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, 23 Jun 1990 01:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 23 Jun 1990 01:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #555 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 555 Today's Topics: One Small Step for a Space Activist Vol 01 No. 6 Re: Voyager Update - 06/13/90 Re: Retraction: Smileys Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest UK Space activity Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jun 90 22:26:01 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist Vol 01 No. 6 One Small Step for a Space Activist... by Allen Sherzer Tim Kyger Remember the '88 Presidential race and how far behind Bush was in the early polls? Many people think Bush won because he seized the initiative and was able to define both the issues and Dukakis to the voters. Dukakis was stuck defending himself and couldn't communicate his own agenda. The end result was that most people saw the issues the way Bush wanted them to see it. Moral: if you have an agenda to push, make sure YOU define it. The space community is starting to realize. In the past we often defined ourselves by what we where opposed to (the Moon Treaty, cuts to NASA budget, ect.) and not by what we supported (the creation of a spacefareing civilization). Now we are pushing our agenda through work on various pieces of legislation. We are close to seeing laws passed on space patents and commercial launch services -- NSS chapters and members played important roles. Through individuals taking the initiative we are defining ourselves by what we support-- this will give more control over events. It's easier to get someplace by driving yourself than to tell somebody else where you don't want to go. Kudos should go to: Ron Nickel and Mark Voelker of Tucson; William Baxter of Berkeley; and Jim Bowrey and Dr. Andy Cutler of San Diego, for creating the text of HR 2674 and causing it to be introduced as a bill into the House. This is a seminal event in the history of space activism. This is the first piece of legislation written by space activists to ever be introduced in Congress. Individuals can have an effect. Legislative Roundup Space Transportation Services Purchase Act (HR 2674) The vote on the FY'91 NASA authorization bill (HR 4196), with its compromise HR 2674 amemdment, by the full House Science Committee is currently scheduled for June 20 (as of June 7). This date looks pretty firm and there is a good chance it will have happened by the time you read this. [The date for the vote is not as firm as we thought. It is curently scheduled for July 18.] NASA and the DoD have put together some recommendations for changes in Title II. One involves changing the 'no milspec' language to language specifying minimum mil-spec and emphasis on performance requirements. Right now, odds of passage in the house Science committee look pretty good (thanks in part to grassroots space activist). Senate prospects however, are uncertain. The Senate NASA Authorization bill may not contain Title II. If this happens, it will be up to the Conference Committee to keep or drop Title II. We need to get the Senate behind Title II. Things you should do are: 1. Call or write Senator Gore 202-224-4944 and ask him to include the original language of HR 2674 in the Senate FY'91 NASA authorization bill. Senator Albert Gore 393 RSOB Washington, DC 20510 2. Send a letter to Congressmen Kolbe, Walker, Packard, and Brown. They have worked hard to make this bill happen. Let them know we appreciate their work. Their addresses are: Jim Kolbe Bob Walker Ron Packard George Brown 410 CHOB 2445 RHOB 434 CHOB 2188 RHOB Washington DC 20515 Space Exploration Initiative As the result of a compromise, NASA has been authorized by Congress to spend $4.5 million on the Outreach Program. Outreach will take inputs from various diverse groups on potential architectures for SEI. The Synthesis Group, headed by Tom Stafford, will propose two or more architectures, technology priorities and early milestones. This is a victory, but a hard fought and minor one. As a result of the compromise, six to ten contracts to evaluate possible approaches are on hold until next year. The leadership of the Appropriation Committees do not want SEI to be viewed as a new start. This means that they do not accept SEI as a viable program. Unless and until this attitude changes, SEI simply cannot expect to get the funding needed to make it happen. Things you should do are: 1. Call, write, and VISIT your Representatives in Congress. 2. Call or write Senator Mikulski and Congressman Traxler. Let them know you support the GOAL of returning to the moon and setteling the Solar System. Their addresses are: Barbara Mikulski Bob Traxler 320 HSOB 2366 RHOB Washington DC 20510 Washington DC 20515 The Great Exploration As you hopefully know, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has proposed its own program for a base on Luna and Mars. Their plan has the potential for building a base on Luna AND Mars in ten years and at a cost of 4% of the NASA estimate. Currently, there is no money appropriated for the Great Exploration but some discretionary funds are being used to fund initial development. Continued funding is being held up by turf battles. NASA wants to hold on to manned space as its private monopoly. In Congress, there is little chance of support without NASA approval-- NASA has Congress wired. In addition, the head of the House DOE appropriations committee, Tom Bevill (D-AL), has some important NASA facilities next to his district and likes to keep NASA happy. Look for a Memorandum of Understanding to be released by DOE & NASA. When that happens, money should follow allowing DOE to start development. Things you should do are: 1. Write your Congresscritter. Let them know you support this effort and make them realize that there is more to space than NASA (they don't know that now). 2. Write Congressman George Brown (D-CA) in support of this effort. Mr. Brown is very pro space and very liberal; he doesn't like LLNL because of their weapons work. Point out that this is a great way to get LLNL to stop building bombs and do peaceful work. Mr. Brown's address is given above. 