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 ; Mon, 23 Oct 89 19:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 19:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #162 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 162 Today's Topics: Re: Christic foundation's philosophical base Re: "The Plan" Re: Trying to build a fluxgate magnetometer -- help! Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits? final frontier Galileo Update Private medical consultations to become space flight routine (Forwarded) Re: Ofiicial party line on HST prelaunch move sts-34 press kit Re: International participation on Freedom Re: Next Christic action? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Oct 89 06:25:26 GMT From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@gatech.edu (S Schaper) Subject: Re: Christic foundation's philosophical base Sounds rather like the version of Hinduism that uses Christian terminology. Hinduism is notably luddite. But perhaps a member would prefer to state it his or her own way. Steve Schaper "Ideas have consequenses" --FAS IV ,. UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 89 16:57:18 GMT From: thorin!alanine!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: "The Plan" In article <2441@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >...BTW, there is nothing on the Moon that justifies spending even $15 billion, >much less $150 billion... I'm impressed. I didn't know Nick would post anti-Moon articles which didn't mention the infamous "ore-forming processes". -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Nuclear fusion, the promise of limitless energy from sea water or something, has been just around the corner ever since World War II and is still just around the corner.'' - David Goodstein ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 89 18:30:39 GMT From: rti!tijc02!jkl141@mcnc.org (John Leroy ) Subject: Re: Trying to build a fluxgate magnetometer -- help! From article <1914@sactoh0.UUCP>, by mahaun@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark A. Haun): > > I am trying to build a fluxgate magnetometer sensitive enough to > monitor variations in the Earth's magnetic field, mostly to observe > magnetic storms caused by big flares on the sun (March 13, 1989 > stuff especially :-) !). > Some time back, I remember seeing an application note for Hall Effect devices used to build a simple compass. Anybody have any insight as to whether these devices might be available in a form suitable for building a magnetometer? -- -John LeRoy Packet Radio: WA4VLV @ WX4S Compuserve: 74136,401 UUCP: rti!tijc02!jkl141 Phone: 615-461-2440 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 89 00:37:20 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!lpb%ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au@uunet.uu.net (Lawrie Brown,112 CS Bld _E,8165,950365) Subject: Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits? From article <9970@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, by leech@alanine.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech): > In article <6421@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >>The general equation is: >> >> R = R0 * b^N >>... >>It seems clear to me that this is not due to chance. > > I think it's not at all surprising that you can choose the free > parameter b to get a good fit. If you had the *same* b for Uranus, > Jupiter etc., *that* would be noteworthy. Not necessarily. I've just been to a lecture by Dr Andrew Prentice, Reader in Mathematics at Monash Uni, Vic, Australia. He has been working on a modified Laplacian theory for the formation of the Solar System, and the regular moon systems of the outer planets (they use the same mechanism). His comment on the variation in b is that it is most likely a function of the composition of the gas cloud from which each system was formed. For a quick overview of his predictions & results for Neptune see New Scientist 5 Aug 89 p11, 12 Aug 89 p 3. He correctly predicted the number & approx size of the four larger moons found, and was 6% out on their orbit size obviously a little tweaking needed on the theory. It constrasts strongly though with the alternate prediction of 1 moon in an incline orbit by the US planetary community. The orginal theory was published in the early 70's (1974 I think in Phys Review Letters, but I don't have the ref here). Hope this is of interest. Cheers Lawrie. ----- Mr. Lawrie Brown, Phone Voice: +61 62 688170 Fax: +61 62 688581 Department of Computer Science, Telex: ADFADM AA62030 University College, UNSW, Email ACSNET/ARPA/CSNET: lpb@cs.adfa.oz.au Aust. Defence Force Academy, Email UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!cs.adfa.oz.au!lpb Canberra ACT 2600. AUSTRALIA Other Gateways: see CACM 29(10) Oct 1986 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 89 19:04:12 GMT From: hubcap@gatech.edu (Mike Marshall) Subject: final frontier What ever happened to final frontier? Did they fold? I haven't seen one in some time. -Mike hubcap@clemson.