to properly ignite the solid fuel and give the rocket the 75,000 pounds of thrust needed for its flight. Engineers stopped the 10:28 a.m. ignition sequence after 17 seconds, but large flames shot up, followed by massive clouds of black smoke that engulfed the 58-foot rocket. The crew tried to put the clamps holding down the rocket back into place, but it toppled over and continued to burn. The rocket was destroyed, although it did not explode. The fire apparently also destroyed the payload -- the classified ``Star Wars'' project and a heat-shield parachute developed by MIT that could help astronauts escape a space station emergency. Bennett said the cost of the valve that failed was between $5,000 and $15,000, and it had never failed in testing. An investigative team, including representatives from the Department of Defense and Air Force, has been convened, he said. Bennett said the company would try another launch again within six to 12 months with a ``more high-performance'' vehicle, but the failure weakened the ability of AMROC and its 100 employees to compete in the commercial rocket race. The 16-ton rocket was the first to use a hybrid engine that burns both liquid and solid propellant. All previous rocket engines have burned either solid or liquid fuel, but not both at once. The rocket was loaded with 6,800 pounds of polybutadiene rubber solid fuel, which will not burn without the appropriate oxidizer. At launch, the fuel is ignited by a chemical that burns on contact with air and then liquid oxygen is forced into the motor to sustain the reaction. Unlike any other solid-fuel rocket, the rocket's Amroc H-500 engine can be shut down in a fraction of a second by cutting off the oxygen flow. American Rocket conducted more than 150 test firings of the hybrid motor, including a full-duration test June 21. The rocket was to have splashed down in the Pacific about 150 miles off the California coast and been recovered by a commercial boat. The launch time was set to coincide with the passage overhead of an Air Force satellite called Delta Star, which was to monitor the flight in an ongoing series of ``Star Wars'' missile defense system tests to learn more about how to characterize rocket plumes from space. The rocket was named the ``Koopman Express'' after the company's late founder, George Koopman, who died in a traffic accident in July. Koopman founded American Rocket in 1985. The company nearly went under following the October 1987 crash of the stock market when one of its major backers pulled out. But late last year, American Rocket found new financing and began preparing for the launch of its first rocket. Space Services Inc., the small Houston company headed by former Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton, launched the first U.S. commercial rocket in March over New Mexico. McDonnell Douglas launched the first U.S. commercial rocket into orbit in August. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #129 *******************