Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 2 Feb 91 02:14:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 02:14:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #106 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 106 Today's Topics: Re: Firm Fred Decisions Re: Firm Fred Decisions Galileo Update - 01/30/91 Re: SPACE Digest V13 #061 Re: Humanity's Launch Window Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait Magellan Update - 01/30/91 SPACE Digest V13 #082 Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jan 91 22:13:25 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!caen!engine.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@ucsd.edu (Ken Sheppardson) Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions In article <9101301728.AA06342@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >In article <1991Jan29.133819.29954@engin.umich.edu> Ken writes: >>>> [MTC only for Freedom] > >>>I wonder if we are seeing the first results of Staffords Synthesis Group > >>The current restructuring effort is a result of congressional requests >>to cut the price of station. > >Agreed. That doesn't mean the people responsible havn't been talking >to Stafford's group for guideance. I don't know if they are or are >not; I was just speculating. I think the folks responsible are more concerned with coming in under budget than they are with providing any sort of infrastructure to support Space Exploration Initiative. I do have to admit, however, that even though I'm working on the program, I really don't know for a fact what anyone else is or isn't doing or who's talking to whom. I'm sure that won't surprise you. >>There has been little or no conscious effort >>to incorporate the suggestions of the Augustine committee. > >True. But the Augustine Committee is less concerned with the architecture >of the space infrastructure. Stafford is very interested in it so it would >have been nice if they talked to him and his group. Agreed. It would be nice. The one thing I do know for a fact is that there are no Level II requirements for evolution (growth beyond assembly complete). That's one issue we're working here at Langly at the moment: trying to identify the disconnects between the Level I requirements and the Level II requirements. The PRD says 'Space Station Freedom design shall allow for growth of the truss structure required for addition of power generation capability to the solar power modules and for addition of a dual keel structure consistent with the phasing and configuration described in the Reverence Evolution Configuration'. This is a Level I (HQ) requirement. These requirements aren't carried down to the Level II (and Work Package) level, so those folks don't have any reason to worry about whether a design (or design revisions) will or will not allow station to fit into some sort of broad architecture of an infrastructure. >>I would also add that (in my opinion) if you're trying to incorporate >>Stafford's sugestions, stopping at MTC isn't the way to do it. > >Depends on the architecture selected. Maybe (pure speculation here) >Freedom becomes a microgravity free flyer and the life science and >transportation node is in a cheaper station. I think in most architecture that would indeed be the logical path to follow. >>Since congress >>gives every indication of not wanting to fund _TWO_ stations, > >There are indications that may change. All this will be revisited >when Stafford's group is done and releases their work. The Appropriations >Committees recently released a few million for mission studies with >the direction that they be used for planning. The implication was that >if reasonable numbers are given for funding and schedule then work may >begin at some level. > >Congress is putting limits on the money to be spent. They care a lot >less about how many stations are built with the money. > >>As a side note, vehicle assembly plays havoc with a micro-g environment. > >Indeed it does. All the more reason to separate the transportation node >from the micro-g node. > I could be cynical and say that they'll probably go through another restructuring study once we've settled on an architecture and look at what has to be done to allow station to fit into that architecture, but it's Wednesday, and I made a new years resolution never to be cynical on Wednesdays. -- =============================================================================== Ken Sheppardson Email: kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office Phone: (804) 864-7544 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA FAX: (804) 864-1975 =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 13:12:16 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <21051@crg5.UUCP> Nick writes: >>A lunar/mars initiative will require a significant amount of life >>sciences research... >Only the bloated, $400 billion "manned" version of lunar/Mars exploration >requires this. Why? Any program putting people into space will need to answer these questions. Again you make the mistake of assuming that since one manned program is expensive that therefore they must all be. >Given the economic and political improbability of such a project, We need to wait for the end of they Synthisis group before this can be said. >not to mention its economic and scientific stupidity, The problem here is that no activity in space meets your definition of worthwhile activity. Yet you continue to advocate space science. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 91 18:45:42 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 01/30/91 GALILEO STATUS REPORT January 30, 1991 The health of the Galileo spacecraft continues to be excellent. Today, the CDS "B" (Command Data Subsystem) prime and extended memory readout activity is presently in process and proceeding well. Tomorrow, the Low Gain Antenna (LGA) will be switched from LGA-2 (the aft-facing boom mounted antenna) to LGA-1 (the forward-facing antenna) to provide communication capability given the changing sun-spacecraft-Earth geometry. Additionally, a planned sun acquisition activity will be performed to maintain a thermally safe sun pointed attitude. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | It's 10PM, do you know /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is? |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | We do! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 15:06:22 -0800 From: nirvana@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (60351000) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #061 PLEASE stop sending information on the SPACE Digest. I never wanted this info, and I don't want it now! Thank you. nirvana@ucscb.UCSC.