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 ; Thu, 14 Dec 89 01:43:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 01:43:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #345 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 345 Today's Topics: space science shuttle as Great Satan signature fun Space industry projects: dismantling moons and asteroids Magellan Update 12/12/89 Japanese MIR? Re: space science Galileo Update 12/13/89 (Forwarded) Re: Relative distances and sizes in the Universe. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: ???, 11 Dec 89 11:39 EST From: Paul Shawcross Subject: space science To: In this discussion about how space science has so often suffered at the hands of the manned space program, I think that it is important to remember that the space science program only gets the funding it does because of the emotional appeal and popular support of the overall space program, which is largely due to manned space activities. Space science is usually given 20% of the overall NASA budget. At the moment it is benefiting from the increased NASA funding for the shuttle and space station development. If the space science portion of NASA were to be separated from the rest of the program, and its control given over to a real science agency, such as the National Science Foundation, I am sure that its funding would rapidly decrease. NSF would view the space science program from the strict viewpoint of trying to get the most science for the money. On a pure science basis, it is near impossible to justify a mission like Galileo, when the money could instead be used to support a vast number of basic research programs across the nation. The space science program has suffered from being integrated into the manned program, but it also benefits from their high-profile activities. Flame away. My shields are up ***************************************************** Paul Shawcross : pshawcro@nas.bitnet These are my views. My employer probably disagrees ***************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 89 19:20:59 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: shuttle as Great Satan In article <8912101740.AA29180@trout.nosc.mil> jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: >>The real problem is that the planetary-science people got caught in >>a vicious circle of bigger and more complicated and less frequent missions. > >And why did they get caught in such a cycle? >The lack of lauch slots forced design of missions around launch slots >rather than launch slots around missions... The vicious cycle was well advanced long before the lack of launch slots became evident. One sophisticated project after another died in the 70s and early 80s, when plentiful launch slots were still considered imminent. I recommend reading the SSEC report on the subject. It makes it very plain that those projects died, pure and simple, because they were too ambitious and too expensive. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 89 19:31:20 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: signature fun In article <5292@bd.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >>1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >>exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu > >Gee, I know those Russkies are a bit strange, but to learn they aren't >even human...! They're human all right, but they aren't doing much exploring of late. Paddling around in the shallows, in low Earth orbit, stopped being exploration over 20 years ago. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 89 21:23:42 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!f3w@purdue.edu (Mark Gellis) Subject: Space industry projects: dismantling moons and asteroids New topic for discussion. Freeman Dyson and David Criswell both talk about dismantling planets (Criswell talks about dismantling stars). I have something a little less ambitious in mind; I'm sure it can eventually be done (not with our technology, mind you, but eventually) but, not being an engineer myself, I was wondering HOW you would dismantle smaller, hard bodies (i.e. large asteroids and moons) for their raw materials. Can they be shattered with nukes? Can you simply vaporize huge chunks with solar powered (or nuclear-powered) gigawatt lasers? Someone was talking about the idea of simply setting up a magnetic field and spinning the object until it tore itself apart into usable chunks. All these ideas are fine, but will they work? What is involved in making these things work? My enquiring mind wants to know. Thanks in advance for any references or more detailed discussions. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 89 20:16:43 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update 12/12/89 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT Dec. 12, 1989 Today, the Magellan spacecraft is 105,959,492 miles from Earth, traveling at a speed of 71,336 miles per hour relative to the sun. Magellan is 221 days into the mission and the cruise is 48 percent completed with 241 days to Venus orbit insertion. The telecom status now has the 12 foot High-Gain Antenna (HGA) pointed to Earth with engineering data coming in at 1,200 bits per second. The solar panels are providing 32.6 amps (1,030 watts) of power and the panel degradation from solar particle events is at 11.5 percent, better than predicted for this point in the mission. Intense solar activity experienced in August, September and October caused the degradation, but an active sun was anticipated, and a margin of 35 percent was provided for. Temperatures aboard Magellan are normal as it continues to move out towards the orbit of Earth. The successful daily star calibrations are maintaining the spacecraft attitude to better than 0.04 degrees per day. Only one star calibration has been missed since Nov. 16 when a new software filter was inserted in the craft's attitude control computer. To date the spacecraft has used only 5.7 kilograms of hydrazine propellant with 123.8 kg remaining. This also is better than predicted. Technical personnel and engineers are making good progress in troubleshooting a "bit-slip/bit-flip" problem in data from Magellan's tape recorder playbacks. A special Deep Space Network (DSN) telemetry configuration was utilized during the scheduled playback on December 1. Playback data was processed in parallel through two strings, one frame synchronized, and the other unsynchronized, in an attempt to isolate the problem. On November 30th, the first in-flight command to Magellan was successfully transmitted via the Deep Space Network's X-band uplink. This activity was conducted at Canberra, Australia, and represents a significent increase in the project and DSN command capability. Thermally, Magellan is stable and temperatures aboard the spacecraft are normal as it continues to move out towards the orbit of Earth. Magellan is now 179 million miles from Venus which it will orbit next August and begin mapping in September with its imaging radar instruments. SPACECRAFT Distance from Earth (mi) 105,959,492 Velocity Heliocentric 