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 ; Fri, 20 Jul 1990 02:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 20 Jul 1990 02:16:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #97 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 97 Today's Topics: Re: EOS Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible? Re: Titan boosters Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible? Re: Galileo encounters with Venus and Terra NASA to feature aeronautics and space at EAA convention (Forwarded) 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: 18 Jul 90 02:28:49 GMT From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!vax6!tgumleyle@ucsd.edu (Liam Gumley) Subject: Re: EOS In article <7998@ncar.ucar.edu>, steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes: > In <2842.26a1920c@cc.curtin.edu.au> tgumleyle@cc.curtin.edu.au (Liam > Gumley) writes: > >>In article <743.269B896F@ofa123.fidonet.org>, > David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Anderman) writes: > >>> If EOS becomes a big project, NASA will screw it up. > >>However, this does not mean that NASA will screw it up. NASA has for the last >>30 years or so taken the lead in fostering initiatives in satellite remote >>sensing of the earth. This has led, among other things, to the operational use >>of weather satellites. It has involved a high level of interaction between >>NASA and other research institutions. The trend in the past seems to have been >>that NASA sponsors the development of experiemntal platforms (e.g. the early >>ATS, TIROS, Nimbus) and instruments, which are then upgraded to 'operational' >>status (e.g. GOES, GMS, TIROS-N/NOAA). When you consider that these days it >>takes the best part of 100 million US dollars and 5 to 10 years to develop, >>test, and launch a major earth remote sensing payload, who else is capable >>except NASA ? > > For smaller projects, I know several institutions that could -- and have. You are certainly correct that for smaller experimental payloads, there are plenty of institutions that can do the job. However for EOS we are talking about a major new initiative, taking some current experimental sensors e.g. ocean color scanners, atmospheric CO2 sensors and making them 'operational', as was done with GOES and the TIROS-N/NOAA series. There are also experimental sensors for EOS designed to answer new science questions. >>> Furthermore, NASA will make EOS into a technology development program, >>> rather than an applications program. > >>Technology development runs in parallel with the development of new remote >>sensing instruments for particular science missions. For example if you want >>to fly a Michelson interferometer onboard a spacecraft to sense atmospheric >>temperature, moisture and trace gases, you need to develop infra-red detector, >>laser, cryogenic, electronics and data communication technology to do it. >>However the technology developement is not the point of EOS. The point is that >>there are some very important questions about the nature of the earth >>environment that need prompt investigation. > > One of the problems from a user's (i.e. meteorologist's or > oceanographer's) perspective is that the increasing size of the > projects causes them to become relatively insulated from the user > during design and implementation -- the project becomes so large that > it's simply no longer feasible to have a significant amount of > scientific oversight (and veto power!) on the design process. There > are simply too many cooks. > > Smaller projects tend not to suffer from this problem. (Fewer cooks). I am in the meteorology/oceanography game, so I am well aware of the problems inherent in obtaining the 'ideal' data to help answer a given science question. However the smaller the input to the design of a given sensor, the more specialised it is likely to be. You need to have input from a number of sources in order to design a sensor which will meet all the required needs. Take for example a next generation atmospheric temperature sensor. You need input from the National Weather Service on the required accuracy of the temperature soundings. > Another problem is that large projects have a tendancy to incure cost > and time overruns, which are very bad when attempting a prompt > investigation. Absolutely. There must still be a place for small, experimental missions designed to examine a particular problem. However you must distinguish between these type of missions and one such as EOS which attempts to answer a whole range of questions about the Earth's biosphere. > An example is the next-generation GOES satellite. It's a three-axis > stabilized platform rather than the original spin-stabilized platform. > This design change has resulted in technical and cost-overrun problems > and, furthermore, means that the scan lines can now overlap or even be > unrelated to one another -- considerably increasing the complexity of > the subsequent data analysis. Yet, I haven't met a remote-sensing > meteorologist or oceanographer who is happy with this change. I certainly agree that there must be input from the eventual data users on the design specs of a given sensor. This is why the EOS instruments all have science teams which are responsible for defining and guiding the sensor science requirements. (I'm getting on thin ground here - I'm not really that close to the EOS operation...) Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that EOS will be perfect, I am just uncomfortable with the argument that because NASA is involved, the EOS mission will fail. > It's almost as though: 1) people realize that a better system is > theorectically possible and go for it -- failing to realize that the > increased managerial overhead can result in a poorer product; and 2) > the bureaucratic/industrial complex -- for reasons of its own -- > prefers large projects. This is true to some extent. >>Let's hear from some more remote sensing people on this, and other topics ! > > I used to be in remote-sensing. I would like to see more smaller > projects -- each having more scientific oversight -- than currently > exists. I believe that this would be more cost effective and more > scientifically efficatious. From what I have seen in my somewhat limited experience, it seems that you do need to keep pushing the limits of what you can do with space remote sensors. There is both a place for specialized smaller investigations driven by universities for example, and large programs such as EOS which attempt to address a whole range of problems. One of the ideas behind EOS is to have common data sources available which are accessible by meteorologists, oceanographers, geologists, biologists etc. and to foster interaction between these disciplines. If you want some more info on EOS and Earth System Science, try and get hold of a package put together by the Earth System Science Committee entitled "Earth System Science - A Program for Global Change" which addresses both the science and technology issues involved. I guess it should be available from NASA Headquarters in Washington D.C. I must say it does my heart good to see a bit of remote sensing discussion... =============================================================================== | Liam E. Gumley "We've gone completely crazy!" _--_|\ | | Department of Applied Physics - the Dodgey Brothers. / \ | | Curtin University of Technology \_.--._/ | | Perth, Western Australia. v | | Internet:tgumleyle@cc.curtin.edu.au I think, therefore, | | Bitnet:tgumleyle%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet all opininons are my own.| =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 90 11:53:29 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!cam-cl!news@uunet.uu.net (Jonathan Hardwick) Subject: Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible? In article <789@hutto.UUCP>, henry@hutto.UUCP (Henry Melton) writes: > I have just moved my asteroid into a comfortable orbit and extracted > several tons of good quality iron from it. Now, how do I get it > down on the surface of the earth, without spending a fortune. > Anybody got a good passive lifting body design or something that > would let me crash a big chunk of iron into a handy spot of desert > without vaporizing it or causing too much seismic activity? Well, once the windtunnel boys have selected a lifting body shape, the mechanics are easy...melt the metal in orbit (using eg solar mirrors), foam it with any excess gasses you've got left over from the extraction process, and then mould this metal foam into a lifting body shape. Spray it with ablative foam (as suggested for astronaut emergency return capsules) to reduce metal loss during descent, attach a couple of braking rockets and a guidance computer, and you're away. Just hope and pray that it doesn't crash on a city rather than your desert landing site! Actually, it might be better to land it in shallow coastal waters, since this gives more margin for error and should lessen the screaming of ecologists (deserts are very fragile ecosystems; oceans are considerably more robust). Then, cutting big chunks off in shallow water wouldn't be a whole lot more difficult than cutting big chunks off on land (think of the technology developed for the offshore oil industry). And if you *really* got it foamed up, the thing would float, which means you could land it way out in the ocean, hook up a tug, and tow it to the nearest market place. Uhh, large doses of technological assumptions throughout the above. I think I originally read of this notion in "Spaceships of the Mind". Jonathan Hardwick, Cambridge University Computer Lab ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 90 22:30:39 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: Titan boosters Concerning the vibrations on a Titan launch: the excessive vibrations are caused primarily by the SRBs, which are employed on the Commercial titan, and the Tian IV. All humans launched to date on Titans were launched by the Titan II, which did *not* employ SRBs.... -- David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 90 15:44:19 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!physics.utoronto.ca!neufeld@ucsd.edu (Christopher Neufeld) Subject: Re: Is an asteroid capture possible/feasible? In article <789@hutto.UUCP> henry@hutto.UUCP (Henry Melton) writes: >I have often wondered: > > I have just moved my asteroid into a comfortable orbit and extracted > several tons of good quality iron from it. Now, how do I get it > down on the surface of the earth, without spending a fortune. > Well, I saw a plausible scheme in a science fiction book a while ago, _Thunder Strike_ by Michael McCollum (a good book about deflecting comets and space mining). The scheme used to return iron to the Earth was to produce a foam of the material in orbit, and then drop it into the ocean. The foamed metal had lower