3. Write to Congressmen Traxler and Roe and express your support for alternative to the NASA 90 day study. They hold key jobs on the Appropriation and Authorization Committees responsible for funding and approving US civil space activity. Finally, if you need help on any of this contact: Allen Sherzer (313) 769-4108 (work) (313) 973-0941 (home) aws@iti.org (Internet) Tim Kyger (202) 225-2415 (work) (703) 548-1664 (home) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Death to all extremists! | | aws@iti.org | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 90 17:44:23 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!milano!peyote!mosley@ucsd.edu (Bob Mosley III) Subject: Re: Voyager Update - 06/13/90 In article <7751@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>, conor@wren.inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill) writes: > In article <4082@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > > [lots deleted] > > > Consumption > > One Week Propellant Remaining Output Margin > > Spacecraft (Gm) (Kg) Watts Watts > > > > Voyager 1 7 36.4 + 2.0 370 59 > > Voyager 2 6 39.5 + 2.0 374 66 > > > > Firstly, does 36.4 + 2.0 mean 36.4 "plus-or-minus" 2.0, or does this > indicate a "reserve" tank of 2.0 Kg. ...from my recollection of the Voyager design, there is no such reserve tank. I could be wrong, tho. ...however, my interpretation of the + was to mean +/- along the lines of proper measuring of actual gasoline usage. Or in other words... "Well, Vern, the needle says we're out of gas, but maybe if we're lucky we'll make the next station..." > Similarly, does "Margin Watts" mean the error in the estimate, > or the minimum power needed to run the spacecraft? ...that's the minimum power required according to what I was taught. As to whether or not it means minimum power to operate safely, or minimum power to get the tubes to even get warm much less operate, is beyond me at the moment.3-) :-) OM ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 90 12:00:37 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net (Andy Clews) Subject: Re: Retraction: Smileys From article , by UD186413@VM1.NODAK.EDU (John Nordlie): - I recently posted a guide concerning smileys on this digest. - I meant to send this humorous article to the network humor - magazine "Nutworks", but mistyped the destination. Hmmm. Nutworks <-----> sci.space. Quite a mistype! :-) - To those of you who I have offended by wasting space in this - digest: I apologize. No problem. -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 90 00:38:37 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!kitenet!russ@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest In article <9668@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >What if we just use fins on the first stage or two to get going and >spin things up, and then just use the spin for all of the later stages? >No control computer or servos at all!!!! If we can keep within 15 degrees >of vertical we should be just fine, assuming the goal is just to get up. No, not at all. You have to consider that an eastward launch gets a big advantage from the earth's spin velocity, while a vertical launch gets nothing and a westward launch gets a penalty. A 15 degree error is enough to make the difference between gaining escape velocity and re-entering in a day. >Getting into orbit would need active control and so ruin the scaling. >You would need lots of servos and a computer. I don't think you need this >just to "Aim For The Moon". In that case, it is time to re-think the concept of servos. Motors running gear trains are certainly too bulky and massy, but what about piezoelectric plastic sandwiches pushing vanes into the rocket exhaust (jetavators)? Can they be built? (By amateurs? I am a double-E, not a mechanical engineer.) Computers are light-weight, just order unpackaged semiconductor dice or PLCC chips without the epoxy coating. A couple lithium watch batteries will run a 5V CMOS microprocessor. I'm sure that amateurs could assemble hardware from these (carefully). The one element I see no simple way to shrink is the attitude reference. Unless... Ha! This may be it! Does everyone remember the magnet-hovering-over-superconductor photos we all saw when the high-temp superconducting ceramics hit the press? Okay, use tiny magnetic marbles as the gyros, suspend them in nitrogen-chilled cups in a very small vacuum chamber, and use coils to spin them up (with off-board power) and read the signals from their spinning when they are off-axis. Bingo. There is your gyro table. It will warm up and spin down after a while, but after the boost phase is over you don't care. Boost phase will last a couple of minutes. It might be doable for a mass budget of a few grams. It will need a lot of machining. (Definitely too much for a $5,000 budget, but maybe not too many times more than that.) [Please set your "Followup-to:" appropriately.] -- I am paid to write all of RSI's opinions. Want me to write some for you? (313) 662-9259 Forewarned is half an octopus. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 17:16:07 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!mvax.cc.ic.ac.uk!sund!zmapj36@uunet.uu.net (M.S.Bennett Supvs= Prof Pendry) Subject: UK Space activity Just a quick repost - read and enjoy! National Ciriculum The keynote address to the March meeting of the Parlimentary Space Committee was given by Robert Jackson MP Parlimentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science. He includes amongst his responsibilities a DES contribution of some 45 million to the space programme, the great majority of which is deployed on European Space Agency projects. This amounts to more than 25 per cent of Government civil space spending. Parliamentarians and industrialists pressed the point that insufficient attention was being paid to the education benefits of space as a source of inspiration, as a broadly based scientific and technological training which provided an entry point into a wide variety of career patterns, and as an area of science which offered the widest ranging theoretical and practical problems. Members observed that whereas applications for aerospace related courses at Universities continue to increase - typically 15 applicants for each place - engineering as a whole found it difficult to attract students. While emphasising the autonomy of