71,336 mph One-way light time 9 mins, 29 secs Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 89 23:45:07 GMT From: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) Subject: Japanese MIR? o From: clarinews@clarinet.com (United Press International) o Subject: UPI NEWS AT A GLANCE o Date: 13 Dec 89 16:08:45 GMT o (this is from biz.clarinet.sample, so I guess I can include it:) o o o TOKYO -- A Japanese firm has bought Moscow's only surplus Mir space o station and an experimental science module for $10 million to help o promote Japan's space industry, the company's president said Wednesday. o Say what? I figure the price may be off by a few orders of magnitude, but what's this really supposed to mean? -charles -- Charles Daffinger >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water< (812) 339-7354 cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf Home of the Whitewater mailing list: whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 89 20:53:47 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: space science In article PSHAWCRO@NAS.BITNET (Paul Shawcross) writes: [ gross indentation removed ] > In this discussion about how space science has so often > suffered at the hands of the manned space program, I think > that it is important to remember that the space science > program only gets the funding it does because of the > emotional appeal and popular support of the overall space > program, which is largely due to manned space activities. This is an unsupported and in fact counterintuitive assertion. What in heaven's name is the 'manned space activity' taking place in 1989 to generate 'emotional appeal and popular support' for the space program as a whole? Syncom deployments from the Space Shuttle? Highway overpass maintenance is romantic by comparison. The constituencies with leverage are the aerospace industry and the SDI community. It's good for PR to bathe in the reflected glory of Apollo, and to be seen to please a few USA TODAY type ordinary citizens who care -- but those kinds of considerations don't traditionally open the purse strings. Jobs do. > Space science is usually given 20% of the overall NASA > budget. At the moment it is benefiting from the increased > NASA funding for the shuttle and space station development. Translation, NASA *gives* 20% of the loot it gets from the above mentioned mechanism. > If the space science portion of NASA were to be separated > from the rest of the program, and its control given over to > a real science agency, such as the National Science > Foundation, I am sure that its funding would rapidly > decrease. Wait -- if space science were separated while NASA *continued to exist* otherwise undisturbed, then yes, space science funding would probably decrease because NASA is the Budget Terminator - it absolutely *will not stop* till it eats your funding! But if NASA were abolished totally, its functions distributed to industry, the military and the NSF, the net funding for space science might well stabilize at workable levels. The important question is, why are America's space scientists so afraid of putting this to the test. > NSF would view the space science program from the strict > viewpoint of trying to get the most science for the money. Fools! :-) > On a pure science basis, it is near impossible to justify a > mission like Galileo, when the money could instead be used > to support a vast number of basic research programs across > the nation. Oh, like the kind of programs that might actually make sure American kids learned something about science and really CARED about discovering the world around us, so that they grow up into voters who could apply REAL political pressure for a REAL space exploration program rather than a Cold War / contractor boondoggle lurching from one dead end extravaganza to the next. Or the kind of programs that might actually make AI and cheap space flight possible through the unforeseen, serendipitous grassroots breakthroughs decentralized, independent science yields. If a mission like Galileo (one of the truly Olympian dollar suckers by the way) is impossible to justify on science terms, WHY IS IT AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPTED that it's RIGHT to fly it anyway? Isn't this "the problem" in action? > The space science program has suffered from being integrated > into the manned program, but it also benefits from their > high-profile activities. "Benefit" needs better defined here. It sounds perilously close to the "benefit" a heroin addict derives from his fix. Feels great; no other way to get it; messed up the rest of my life but as long as the supply lasts who cares; just don't take it away man!!!! > Flame away. My shields are up Thanks for a provocative posting! We need more like them. -- "Take off your engineering hat = "The filter has | Tom Neff and put on your management hat." = discreting sources." | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 89 22:25:21 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update 12/13/89 (Forwarded) GALILEO MISSION STATUS December 13, 1989 The Galileo spacecraft is 10.3 million miles or 55 light- seconds from Earth today. It has travelled a total of 82 million miles since launch, with 102 million ahead in the trajectory to Venus. Closest approach to that planet will be at about 10 p.m. PST February 9, 1990, at about 10,000 miles from the center of Venus (6,200 miles above the cloudtops). Things are generally going well. The power margin, temperatures, propellant-tank pressures, spin rate and orientation parameters are nominal or within acceptable ranges. During the pre-Venus characterization exercises begun last week, the scan platform, which carries the camera and other remote-sensing instruments was moved about both axes for the first time. The platform was elevated about 160 degrees from the zero (antisolar) position and rotated 180 degrees around its axis (parallel to the spin axis); after other movements, it was returned to the zero position. The ultrastable oscillator, to be used in radioscience experiments, was also operated for the first time, and a series of tests was performed to characterize the telecommunication system hardware. Galileo's mission team has completed the EV-4 (Earth-Venus #4) sequence, the operational program defining spacecraft events from December 18 through the first week of January. This sequence includes the second trajectory correction maneuver, set for December 22, and the 4-day science checkout, December 27-30. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 89 16:45:14 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Relative distances and sizes in the Universe. I like the "SolarSystem::Galaxy as CoffeeCup::NAmerica" analogy. For future reference note that thousands of people traverse both distances every day. It does suggest a good slogan for space enthusiasts: The Solar System - It's Not My Cup Of Tea! -- "How can a man of integrity get along /// Tom Neff in Washington?" -- Richard Feynman /// tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #345 *******************