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 89 20:37:41 GMT From: usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@apple.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update GALILEO DAILY REPORT 16 OCTOBER 1989 General NOTE: This report covers the activities of 14-16 October Spacecraft The spacecraft still remains in its launch ready state. The next spacecraft event will occur at L-20 min when a command is received from the IUS to turn on the DMS (Data Management System) and remove the bias from the HIC and EPD science instruments. There has been only one additional CDU (Command Detector Unit) subcarrier lock indications since 11:57 p.m. on 12 October. This occurred today at 11:12 a.m. There is no JPL concern regarding these locks; they do have a finite probability of occurring and more so in presence of a commercial carrier near the center band of the receiver. Spacecraft telemetry has been stable during this period without any changes in temperatures, etc. LCET LCET #1 and #2 are in a ready state to support the pre launch and post launch activities up to and including acquisition by the DSN (Deep Space Network). STS A L-2 Day status meeting was held at KSC on 15 October. All systems, including the spacecraft, gave their "go" for launch on Tuesday, 17 October. Today, 16 October, the L-1 Day telecon was held between all systems and the astronauts. Again, all systems gave their "go" for launch on tomorrow, Tuesday. "The Galileo spacecraft is ready for launch and has had essentially housekeeping chores during the standdown. Launch is scheduled to occur at the opening of the launch window or at 12:57 p.m. (EDT). The window for tomorrow closes at 1:23 p.m. (EDT)." KSC Public Affairs Office, 16 October 1989 Ron Baalke (818) 541-2341 ext 260 Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 89 16:38:06 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Private medical consultations to become space flight routine (Forwarded) Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C. October 12, 1989 Pam Alloway Johnson Space Center, Houston RELEASE: 89-161 PRIVATE MEDICAL CONSULTATIONS TO BECOME SPACE FLIGHT ROUTINE Medical consultations between astronauts in space and NASA physicians on Earth will become a routine part of future Space Shuttle flights to help improve the understanding and provide timely treatment of initial space motion sickness symptoms. A private medical communication will be scheduled between Shuttle crew members and Mission Control Center flight surgeons during the pre-sleep periods on the first 2 days of each flight beginning with STS-34 this month. Additional consultations may be requested by either the crew or the flight surgeons. "The communication will assure the most effective treatment of space motion sickness symptoms during the first 2 days of flight when the condition is most prevalent," said Dr. Jeff Davis, chief of Johnson Space Center's Medical Operations Branch. "While symptoms vary from one person to another," Davis said, "most cases are mild and constitute little more than an inconvenience to the crew member. Given the variation in symptoms and available treatments, we felt it would be useful to plan routine consultations for the first 2 days of each mission." The consultations will be confidential because of the physician-patient relationship and privacy laws. If a crew health problem is determined to affect a mission adversely, the flight surgeon will prepare a statement for public release which will address the nature, gravity and prognosis of the situation. Information beyond that required to understand mission impact will not be released. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 89 09:35:38 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!marksm@uunet.uu.net (Mark S Madsen) Subject: Re: Ofiicial party line on HST prelaunch move In article <856@stsci.edu> sims@stsci.EDU (Jim Sims) writes: (Interesting, but lengthy quotes deleted.) > "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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ "EVER WILL BE" ??????????????????????????????????? BUT HOW DO THEY KNOW ????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????? :-) :-) :-) > Jim Sims Space Telescope Science Institute Baltimore, MD Querulously, Mark -- ####################################################################### ## Mark S. Madsen #### marksm@syma.sussex.ac.uk ################### #### Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK. ## #################### Life's a bitch. Then you die. ################# ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Oct 89 13:54:32 MEZ From: "Dr. Ulrich W. Otto" Subject: sts-34 press kit Hi, please send me the STS-34 Press Kit -1 of 3- once again, I accidently discarded it. Thanks, Ulrich ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 89 14:50:28 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@ucsd.