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, 12 Jul 1990 01:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8ab11iy00VcJAImk5l@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 12 Jul 1990 01:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #52 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: Astronomy & HST Re: HST Re: Space Weaponry Technology Transfer Mailing List Re: HST and KH 9s Free Space Station - spacious but needs work Re: Investing in NASA Correction (was Re: NASA Budget) Re: Titan HLV Re: Bush Approves Cape York 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: 11 Jul 90 16:44:35 GMT From: unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!hydra.unm.edu!jade@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Jaderlund) Subject: Astronomy & HST To all those who are convinced that no useful science will come from the HST I would like to present my favorite definition of Astronomy. Astronomy: The art of creating meaningful results from marginal data. Now don't get me wrong, HST's problems are unforgivable and the whole mess needs to be seriously evaluated. But now that our lot is cast astronomers will once again squeeze the data for all it's worth and don't be surprized if some very good science results. From an observers point of view our data just got a lot more marginal :-< it's kinda like having a 3+ year haze over your observatory. You just do the best with what you got. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Jaderlund "If I got all the 2 cents from Univ. of New Mexico everyone's 2 cents worth, I'd Dept. of Physics and Astronomy build my own space telescope." jade@hydra.unm.edu -Me ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 18:59:25 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: HST Marc Arlen writes: >From: AZM@CU.NIH.GOV >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 10:46:55 EDT >Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #38 >> >And another thing, HST has not failed!!!!!!!! I am tired of hearing >> >this. We have every reason to beleive in the end most if not all >> >of the science will be done. >And I am tired of the people who keep defending the HST, and protecting >whoever is responsible for what happened (just what did happen? did any- >thing actually happen?). The HST was supposed to provide VISUAL images >of the universe of a kind, and at a resolution of detail, never before >seen by man on Earth. NOBODY on the ground really gives a damn about >all of the esoteric science that is going to get done (is it realy going >to get done? can the instruments really make use of sloppy, fuzzy, shaky >images?). It is my understanding that the system as presently configured can provide visual images better than most or all of those available from current ground-based optical telescopes. It is obviously short of the design goal. It does appear that a complete fix (compensating instrument optics) will be possible. >And now they're trying to sell the idea that the Hubble "might" get >fixed in mid-1993, or if that "don't get it" then in 1996. Does anybody >at the Hubble-bubble really expect the american "live-for-the-micro- >second public to sit still and wait three or even six years for the fix >to go up. It is to laugh. If you have access to cable or satellite TV, you should watch NASA Select or CSPAN - your information is at least several days out of date. The NASA people in this week's Senate Space Subcommittee meeting said that they are confident that instrument replacement can be accomplished by 1993 (assuming the shuttle is still in use), and they are hopeful that the process can be accelerated. One statement was that replacement within 1.5 years is at least conceivable. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jul 1990 10:30 EDT From: SIMMONS DONALD F <27000%AECLCR.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu> Subject: Re: Space Weaponry To: wshb!clarence@uunet.uu.net ( WSHB employee) writes: > Why are lasers and similar weapons the preferred armament of > most space vessels? Why not solid-projectile-type weapons? Is > there some simple physics involved here? > A few years ago I watched a SF movie where a spaceship cruising > at just under the speed of light fired nuclear missiles at it's > enemy.....what would happen to the ship firing these solid missiles? There is no physical problem with using solid projectiles as weapons in space. In fact, a chunk of metal moving at near lightspeed should produce a sizable crater if it hit a planet, let alone another ship. Try that with a laser beam. Also, moving at near lightspeed, such a projectile would be undectected by any conventional speed-of-light scanning system until it was right on top of you, too late to do anything about it. The only real problem would be putting enough energy into your coilgun or whatever to fire a projectile at such speeds. You would need one hell of a power source on your spacecraft. Better to make it some sort of ground defence. (Yeah, put it on the moon and spray lightspeed-ball bearings in the proper directions, that'll smash anything!) Lasers are used the most in TV and movies simply because they are more dramatic, and 99% of the viewing public wouldn't understand why spaceships are using something as primative as missiles. I have read several serious SF novels where projectiles are the preferred choice of weapons (as opposed to 'space-opera' novels). Donald Simmons 27000@AECLCR "With mystical divinity of unashamed felinity, round the cathedral cry 'Viva!', life to the everlasting cat." - Cats ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 20:01:20 GMT From: sei!weh@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Bill Hefley) Subject: Technology Transfer Mailing List The Technology Applications group of the Software Engineering Institute is pleased to announce the creation of a new electronic mailing list: technology-transfer-list. This mailing list, focused on technology transfer and related topics, is intended to foster discussion among researchers and practitioners from government and industry who are working on technology transfer and innovation. Relevant topics include: -- organizational issues (structural and behavioral) -- techno-economic issues -- business and legal issues, such as patents, licensing, copyright, and commercialization -- technology transfer policy -- technology maturation to support technology transition -- lessons learned -- domestic and international technology transfer -- transition of technology from R&D to practice -- planning for technology transition -- models of technology transfer -- studies regarding any of these topics To request to be added to or dropped from the list, please send mail to: technology-transfer-list-request@sei.cmu.edu Please include the words "ADD" or "REMOVE" in your subject line. The technology-transfer-list is currently not moderated, but may be moderated or digested in the future if the volume of submissions warrants. The electronic mail address for submissions is: technology-transfer-list@sei.cmu.edu Other administrative matters or questions should also be addressed to: technology-transfer-list-request@sei.cmu.edu The SEI is pleased to provide the facilities to make this mailing list possible. The technology-transfer-list is the result of two SEI activities: -- transitioning technology to improve the general practice of software engineering -- collaborating with the Computer Resource Management Technology program of the U.S. Air Force to transition technology into Air Force practice The SEI is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense under contract to Carnegie Mellon University. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 20:22:03 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: HST and KH 9s In article <1990Jul11.164705.17680@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James) writes: > > Someone [I cunningly can't recall *who*] mentioned that >the Hubble bears some similarity to the KH 9 satellites. A couple of folks, actually. >How expensive would it be to adapt the KH 9 design for use as a >orbiting telescope, to be used for astronomy rather than recon? What a brilliant idea. I wonder why this wasn't tried before we built Hubble. Hummmm. Might have been interesting. Probably would have been less than $1.5 billion. I wonder if the Air Force has spares laying around for recycling. I bet they *do*...time to put this in the "Brilliant Ideas For NASA" list via RAND. >Are the differences between the criteria for a recon satellite >and an astronomical telescope so great that whoever it is that >makes the KH satellites would not be a reasonable source for >future orbiting telescopes? Well, specs on Hubble were MUCH tighter than on the KH-9 series. And the KH-9 series has been phased out by New, Improved Recon Sats. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 21:11:05 GMT From: sam.cs.cmu.edu!vac@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Subject: Free Space Station - spacious but needs work ET: in orbit, unfurnished, needs a door, no utility hookups available, life support not included Todays New York Times had an article about how the maintenance for the space station was going to be much higher than even the recent higher estimate. There is so much work to do that the current design is out of the question. The maintenance problems seem to be due to micrometeors, the extreme high/low temperatures, and radiation in general. If external tanks were used as shells for the space station modules these problems would be solved. The ET walls must be fairly thick because the fuel is rather heavy at launch (3 inches thick?). Thus the ET should do a good job of providing thermal insulation and protecting against radiation or micrometeors! It has two airtight compartments (hydrogen tank and oxygen tank) that could be made into living quarters. The overall tank is about 30 feet in diameter and something like 150 feet long. This is really huge for something in orbit (like 60 small rooms). While currently the external tank does not go into orbit it would actually take less fuel if they did put the external tank in orbit. They currently get to orbital speed and then do an extra maneuver to send the ET back down. The tank weighs about 60,000 lbs. At a price of $5,000/lb to bring things into orbit it would cost about $300,000,000 to put that much mass into orbit. We can get one for free every time the space shuttle launches! If the tank is wanted in orbit then the space shuttle becomes much more attractive as a launch vehicle (twice the billable payload per launch)! The idea of using the external tank as a space station platform has been around for a long time (I first heard it at a talk at NASA Ames about 9 years ago). Does anyone know why this idea (which seems so fantastic) has not been incorporated into the station design? -- Vince PS Maybe if lots of us call NASA and tell them about this idea (like many votes) they will really think about it. NASA outreach: packets 1-800-677-7796, other 1-800-843-9620 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 90 01:07:31 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wyse!vsi1!hsv3!mvp@ucsd.edu (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Investing in NASA In article <1990Jul10.170158.14555@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <721.2698F7A2@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Anderman) writes: >>If investing NASA is not a good idea, where should we invest? >Orbital Sciences and Hercules would be a good place... :-) Yep... I put some of my IRA money into OSC stock at 20 1/4. Unfortunately, they must have heard that I'd bought some, because it instantly plummeted to (as of today) 15 3/4. :-( -- ...Defending the truth...is not something one | Mike Van Pelt does out of a sense of duty or to allay guilt | Headland Technology/Video 7 complexes, but it is a reward in itself. | ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Dr. Petr Beckmann ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 16:04:40 GMT From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@CS.YALE.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Correction (was Re: NASA Budget) The information I have been posting on the Heavy Lift Titan is incorrect. The numbers are basically correct but the proposal is from McDonell Douglas for a Heavy Lift Delta and not from Martin Marrietta. I am told that Martin's Heavy Lift Titan proposal is similar but may still be classified. Also, the pricing and payloads are somewhat different. The details are: Launch Price (in millions) Payload (in tons) 1. $500 40 2. $250 70 3-17 $150 70 This makes it look even better. The unmanned version carries almost three times as much as the Shuttle for half the price. A manned version should be able to carry more than the Shuttle for half the price. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 19:03:41 GMT From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN) Subject: Re: Titan HLV In article <11216@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Daniel McGurl) writes: > >Just how optimistic is it? I seem to recall that Pegasus went from development >... >At any rate, 3 years may be optimistic, but maybe not as much as you may >think. Pegasus has a design fairly different from any commercial rocket Recall that Martin is one of those big, calcified Aerospace Corporations. Also note that the facility mods for LC-40 and the new TIV SRM assembly building are PLANNED to take more than three years. I certainly agree that it wouldn't be unreasonable if OSC or some small company were the contractor. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 90 18:10:59 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York In article <1741@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> lpb@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Lawrie Brown) writes: >> And there is always unease thinking about the sparse population >>of northern Australia and the explosive population of Indonesia not far off >>the northern coast.... > Standard military paranoia - noone else bothers much with that. If >you've ever really SEEN northern australia you'd know why. It makes ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >your Death Valley look like a positive paradise! ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ Having lived near one or the other for most of my life and visiting both I would disagree with the above statement. Given a choice I'd choose Northern Australia over Death Valley. As far as population bases go though there is no part of the U.S. (except for perhaps a few military ranges here in the west) that approaches Northern Australia's sparseness. A pretty good place for a launch site from a range safety consideration, IMHO. Another opinion... -- Albion H. Bowers bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #52 *******************