Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 32766 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 ; Tue, 9 Jan 90 13:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 8 Jan 90 20:27:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 20:26:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #395 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 395 Today's Topics: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/02/90 (Forwarded) Magellan Special Report - 01/04/90 March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles Patentability as public/private division Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (was Re: who's out there?) Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Jan 90 16:32:21 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/02/90 (Forwarded) In article <1990Jan3.235515.8935@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <39643@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >>The tenth attempt to launch a commercial Titan 3 rocket from Cape >>Canaveral was successful... >Ah, nothing like those wonderful expendables, always on schedule and always >ready when the launch window is narrow... :-) I am not sure what any launch system can do about high altitude wind conditions, which were responsible for seven or eight of those delays. Perhaps another launch site with better high altitude conditions could be chosen, but something else would just get in the way :-) The ocean of air is a harsh mistress to live with. At least Titan can't be delayed by a broken toilet! -- If the human mind were simple enough to understand, =)) Tom Neff we'd be too simple to understand it. -- Pat Bahn ((= tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 90 19:17:57 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Special Report - 01/04/90 MAGELLAN SPECIAL REPORT Jan. 4, 1990 Magellan's command and data system (CDS) experts said today an error the spacecraft detected in its privileged memory is apparently an oxide problem, and not a single event upset caused by solar radiation. There is no evidence that the spacecraft is currently encountering high solar activity. Operations people said they switched back to the CDS primary, or side-A computer, to verify and localize the error with memory readouts. If the problem proves to be an error, called a parity error, operations will either program around the weak cell or switch back to the redundant memory. Standard cruise operations will be reinstated on CDS side-A with the cruise-17 standard sequence scheduled to start on January 15. In the meantime, spacecraft safing operations include: --daily momentum wheel desaturations --attitude control parameter updates for the read-only- memory safing mode every other day --star calibrations on each Friday. A mini-computer sequence will be generated to accomplish the safing operations to minimize the non-standard commanding of the spacecraft. All commands are tested in the verification laboratory before being sent to the spacecraft. Yesterday, the station in Australia was unable to acquire the spacecraft with any command uplinks for 51 minutes. Large doppler residuals were observed in the tracking data just prior to the outage. The station in Madrid, Spain, continues to attempt the uplink with various sweep combinations. Operations has switched the command link from the low gain to the medium gain antenna. 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: 4 Jan 90 20:43:14 GMT From: tank!cps3xx!usenet@handies.ucar.edu (Usenet file owner) Subject: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles The March 1990 ANALOG has an incredibly interesting article in it by Robert M. Zubrin (with Martin Marietta Astronautics) describing an apparently feasible approach to Mars and other missions. I continue having assumed you've read the article. What, you mean you dont always read March issues on January 4th? For those who don't yet have access to the issue, in summary, Mr. Zubrin details a system that uses simple gases heated with a nuclear core as a form of propulsion. Since a vehicle could collect the gases itself from the martian atmosphere, it can self-refuel and make an extensive exploration of Mars and then fly home without incurring the enormous cost of launching conventional fuels all the way to mars, around mars and back home. Much of the information in this article seemed to be related to a 60's research project, NERVA, into superheated gas propulsion. My question is basically, what's the story? Is this story _right_? Can we have some questions/comments from qualified experts on the subject? My final impression with the article is that it's eminently workable, and that none of the technology is "bleeding edge." I must admit I'm sort of jaded lately (having pulled off some amazing stuff) and getting to the point where _everything_ is just YASEP (Yet Another Stupid Engineering Problem) but it really _doesn't_ seem to terribly difficult, even extrapolating for zillions of nasty interdisciplinary hassles. So perhaps this is a "what am I missing?" question. Otherwise, what the heck? Lets explore this route. Current "staged" approaches for long range missions (orbital platform, space station, possible lunar base, Mars) seem more than unrealistic given the current U.S. financial climate, since funding cuts for any step of the pipeline kills the entire effort. Can someone color this picture in please? Terry Conklin - a Systems Designer/Programmer (naturally), among other stuff conklin@egr.msu.edu -They like Data, sure, but what uunet!frith!conklin would they do if we went ahead The Club (517) 372-3131 3/12/2400 built him? ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 90 23:31:48 GMT From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles In article <5925@cps3xx.UUCP> conklin@frith.UUCP (Terry Conklin) writes: >The March 1990 ANALOG has an incredibly interesting article in it by >Robert M. Zubrin (with Martin Marietta Astronautics) describing an >apparently feasible approach to Mars and other missions. ... >Much of the information in this article seemed to be related to a 60's >research project, NERVA, into superheated gas propulsion. >My question is basically, what's the story? Is this story _right_? Can >we have some questions/comments from qualified experts on the subject? ... >So perhaps this is a "what am I missing?" question. I haven't read the article yet, but it looks fascinating. Technically, it's probably the best way to go by a long shot. Unfortunately, technical issues are not the whole story, as Stan Schmidt mentioned in his editorial in the same issue. The dimbulbs from the Christic Institute waxed apocalyptic over a mere RTG on Galileo -- can you imagine the shrieking, hand-wringing hysteria if you actually proposed flying a nuclear reactor? There are a lot of reasons why there are no rational safety issues left unresolved in a proposal like this, starting with the reactor isn't started until it's well on its way to Mars. This makes no difference. Reason and sanity have absolutely nothing to do with it. When "The N-word" is used, mindless technophobic hysteria rules over all. At least in the US. Maybe some other country could do it. -- Mike Van Pelt I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the Headland Technology word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies. (was: Video Seven) -- William F. Buckley ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 11:13:11 PST From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Patentability as public/private division In civil space, as in many other technical areas that posess commercial potential, the correct division between public and private sector responsibilities is exactly the same as that defined in patent law between "unpatentable" research (science) and "patentable" development (technology). Grassroots space activists, in advocating related reforms of our civil space policy, are now enjoying far greater political influence than we ever experienced as just another special interest asking Congress for more money. Experiencing such influence is not only motivating and exciting, it is proving to be the cure for a malaise that has, for years, plagued our space movement. The public sector must fund unpatentable research, placing the knowlege and data thereby acquired in the public domain. Just as important, the government must NOT fund patentable development, as this infringes on potentially profitable commercial technologies which the private sector must be motivated to pursue on its own initiative and at its own risk. The government has no business holding patents, nor in using public funds to help private parties acquire patent positions. In short, research acquires knowlege about the nature of things and properly belongs to the public, while development utilizes knowlege about the nature of things in order to "reduce to practice" inventions or technologies which properly belong to those who invested in their creation. If the government has objectives that may require technology to be developed, policy makers should not attempt to second guess the commercial sector -- rather they should simply associate dollar values with those objectives and let the commercial sector, with market and engineering analysis, determine whether it makes sense to invest in technology development enabling them to fulfill some of the government's objectives and thereby be rewarded with the associated dollar value. This is called "performance specification" as opposed to "design specification" which is what NASA currently uses. If those objectives cannot be profitably met by the commercial sector, the government should increase the amount of money associated with the objectives and/or it should fund additional research in related areas so as to fill in critical public-domain knowlege gaps. Note: It is necessary to differentiate here between the means used to achieve objectives and the objectives themselves. Infrastructures, for example, are not objectives, but systems used to achieve objectives. A rational civil space program would simply state what those objectives are, make a funding committment to each, perhaps in the form of a trust fund separated from the yearly federal budget battles, and get out of the way. Better still would be a space program devoted to accepting unsolicited research proposals from anyone at anytime -- openly peer-reviewed and funded via grants, with all data and research results made public. The researchers, thus funded, would be the customers in a multi- billion dollar "seed-market" for space product development and service operations creating a well-directed commercial space industry. For policy administration, the U.S. patent infrastructure, including the body of patent law, the U.S. Patent Office, commercial experience with invention and an entire legal industry specializing in patents, is an exceedingly valuable resource available "off the shelf". Ignorance of this resource in our space policy is an artifact of the political malaise that has surrounded our civil space activities since NASA's inception. The sole exception to this malaise is the communications satellite industry. The communications satellite industry illustrates the value of this sort of policy. In the early days of our space program, NASA was legislatively barred from only one activity with commercial potential: communications satellites. Since that time, the United States has led the