higher education institutions and of the Research Councils, the Minister was sympathetic to this view and to a suggestion that an increase in University training in Space Technology at both Undergraduate and Postgraduate level could be a valuable investment for the country. He would also discuss with the Secretary of State the possibilities of including space related matters in the national curriculum for schools. The Minister empasised that his department continues to exercise the most rigorous judgements on space spending. Priority would continue to be given the the ESA's science programme to which the UK contributed 25 milion per annum. UK pressure had led to the recent major review of the scope and costs of ESA's Horizon 2000 science programme and he was encouraged by the suport now being given by other countries for the improvment measures. Other DES intrests include earth observation, which involves a contribution of some 7 million next year. In this area the UK attaches a particulary high priority to the Polar Platform project. However, he was sceptical about the commercial rewards of ESA's microgravity programmes. The Commitee also took intrest in a British company's success in an international competition for a race to Mars in 1992 to celebrate the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to America. The race will be between solar powered spacecraft representing Europe, US and Asia and employing vast sails (280 meters diameter when unfolded but made of material only thosands of an inch thick) which will be propelled by the pressure exerted by sunlight - light particles or photons. The Cambridge Consultant' design has been selected as the best technical solution from world-wide contenders. The race and the technological challenge is likely to hold all the inspirational appeal of space which the Parlimentary Space Committe was recommending to the Minister ESA meets PSC. On 3-4 May, in Paris, the Parlimentary Space Committee (PSC) met with officials of the European Commission and the European Space Agency (ESA) for discussions on space policis and plans in the light of 1992 and the changing European political scene. The Committe, chaired by Michael Marshall MP, with member of both Houses and leading space industrialists, met with Mr. Joan Majo of the Commission's telecommunications Director General (DG13), and with Prof. R. Luest, Director General of ESA, and all of his Programme Directors. PSC members came prepared to hear views coloured by the differences in the policies of the two Administrations, since the Commission had appeared to challenge ESA's previous sovereignty in civil space R&D. Instead, the PSC came away convinced of the enormous potential in close co-operation between the two Administrations, for the development, exploitation and commercialisation of both space communications and earth observation. the PSC also gained a first-hand account of the practical impact of the UK's declining share in ESA programmes. In his prsentation to the PSC, Mr. Majo advocated the cause for change and for a new framework for Eurpean space. The Commission's proposals for achieving this were set out in the document "The Community and Space: A Coherent Apprach", which was issued in 1987. ESA had proved to be a highly successful Agency for civil space co-operation in the past, but the need had emerged for a shift from scientific and research goals to more commercial objectives geared to meeting market and user demands and improving European competitiveness in the space field. The Community was best placed to meet this need. Community resposibilities also included the overall co-ordination of space R&D, and the focus of space intrest in the developing dialogue with Eastern Eurpoe. The Commission was also axious to improve co-operation between the civil and military space sectors, not only for strategic advantage but also to bolster the Comunity's industrial strength and competitivness. In their presentations to PSC, Prof. Luest and his team stressed the fact that Europe's great acievements in space communications, earth observation and science stemmed first and foremost from the co-operation built up around ESA. On the UK's contribution to ESA, it was emphasised that Britain had bee a major and successful partner in the past, and the decline in our share of activities from 14% to 6% over the past 6 years was a matter of profound regret. The UK had been on the point of dominating the Eurpopean space telecomunications market through its major share of ESA's ECS, MARECS and OLYMPUS satellites, only to put its position at risk by pulling out of new Agency programs too far and too quickly. Prof. Luest cited the UK's meager share of 1% and 6% of the 2 new ESA telecomunications satellite programmes, and questioned the UK Government's assumptions about the maturity of the space communications market. By contrast, the UK's support for ESA's science and earth observation programmes was applauded as a major factor towards their spectacular success. Although ESA's convention specifically ruled out collaboration in any military applications, Prof. Luest was convinced that member nations would support a major role for the Agency in any European programme for the verification of conventional disarmament from space, both in terms of technologies and the use of ESA earth observation satellites. Prof. Luest was convinced of ESA's ability to meet all future challenges without any fundamental change in its charter or organisation. He welcomed the extending dialogue with the Commission. Whereas it was often claimed that ESA's industrial policy of ##juste retour## was a major source of potential conflict with the Single Act and future relations with the Commission, he himself could foresee no such problem. The awarding of industrial contracts by the Agency on the basis of national contributions has been effective in promoting European competitivness, and since ESA's business is R&D and upstream of the market, it does not conflict with Single Act rules. For further Information please contact: Michael Marshall MP House of Commons Whitehall LONDON Tel: 071 219 4698 From Martin Sean Bennett - Contact me on SEDS@CC.IC.AC.UK : JANET SEDS@CC.IC.AC.UK@UK.AC : BITNET ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #555 *******************