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/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 21 Oct 89 16:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 21 Oct 89 16:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #149 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 149 Today's Topics: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded) Ofiicial party line on HST prelaunch move Re: NASA Headline News for 10/02/89 (Forwarded) Re: NASA Headline News for 10/02/89 (Forwarded) Re: What to do with the $30 billion (irrelevancies) Re: Hopeful outcome Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? 5th orbiter? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Oct 89 15:22:47 GMT From: crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen@uunet.uu.net (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded) In article <33229@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: | The activist groups say if their legal appeal fails they will | attempt to disrupt the countdown and stop the launch by | trespassing on the Kennedy Space Center. These people don't have the slightest care about law do they? If you were the launch officer and there was a Luddite on the pad, would you abort and set the program back (at least) several years? -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 89 14:39:38 GMT From: stsci!sims@noao.edu (Jim Sims) Subject: Ofiicial party line on HST prelaunch move REPRODUCED ENTIRELY WITHOUT PERMISSION Dave Drachlis Marshall Space Flight Center Oct. 6, l989 RELEASE NO: 89-209 HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE MOVES TOWARD LAUNCH One of the world's premier, space-based astronomical observatories, scheduled to study the universe for the rest of this century and beyond, was moved a giant step closer to the launch pad this week -- literally 2,000 miles closer. NASA's Hubble Space Telescope was transported from its assembly contractor, Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. in Sunnyvale, Calif., to the Kennedy Space Center, Fla., where it will be prepared for launch aboard the Space Shuttle this Spring. The 43-foot-long, 24,000-pound telescope made the cross country trip aboard a U.S. Air Force transport aircraft. "The move was flawless, and all indications are that the telescope made the trip in fine shape." reported telescope project manager Fred Wojtalik of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. "The Hubble is a precious scientific resource, and a sensitive instrument, and it will be the largest orbiting astronomical observatory ever built. Any move is a delicate job. I congratulate everyone who supported the effort," said Wojtalik. The move involved the coordinated efforts of literally hundreds of people from a number of organizations, including Lockheed, the Marshall Center, the Kennedy Space Center, and the Air Force. The telescope departed Sunnyvale at Tuesday evening and arrived at Kennedy Wednesday morning. It was then transferred to the Vertical Processing Facility at Kennedy where it will undergo final launch preparations over the next five months. The telescope is scheduled for launch aboard the Space Shuttle orbiter Discovery on March 26. Following deployment, activation, and checkout, it will study the universe for 15 years or longer. From above the Earth's obscuring atmosphere, it will "see" planets, stars, and other objects in the universe about 10 times better than now possible with the best telescopes on the ground. The Hubble Space Telescope is a product of international cooperation and is a major scientific resource that will be shared by scientists around the world. It will help astronomers answer key questions about the universe -- How big is it? How do stars and galaxies form and evolve? What are other planets in our solar system like? Do other, as yet undiscovered, planets exist? The Hubble Space Telescope was developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under the Office of Space Science and Applications at NASA Headquarters in Washington D.C. The Marshall Center has been responsible for design and development of the telescope and for its verification on orbit. Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, developed the science instruments and will operate the telescope and manage the Space Telescope Science Institute. The European Space Agency has provided the power producing solar arrays and one of the science instruments. The Johnson Space Center, Houston, is training crews for the launch, deployment and maintenance of the telescope and will be in charge of Shuttle mission operations. The Kennedy Space Center will process the telescope for launch aboard the Shuttle. The Space Telescope Science Institute, located at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, will be responsible for the telescope's observing agenda. -- Jim Sims Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, MD UUCP: {arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!sims INTERNET: sims@stsci.edu SPAM: SCIVAX::SIMS ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 89 11:27 CDT From: Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/02/89 (Forwarded) On 6 Oct 89 psivax!torkil@uunet.uu.net (Torkil Hammer) sent: >Subject: Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits? > >The age of our planet is about 5 billion years, which does not allow >for much change in orbit size. And on 9 Oct 89 trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) sent: >Subject: NASA Headline News for 10/02/89 (Forwarded) > >A news briefing on the Cosmic Background Explorer mission >scheduled for launch in early November will be held Thursday at >1:30 P.M., Eastern time, at NASA Headquarters. COBE will study >the origin and dynamics of the universe...including the theory >that the universe began about 15 millon years ago with a >cataclysmic explosion...the so-called Big Bang. The briefing >will be televised on NASA Select TV. My question is how old (approx.) is the universe. 15 millon years seems to be too short a time frame and if, as Torkil Hammer says, the Earth is 5 billion years old then there must have been a mistake made by NASA Headline News. Could someone clarify this for me? Thanks. T. Mixon SouthWest Texas State University "If something defies description, let it." Readers Digest ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 89 17:32:30 GMT From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net (nick szabo) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/02/89 (Forwarded) In article <33227@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >Aviation Week magazine says completion of Space Station Freedom >could be delayed until 1999, an additional delay of 18 months, >because of budget constraints. "Budget constraints"? This must be a joke. Station has sucked up hundreds of millions of dollars per year for the last six years, producing nothing but blueprints and fancy ads in Av Week. It has wiped out other budget items (e.g. NASP, Pathfinder) and other technology alternatives (e.g. Fairchild, Max Faget) that get in its way. Now NASA wants to extend the blueprints and the misery out another 18 months? NASA has had six years! Enough is enough! CANCEL SPACE STATION NOW. > >A news briefing on the Cosmic Background Explorer mission >scheduled