world in exactly one commercial space business: communications satellites. Privately financed technology development, primarily on the part of Hughes Corporation, ensured continued United States preeminence in satellite communications even as we lost our leadership in many high tech commercial areas heavily subsidized by government "initiatives" of one kind or another. Grassroots space activists now have power on an unprecedented scale. In calling for restructuring of our civil space program around concepts such as patentability, rather than helping NASA and its contractors fight for more and more of a smaller and smaller federal budget, our elected officials are giving us attention and respect reserved for those rare citizens who, rather than being "just another special interest group", are working to solve critical national problems. Grassroots activists who have worked with elected representatives for the introduction and passage of HR2674: The Space Transportation Services Purchase Act, can attest to the power of this kind of approach. Don't take my word for it. Participate directly in the long over-due grassroots movement to reform our civil space program. Experiencing the power of your citizenship will speak louder than any words. --- Typical RESEARCH grant: $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 90 15:56:24 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@ucsd.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles In article <1270@milton.acs.washington.edu> dancey@milton.acs.washington.edu (Mikel Stromberg) writes: >It's against international law (and U.N. treaties) to launch a nuclear reactor >into orbit. Though the Soviets have done this in the past, it has been >"under the table", and they have vehemetly denied the action. In the sixties, >the U.S. signed a U.N. treaty (I think it was simply called "The Space Treaty" >but I don't have the details right at hand) which outlawed "weapons of mass >destruction" as orbital weapons of war. The Soviet-Third World coalition >in the U.N. has made it abundantly clear that they consider any working >nuclear reactor in orbit to be a "weapon of mass destruction". The Soviets have *not* made it clear that they consider reactors to be weapons of mass destruction. No treaty in existence bans space-based reactors, and the Soviets are the only ones operating them at present. (The US has an old, dead reactor in orbit which is showing worrisome signs of falling to pieces.) They do *not* deny this. Given past experience, it would be reasonable to ban reactors which have been operated from LEO, or at least require sufficient redundancy in safety systems to prevent them from dropping in unwanted places. Many astronomers would like *all* orbital reactors outlawed, as they can mess up certain observations. But they're entirely legal. -- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 90 22:19:49 GMT From: shelby!neon!andy@decwrl.dec.com (Andy Freeman) Subject: Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (was Re: who's out there?) In article kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes: >>... and had the chance to be ignored in person. > > Hmm. Does _everyone_ have this experience with Henry? No. -andy -- UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@neon.stanford.edu BELLNET: (415) 723-3088 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 90 20:06:22 GMT From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles In article <5927@cps3xx.UUCP> conklin@frith.UUCP (Terry Conklin) writes: >It seems unfortunate that just the mere threat of heat is citied by >professionals as valid cause to flush our potentially _best_ option. >Ok, not cited as a "reason" but more as "the reason," as if it were fate. It's not just the "mere threat of (political) heat", it's the grim certainty that the costs will be multiplied many times over by the long years of delaying-tactic lawsuits filed by the Rifkins, Christics, and Nadirs. Lawyers cost lots of money, delays cost even more -- especially if a last-minute injunction causes you to lose your launch window, which very nearly happened to Galileo. That's the tactic that these groups have used for years to shut down the nuclear option for generating electrical power, for sterilizing medical supplies, and for preserving food. >Certainly, press abuses (case in point the extensive coverage given to >the incredibly minor group of people protesting Galileo's powercell) in >the name of "news" haved given considerable power to reactionary >minorities. But this secondary problem should stay just that, >secondary. Press abuses are minor compared to the abuse of the legal system, though it doesn't help that few reporters have even the science knowledge of the average rutabaga, and much of the public is worse off. >It would seem more like a social-engineering problem than anything else. Quite true. Besides the obvious need for better science education, we have to come up with some kind of solution to the flaws in our legal system that make sabotage-by-lawyer so easy. Personally, I think that if the rifkins file the same lawsuit that was thrown out of court before, they should be found in contempt of court and tossed in the slammer, and the lawyers involved permanently disbarred. (That's a major part of their tactics; just keep filing the same bloody lawsuit, over and over and over again.) -- Mike Van Pelt Headland Technology/Video 7 ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp There are no perfect power sources. There is no such thing as 100% perfect safety. There is no such thing as zero environmental impact short of the entire human race committing mass suicide. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #395 *******************