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, 2 Dec 89 01:40:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 2 Dec 89 01:39:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #295 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 295 Today's Topics: FUSE and ACE Re: shuttle question Demise of Solar Max (Forwarded) Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars Re: Gary Hudson and the Phoenix Buy Mir? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 10:37:42 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: FUSE and ACE X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" Excerpted from NASA's _NASA Activities_, Vol. 20, #9, November 1989: NASA TO FURTHER DEVELOP TWO EXPLORER SCIENCE SPACECRAFT [Something about space exploration that makes you wanna split infinitives, I guess - PJS] NASA has authorized further development for two unmanned scientific spacecraft that would explore interplanetary space and study extragalactic light sources, such as quasars. These studies were submitted to NASA under the Explorer Concept program, designed to develop intermediate-size scientific experiments. The two programs are: the Lyman Far Ultraviolet Explorer (FUSE) and the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE). [The acronym department earned its pay this month - PJS] FUSE will use high resolution spectroscopy at wavelengths below 1200 angstroms to measure faint sources both throughout the Milky Way galaxy and at very large extragalactic distances. The science team leader for FUSE is Dr. H. Warren Moos, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. ACE will explore the energetic particle populations observed in near-Earth interplanetary space. Measurements of these particles will allow for a direct study of interstellar matter. The science team leader for ACE is Dr. E.C. Stone, [Caltech]. The cost for this phase of development, which includes definition studies and preliminary designs, is approximately $3 million for each spacecraft. The Astrophysics Division of NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications, Washington D.C., will provide overall program management. [GSFC] will be the project management center. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 89 21:52:40 GMT From: nuchat!steve@uunet.uu.net (Steve Nuchia) Subject: Re: shuttle question In article <27460002@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM> kas@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM (ken_scofield) writes: > of having no fuel once the tank is dropped, is there some other fundamental > reason why the SSME's can't restart? Sure -- they are reusable engines. That means they have to be taken apart and put back together, piece by piece and at great expense, before you can light them again. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services (713) 964-2462 "Man is still the best computer that we can put aboard a spacecraft -- and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor." - Wernher von Braun ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 89 20:59:39 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Demise of Solar Max (Forwarded) DEMISE OF SOLAR MAX 12/1/89 The U.S. Space Command is now predicting that Solar Max will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at 6:49 a.m. EST on Saturday, Dec. 2. Individuals desiring general information on the spacecraft may call the Goddard Space Flight Center on: 301-286-6256. For specific information on the spacecraft's re-entry into the atmosphere, individuals should contact the U.S. Space Command on: 719-554-3858. JKUKOWSKI ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 89 02:11:19 GMT From: norge!jmck@sun.com (John McKernan) Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars In article <5572@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> goldader@uhccux.UUCP (Jeff Goldader) writes: >Like I said a few lines later in my posting, I feel the real good to come out >of such a mission would be the development of the propulsion system. Then, >"all" we have to do is get the money to use it wisely. Ideas like this and similar ideas about technological "spinoffs" are mistaken. If you want to develop a propulsion system you do propulsion R&D. It's schizophrenic to devote vast amounts resources and effort to a more or less pointless goal in the hopes that a few random solutions to totally different goals will fall out. John L. McKernan. jmck@sun.com Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 89 03:03:37 GMT From: argosy!kevin@decwrl.dec.com (Kevin S. Van Horn) Subject: Re: Gary Hudson and the Phoenix In article <8912011822.AA23382@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >... but a few years ago they announced that they had met >insurmountable technical difficulties and S.E. refunded all the deposits, >with the option of applying it to another trip of theirs. > >So what did they do that now makes this a viable project? The only "insurmountable technical difficulty" was the lack of funding. In the meantime, Lockheed has looked at the idea, and some people have been trying to push a similar vehicle in Washington as an alternative to NASP, all of which gives the idea a lot more credibility. What Hudson hopes will make this a viable project is getting a very, very rich sponsor who has some vision and likes the idea of having his name associated with the opening up of the space frontier. He has been talking with a few billionaires (that's right, billionaires) lately, and seems to think there's some chance of interesting one of them. Kevin S. Van Horn argosy!kevin@decwrl.dec.com ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 89 18:18:12 GMT From: vsi1!zorch!scott@apple.com (Scott Hazen Mueller) Subject: Buy Mir? 1) The US space station is expected to cost, what, $14 billion? 2) The USSR is said to be bracing to face an especially hard winter this year. 3) US-USSR joint space missions are generally considered a "good idea". So, why not pay $5-7 billion and purchase a half share of Mir? The USSR gets hard currency with which to purchase supplies, we get use of a space station for half or less of the cost of building our own, and the technology- transfer-scare and military use types get to grind their teeth. :-) Ok, I know it sounds dumb. Flames will be discarded, but I'm interested in serious comments. -- Scott Hazen Mueller | scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott 10122 Amador Oak Ct.|(408) 253-6767 |Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG Cupertino, CA 95014|Love make, not more|for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #295 *******************