for launch in early November will be held Thursday at >1:30 P.M., Eastern time, at NASA Headquarters. COBE will study >the origin and dynamics of the universe...including the theory >that the universe began about 15 millon years ago with a >cataclysmic explosion...the so-called Big Bang. The briefing >will be televised on NASA Select TV. COBE, on the other hand, is an impressive, relatively inexpensive mission. Kudos to NASA for this one! Good luck! -- -------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 89 16:51:33 GMT From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net (nick szabo) Subject: 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 Antartic missions would cost a fraction of the >>Galileo-class probes, which in turn are a fraction of the cost of Station. > >And they would return a fraction of the results. How is this? The Antartic missions return actual extraterrestrial samples, and even if their origin cannot be pinpointed they are quite valuable. Neither Galileo nor Station return ET samples. More "apples vs. oranges". >Just how much >are we going to learn about the asteroids from meteorites? For that >matter, just how much are we going to learn about the Moon from them? The makeup and geology of asteroids--our _only_ samples of asteroids. Clues about the presence or lack thereof of lunar polar volatiles. Martian geology--our _only_ samples of Mars. We may possibly find samples of Venus and Mercury, these would also be firsts. > >The Antarctic meteorite expeditions are interesting and useful. Calling >them "sample return" missions is ridiculous, unless you prefix the phrase >with some qualifier like "ersatz" or "random". > They are samples, and they are being returned. Thus "sample return". And the procedure for finding them is not "ersatz" or "random". The _quality_ is by any count less than what we would get from actual on-site samples, but difference simply is not as great as you make it out to be. The cost is different by orders of magnitude. The planetary scientists are quite excited about this. >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. This is irrelevent to my argument. Ground-based surveys would be fine if we had enough telescope-time devoted to the purpose. > >>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. > >A worthwhile thing to do. But last I heard, the amount of good data coming >out was measured in bits, not megabytes. (I'm talking results, not raw data.) >Like the spectroscopic work on asteroid classification, it gives only the >sketchiest and most superficial idea of what's out there. "Bits"? Come on. This is again a qualitative judgement that stand in sharp contrast to those of the scientists doing the actual work. For example, some scientists have even declared that we have learned more about Titan from radio astronomy than from the Voyager flyby. Now I don't have the expertise to compare the data myself, but I doubt any scientist would call this data "sketchy" and "superficial" compared to our planetary probe data. BTW, what some people see as "superficial" can be a wealth of data to a scientist who knows how to interpret it. Surface characteristics _do_ tell us things about what does and does not lie underneath. >>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. > >Let us know how your career in politics goes. Don't give up the day job, >though. (I.e., this assertion is ridiculous; Kennedy could never have >sold that to anyone but planetary scientists... who are not exactly a >major voting bloc.) How do you know? NOBODY HAS EVER TRIED TO SELL A MAJOR PLANETARY PROGRAM. We simply all believe the cliche that the public won't go for it. IN FACT MOST POLLS DONE SINCE THE MID-80'S SHOW THE PUBLIC FAVORS UNMANNED OVER MANNED MISSIONS. "What are the _facts_?" Robert A. Heinlein -- -------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 89 14:46:43 GMT From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!xanth!talos!kjones@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Kyle Jones) Subject: Re: Hopeful outcome Jim Meritt writes: > It has been said that some of the representatives of the "keep plutonium > on earth" have said that if the courts give the ok for launch that they > will physically place themselves on the launchpad. > > Here is hoping that the courts ok it, they put their bodies under the > shuttle, and the launch goes on. > > The average intelligence of earth will go up by some small margin. Yes, one cannot help but think of the Gabriels in the Benford and Rotsler's novel _Shiva Descending_. Thankfully, there's little chance of the blockheads getting onto the pad. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 89 16:04:00 GMT From: ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!apollo!rehrauer@uunet.uu.net (Steve Rehrauer) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <571@cluster.cs.su.oz> andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor) writes: >>... and yet when the isthmus of Panama >>formed (quite recently geologically speaking) the North American mammals >>almost _immediately_ spread South and _totally wiped out_ all the native >>South American mammals. > >Wrong, quite a few marsupials and "South American" placental mammals remain. > >>I know of only one South American mammal that managed to make the trip >>the other direction --- the Opossum. > >At least one Armadillo species has. When did the isthmus form? I'd hazard a guess that the extinctions were selective, visited large mammals earlier and more frequently, and were caused by one North American immigrant species in particular. (No doubt the neolithic equivalent of the Christic Institute was also vehemently opposed to the original migration from Asia to North America.) -- >>> "Aaiiyeeeee! Death from above!" <<< | Steve Rehrauer Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168 | Apollo Computer, a ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.hp.com | division of Hewlett-Packard "Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'. Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 89 19:42 EDT From: V071PZP4@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu Subject: 5th orbiter? I'm all for a fifth orbiter, but I hate to see another $2 billion dollars spent on a design already nearly 20 years old. What about Enterprise (the drop-test vehicle, of course :-) )? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't NASA, in the 1970's intend to upgrade Enterprise to a space-worthy vehicle after drop testing? If the book I read is correct, Challenger (Structural Test Article-99) was to become the drop test vehicle after Enterprise (Orbiter Vehicle-100) was upgraded. NASA relaized that Challenger's airframe was lighter, so they changed their mind - Challenger was built into a fully-functional orbiter, and Enterprise was left a drop-tester. I'm sure Enterprise's weight problem could be reduced, with all of the things NASA has learned building orbiters. The assembly lines are open already, so it seems rather convenient. What is Enterprise doing now? I think its sitting in some hangar somewhere out West. What will it be doing? Sitting in the Smithsonian. Seems like a waste to me... Craig Cole University at Buffalo V071PZP4@UBVM ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #149 *******************