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: International participation on Freedom In article <1255@orbit.UUCP> schaper@pnet51.orb.mn.org (S Schaper) writes: >A Question for Dr. Spenser. Does Canada get anything in return from NASA for >the Canadian Arm? They ought to. Any participation in Freedom? [if and when, >at least Mir is _there_]. Since I have the literature here, I'll fill in for Mr. Spencer. And for the new faces in the crowd, I'll try to expand all acronyms; the CSA (Canadian Space Agency) is just as bad as NASA (and if you don't know that one, you'd better log off right now.) The Shuttle RMS (Remote Manipulator System) or ``Canadarm'' and Canadian participation in the International Space Station are separate issues. I'll just describe the Station contribution. Building on past RMS experience, the CSA is providing the MSS (Mobile Servicing System) for the Station. The main feature of this is the SSRMS (Space Station Remote Manipulator System), a 17m-long, 7-jointed arm. An interesting feature is that the arm is symmetric; it can therefore move about the station by ``walking'' itself end-over-end. A variety of tools and manipulators can be mounted on the end, the fanciest being the two-armed SPDM (Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator), which looks like a Star Wars droid-on-a-stick. The eventual Station configuration includes two SSRMSs. Other bits and pieces (control stations, etc.), both in orbit and on the ground, are included in the system. The MT (Mobile Transporter) or base on which the system sits is provided by the US; everything beyond that is CSA. The MSS will be used right from the beginning to construct the Station. A proposed manifest has various parts of it going up on flights 1-4, 7, 9, 12, 15, and 17. The system is designed to grow over time: as new technologies become available over Station life, they will be added. The cost of Canadian participation in the Station is predicted to be $1.2G through the year 2000. In exchange, we will receive 3% of the use of the Station and ``associated elements'', as well as 3% of the Space Station crew. This works out to an astronaut in orbit for a six-month stay every two years. Since this is sci.space, you knew that there had to be a political angle, and here it is. Building manipulator arms is a wonderful way to learn about robotics, a term that was studiously avoided in the acronyms above. In fact, the MSS has arguably the highest spinoff potential of all Station components, and the cost is politically justifiable in this country on these grounds alone. When this was realized south of the border, there was some discontent; had the best part of the cake been sent abroad? As a result, an American manipulator system was added to the project as well. This is both a symptom of and a contributor to the Station budget inflation that has occurred. The NASA releases give the American manipulator exactly the same tasks that the MSS is supposed to perform. So, in answering one question for Henry, I've brought up another one that perhaps he can field: how do the bureaucrats presently claim that they're going to deal with this redundancy? No press releases that I've seem mention both competing systems. And it would be lunacy (but sadly, not inconceivable) to fly both. -- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 89 00:22:25 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Next Christic action? In article <1989Oct14.193615.15185@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> griffin@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes: >...How far away are >the Japanese from manned space flight? How, on the whole, is their program, >and is it efficient? They don't have any immediate plans for manned spaceflight. They are building their own medium booster, and plan to build a small unmanned spaceplane, but manned-flight plans still seem to be a bit vague. They're not in a big hurry about it. Their program seems to be reasonably well-run, but so far it has not been very ambitious. Some people predict that this will change soon. >... Finally, some bright lawyer types >will go to court, trying to convince a judge that the asteroidal metal >belongs to all mankind (personkind?) and that the Japanese can't sell it... Don't laugh. The US came perilously close to signing the infamous Moon Treaty, which said roughly that, among other equally-objectionable things. The L5 Society, may its memory long be honored, managed to stop Senate ratification at the last possible instant (while a lot of other pro-space groups sat around doing nothing). > So, who will have a real industrial presence in space first? The US or >Japan? The Soviet Union. The first dedicated industrial facility in orbit will be the T module to be added to Mir early next year. -- 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 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #162 *******************