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, 19 Jul 1990 01:31:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 19 Jul 1990 01:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #87 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 87 Today's Topics: space news from May 28 AW&ST "Captain Midnight" Re: Earth moving (was Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible? Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL Re: Titan HLV Apologies Re: Bush Approves Cape York Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL Re: Bush Approves Cape York Re: On-orbit satellite servicing Payload Status for 07/17/90 (Forwarded) Re: NASA Lobbying... (Hopefully the last msg...) 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: 19 Jul 90 01:45:24 GMT From: mcgill-vision!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 28 AW&ST Full-page color ad opposite the editorial page -- must have cost a bundle -- for Pegasus. The picture is Pegasus under B-52, and if I'm not mistaken it was taken about a quarter of a second *after* drop, as you can see a gap between Pegasus and its pylon. ESA complains to Quayle, when he visits them, that the US is encouraging unfair pricing by allowing use of Long March. ESA continues to press for a cartel, er excuse me a "fair-pricing accord". Small Business Administration rules that NASA acted improperly when it leased 24 commercial transponders on the TDRS system to Intelsat; the high bidder was Columbia Communications, but NASA rejected them because of "insufficient financial backing". SBA says this is none of NASA's business and the lease should go to the high bidder. NASA may appeal. Giotto's instruments appear to be functioning normally... except that the camera is kaput. :-( Its electronics and mechanics appear to be working, so the best guess is that the external light baffle got smashed late in the Halley pass and is blocking the view. ESA will decide May 29 whether to go ahead with sending Giotto to Grigg-Skjellerup [they decided to go for it]. Commerce Dept study warns that US space industry is threatened by the failure of both large aerospace companies and the financial community to invest boldly. The report, not yet public [AW&ST "obtained" a copy], also blames the government for constantly changing the rules. It says that successful ventures so far are mostly those backed by "strategic" investors, groups interested in future opportunities rather than near- term financial return. Foreign firms are prominent in this role. "Japanese corporations competed fiercely to be financial participants in the Spacehab venture." There are often limits on foreign involvement in companies with cooperative agreements with NASA, however, and such companies often feel trapped between those limits and the utter lack of interest from US aerospace investors. First picture from Hubble, somewhat better than Earthbound telescopes. [After hubris, nemesis... :-(] -- NFS: all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and its performance and security too. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 90 15:49:10 GMT From: att!oucsace!olbers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Olbers ece) Subject: "Captain Midnight" Several years ago (1986?), someone calling themselves Captain Midnight ( I think ) jammed the HBO satellite at the beginning of their prime-time programming and posted a message complaining about HBO's rates. I was wondering whatever happened to this guy -- was he caught, sentenced, etc.? R. L. Olbers olbers@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu "Being disintegrated makes me very angry" -- Marvin Martian ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 90 00:45:54 GMT From: usc!samsung!emory!mephisto!prism!ccoprmd@ucsd.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: Earth moving (was Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible? In article <1990Jul17.001207.13084@agate.berkeley.edu> gmohr@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Gordon J. Mohr) writes: >Actually, I understand that Russian scientists have calculated that, given >enough warning, it would actually be easier to MOVE THE EARTH than divert >a distant, rapidly approaching asteroid. How? Altering the moon's mass with >nuclear charges. The moon's orbit would change, also affecting the Earth's >solar orbit. A slight change, over time, would mean a gigantic difference >in where the Earth is at some future time. Are these the same Russians whose probe went through a time warp and transmitted pictures of heaven back to earth? :) -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, Office of Information Technology for they are subtle, and quick to anger. Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 90 04:45:21 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL In article <90194.083324GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: > Perhaps, I can't do math, but aren't there normally twice as many >people on board a shuttle ... as in soyuz or were in appollo? There is no problem with building a slightly larger capsule; it's just that nobody has yet had incentive to do so. The major remaining capsule enthusiasts -- the USSR -- don't need to send up lots of people in one capsule, as they can just send up two or three Soyuzes at once to Mir if they want a big crew. An Apollo could hold five in a pinch; such a configuration was available for a Skylab rescue mission if one had been necessary. >... I just can't see how a soyuz, or an apollo, can >be an equal research platform to a shuttle... By itself, true. Dock it to Mir, and it's a lot better than a shuttle. It's also cheaper, and less hassle to launch. Many space scientists would happily put up with a smaller spacecraft with a smaller crew if it meant more frequent flight opportunities for their equipment. -- NFS: all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and its performance and security too. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 90 12:17:10 GMT From: usc!samsung!emory!mephisto!prism!dsm@ucsd.edu (Daniel McGurl) Subject: Re: Titan HLV In <774.269F34B6@ofa123.fidonet.org> Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org (Charles Radley) writes: >A small company (OSC) can build a small launcher (Pegasus), but it takes >a big company (Martin Marietta) to build a big launcher (Titan). Wait a second here. Do you have any evidence to support this? While it's true that there are some additional expenses in terms of materials that I cannot see any fundamental engineering difficulty with making a larger rocket. Ever hear of a company called AMROC? Granted that their launcher had a had a problem the first production flight, but they came mighty close getting payloads into space. Or do they not count? >There is no free lunch. Perhaps, but what does this have to do with anything? :-) >-- >Charles Radley >Internet: Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org >BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 -- Daniel Sean McGurl "If you are not part of the solution, Office of Information Technology and you *are* the problem." Information and Computer Science Major at: Georgia Institute of Technology ARPA: dsm@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 90 12:18:58 GMT From: crdgw1!gecrdvm1!gipp@uunet.uu.net Subject: Apologies My sincere apologies to all who were offended, ticked off, or blinded by my recent postings which were written in capital letters (look for soviet union label, bright tidings for future). Did not realize I was being uncouth. thank you to those who responded with kind advice to turn em down, and rasberries to those who were mean about it. Pete ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 90 19:10:27 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York In article <00939904.E4E68D20@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >In article <987@wyvern.cs.uow.edu.au>, ph@cs.uow.edu.au (Rev Phil Skinque, DD (Ret.)) writes: >>Other than that, we can always >>acquire elint from our allies the USA (whom you will recall have a >>number of satellite bases here). >Somehow, I don't think the U.S. would bend over backward to run a KH-11/12 >mission in your part of the world unless it was REALLY needed. Most of the >coverage is (probably, but Henry will correct me, of course) in the Northern >Hemisphere. Recall that spysats are in _low_ earth orbit and as such end up with a considerable amount of time traversing _uninteresting_ areas. Also keep in mind that Vietnam, Kampuchea and the Peoples Republic of China are all right next door to some of our longtime allies like Thailand and Australia. Another opinion... -- Albion H. Bowers bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 21:41:35 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!dino!sharkey!fmsrl7!teemc!fmeed1!cage@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: LOOK FOR (SOVIET) UNION LABEL In article <90194.083324GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: >I have already deleted Mr Spencer's rebuttal to my article, so I will >have to respond to his response from memory. Basically, I made the >comment that "what can you do strapped into the nose cone of a ballistic >missile?", to which he responded something like : about as much as you >can strapped into the nose cone of the shuttle. > Perhaps, I can't do math, but aren't there normally twice as many >people on board a shuttle (in orbit- while on the ground there are thousands- >all trying to figure out what's wrong with it) as in soyuz or were in appollo? >seems to me more hands equal more research. That is equivalent to saying that you can get more science done if you drive a bus to the lab than if you ride a motorcycle. The bus is roomier and holds a lot more people, right? This only holds true if you try cramming everything on board your spacecraft and only operate it for the duration of its flight, ie. you have nothing resembling a space station. View Soyuz/Shuttle as a taxi instead of a lab, and the comparison favors Soyuz. -- Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage Home: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don't. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 90 05:46:16 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!!root@ucsd.edu (Deus ex Machina) Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York In article <768.269F34AE@ofa123.fidonet.org> Charles.Radley@ofa123.fidonet.org (Charles Radley) writes: >I have a copy of the Cape York study report, and can answer most of >these. [a confusing mix of correct and incorrect information] For those interested, here is an attempt to summarise the domestic issues surrounding the establishment of a launching site on Cape York. Cape York Peninsula is in the far NE (top right) of Australia. Hereafter I'll use Cape York to refer to the pointy bit at the top which is about 500km long and 200km wide at the base. The only major development on the Cape is the large Bauxite mine at Weipa (pop. ~3000) halfway up the west coast. Sea and air is used for transport to and from Weipa though a road of sorts exists connecting it to the south. Other than in Weipa < 10,000 people, mainly aboriginals, live in small isolated communities on the Cape. Biogeographically Cape York is a distinct region. Basically this means a large number of animals and plants are found there are and no where else in Australia. Conservation groups also regard Cape York important as a a wilderness area of great natural beauty and little disturbed by man. There were two consortiums with competing proposals for establishing spaceports on Cape York. One consortium has abandoned their proposal for a launching site near Weipa claiming it to be uneconomic. The second consortium is proceeding with its proposal for a launching site at Temple Bay on the east coast of the Cape roughly opposite Weipa. The Environmental Impact Statement is still under preparation. Information about Temple Bay is hard to find. Certainly its undeveloped. I presume materials would be brought in by sea or by air. The spaceport has been more in the local newpapers lately. A recent piece questioned the ability of the Temple Bay consortium to obtain financing. It is puzzling that the Weipa site which would seem more attractive with its existing infastructure and less environmental concerns, was rejected by the other consortium as uneconomic. The previous Queensland state government was extremely pro-development which would have supported the spaceport proposal no matter what the opposition from conservationists and aboriginal groups. The current Qld. and federal governments are both much less likely to push the spaceport proposal in the face of major opposition. Personally, given such oppostion, I can't see the spaceport being built. Though conservation groups are concerned with the direct impact of the construction and operation of the spaceport, of more concern is the further development on the Cape which the spaceport would trigger. Federal and Qld. governments could address such concerns by preparing a landuse plan for all of Cape York. It is possible such a plan could protect much area currently unprotected and satisfy conservation and aboriginal groups but allow the spaceport itself to proceed. This may not be sufficient for the consortium if it is relying on profiting from secondary development. I don't know how if such a compromise is likely or how long it would take to achieve but my assessment of the politics is that its the best hope for the Temple Bay launching site. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 90 03:45:37 GMT From: att!watmath!watserv1!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: On-orbit satellite servicing In article <609.26a19bc8@sleepy.bmd.trw.com> cliburn@sleepy.bmd.trw.com writes: >SSS was intended to use only the Orbital Manuevering (sic) Vehicle >(OMV) as its propulsion system. Because of the recent significant >alteration of the OMV program... Hee hee. "Alteration" = "dead as a doornail". -- NFS: all the nice semantics of MSDOS, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and its performance and security too. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 90 17:04:53 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Status for 07/17/90 (Forwarded) Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 07-17-90. - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at OPF) - Experiment monitoring continues. - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF) - Preps for the GRO/POCC end-to-end test will be performed today. - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) - STT preps continue. - STS-41 Ulysses (at Hanger AO) - Preps for IUS/PAM-S CITE testing continue. - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C) - Rack, floor, and module staging is continuing. - Atlas-1 (at O&C) - Electrical cable and experiment installations are continuing. - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C) - MLI installation will continue today. - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C) - Rack staging continues. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 90 07:55:06 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!axion!axion.bt.co.uk!apengell@uunet.uu.net (alan pengelly) Subject: Re: NASA Lobbying... (Hopefully the last msg...) I agree. Most of the interesting articles are by NASA people. Keep sending them in. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #87 *******************