density than water, and bobbed to the surface where it could be grappled and towed to land. No cargo carriers, no sophisticated electronics, no reaction thrusters, just a push from space to drop it onto the watery hemisphere of the planet. You'd lose some mass to ablation, but with such a low density foam it would slow down in the lower atmosphere. >Henry Melton ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hutto!henry >1-512-8463241 Rt.1 Box 274E Hutto,TX 78634 -- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | "The eagle may soar, but neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra! | the weasel never gets cneufeld@{pro-generic,pnet91}.cts.com | sucked up into a jet "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | engine." Simon & Simon ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 90 16:30:27 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Galileo encounters with Venus and Terra In article <9211@goofy.Apple.COM> han@apple.COM (Byron Han) writes: >Did we get any telemetry from the Venus encounter, scientific data and/or >images? Are there plans to do any of this with the two Terran flybys? Yes, to both. Incidentally, in English, the name of the planet is "Earth". :-) -- 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: 18 Jul 90 17:22:10 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA to feature aeronautics and space at EAA convention (Forwarded) Mary Sandy Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 18, 1990 (Phone: 202/453-2754) RELEASE: 90-99 NASA TO FEATURE AERONAUTICS AND SPACE AT EAA CONVENTION NASA returns to Oshkosh, Wis., July 27-Aug. 2 for the 38th Annual Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) International Fly- In Convention and Sport Aviation Exhibition with a new exhibit entitled "NASA: Technology for America's Future." The exhibit will showcase the technologies being developed for future flight vehicles for safer, more efficient flight and for space science and exploration. A highlight of the exhibit is the NASA/USAF X-29 forward- swept-wing research aircraft, scheduled for one of its first public displays away from its Southern California base. NASA's participation also includes the return of technical forum speakers and the NASA craftsmanship display. Supporting the NASA exhibit are the agency's aeronautics field centers, Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., Ames- Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif.; Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.; and Lewis Research Center, Cleveland. Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., will provide its SARSAT van, a mobile exhibit that tells the story of the Search And Rescue Satellite System. NASA's AEROVAN traveling aeronautics exhibit also will make an appearance. Throughout the 7-day convention, visitors to the NASA exhibit will be treated to a wide range of display topics, aircraft and spacecraft models and research hardware. The first X-29 jet research aircraft will be displayed in front of the NASA exhibit building. Its distinctive wing design and other advanced aerodynamic, structural and avionic technologies were tested during 242 flights over a broad range of speeds. A second X-29 continues to gather data on maneuverability at high angles-of-attack (a nose-high attitude relative to the flight path). There will be no aerial demonstration of the X-29 at the air show. Pilots and support staff will be available to answer questions. Inside the exhibit building, visitors will see new vehicle shapes, materials and propulsion concepts. They will see how advances in supercomputers give NASA researchers breakthrough computational codes that can better predict flight performance. The exhibit will depict NASA's research on weather-related safety factors such as icing, heavy rain and windshear avoidance, as well as studies involving human interaction in the flight process. The space science area will highlight NASA's Great Observatories, four missions that may radically alter knowledge about the universe. And because humans will be assisted by robots in performing many tasks associated with the operation of Space Station Freedom, examples of recent achievements in robotics technology will be displayed. Vehicles being developed for short-haul space transportation also will be exhibited. More than 2 dozen NASA speakers will participate in technical forums during the EAA convention, covering subjects as diverse as "Research Results Using the World's Largest Motion- Base Piloted Simulator", "Environmental Aspects of the High Speed Civil Transport" and "The Dream Continues - Back to the Moon and On to Mars." Back by popular demand is a NASA craftsmanship exhibition operated by technicians from Langley and Lewis research centers. The presentation spotlights fabrication crafts with displays of selected metal and composite structures, aeronautical models, test equipment and data measurement hardware. For 75 years, the research centers of NASA and its predecessor agency, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, have led the world in aeronautical research and technology development. Today, NASA scientists and engineers work closely with industry and universities to continue that tradition, developing technology for America's future in aeronautics throughout the speed regime from hover to hypersonic flight. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #97 *******************