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 91 23:00:03 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@uunet.uu.net (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Humanity's Launch Window In article <179.27A15E0D@nss.FIDONET.ORG> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: > >Looking at what is happening in the Gulf, as well as other historical >trends, What other historical trends? >it seems that we are taking care of the Japanese national defense >(not to mention many of their technical R&D costs), leaving them free to >spend money on space exploration. Recall that the Japanese recently >launched the first lunar probe in 20 years. Many of the technologies we will need for space development (automation, laser communications, teleoperation, sensors, etc.) are being develop most fully in our defense efforts. The only thing the Japanese really have over us is efficiency -- they manage to get some things done on quite a bit smaller budget and less time than the U.S. -- "quick is beautiful." But some "off the beaten path" U.S. projects (Pegasus, AMSAT) also demonstrate this capability. In overall aerospace and science they are still behind the U.S. We could learn some things from them about manufacturing automation, though. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 91 01:19:49 GMT From: csn!bilbo1!privette@handies.ucar.edu (Jeff Privette) Subject: Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait In article <1069@borg.cs.unc.edu>, leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: |>In article <2332.27A5DF8A@ofa123.fidonet.org> you write: |>|> I realize that the resolution would be on the order of meters, but |>|> I'm still surprised that we haven't seen any. |> |> One of the networks subjected a Landsat image to analysis last |>week. The analyst pointed out what he claimed were new supply roads |>in Kuwait. I suspect the analyst was the only person who saw them, |>however. |> Jon (leech@cs.unc.edu) |> __@/ As our office deals frequently with the EROS Data Center in S.D., an officemate recently asked someone there if such imagery was available. The person quickly noted that they aren't able to talk about what is even available -- and read a prepared statement which the bosses had given them in anticipatation of such data requests. Basically, the tone was "the DoD is a customer of Eros and as such we cannot discuss what products we may or may not have of sensitive regions." On another note, if TM data was available, roads and large buildings would certainly be visible with very little training. In a remote sensing class, we often used digital images which unmistakably showed such beasts. Runways and even large bridges are also visible. TM has 30 m resolution (max.) and SPOT can achieve 10 m. Perhaps more revealing might be the thermal channel 6 which unfortunately has resolution of just 120 m I believe. Nevertheless, after sizeable explosions and their subsequent fires it would seems the targets would be visible... Finally, there have been many reports of cloud cover in the area so I suspect that since it takes Landsat a couple of weeks to cover the same area twice, there is a poor chance that good TM imagery has even been collected. On the other hand, AVHRR covers every point on earth at least twice daily so, although resolution is just 1.1 km, there are probably some clear views. As perhaps a more appropriate application, it would be nice to have images of the oil spill so we could begin assessing environmental damage and estimate current patterns. Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 91 18:53:40 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 01/30/91 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT January 30, 1991 The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system are performing nominally. All STARCALS (star calibrations) and DESATS (desaturation of the reaction wheels) since yesterday were successful. The mapping command sequence M1030 was sent last night to the spacecraft, along with the associated parameter files, and is now executing. Later today, a command will be sent to reset the battery heater set points. This will correct the condition mentioned yesterday where the temperature of spacecraft Battery #1 had gone above the alarm limit of 20 degrees Celsius several times. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | It's 10PM, do you know /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is? |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | We do! ------------------------------ Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 18:19:06 EST Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 03:09:51 EST Resent-From: Tom <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #082 Resent-To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Reply-To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Resent-Message-Id: <0B5145C6200001B6@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU In SPACE Digest V13 #050 Nick Szabo: writes : >Indeed. The DoD needs to do things in space, rather than just go there. >As I write DoD satellites are playing an important role in Iraq >targeting and damage assessment. The DoD gave up on space stations in the >60's. Private industry never seriously considered them. Even NASA has >now redesigned Fred so that it is a "space station" in name only. I'm afraid I'm behind on the ol' acronyms. From context I assume you mean sensing satellites. You refer to 'moving civilization into space'. While I will not argue the value of communications and sensing ability in orbit, I am a little slow to understand the benefits civilization will reap using only robot probes. As far as I understand, no one has evolved to withstand vacuum and gamma radiation. This would suggest to me the *necessity* of a MANNED SPACE STATION. I.e., a place in space that humans live. (more than a few minutes) Perhaps you envision a planetary station, yet in terms of energy (sunlight availability, mostly) a planet costs more than open space to live on, and, it costs more to move to/from. >>-They would cost too much for what they deliver. >6 orders of magnitude is perhaps a bit large. You earlier compared a winnebago ('luxury'travel) to a space station (pioneer efforts in a completely new environment). Perhaps your judgement that it costs too much is true. perhaps it's only true because of things we might change (like not using the shuttle). And perhaps you judge too fast. Ignoring the fact that there is no way to judge the cost of previous moves to new environmnets (fish-ampibian, or tree-savanna), let's try the next best thing. How much did it cost for a 4-wheel horse-driven carrige in the 1450's (luxury travel) when magellan set out across the sea? And how much did he pay for his fleet (pioneering a new environment) most of which did not return, and none of which was 'economical'? >>Nick, maybe in fifty years, what you say would be true. But right now, the >>MIR *space station* is the pinnacle in terms of what we have learned (as a >>species) >I could pick many pinnacles from among the arts and sciences of our >species: Bheetoven, Voyager, the Dirac equation, Rembrandt, the silicon >chip, Darwin's theory of natural selection, etc. etc. Mir would never >cross my mind. >What exactly has Mir produced? A few $million in tourist revenue, a >Bungled lottery, and some crystals? While Soviets wait in food >lines and raid each other's TV stations? That is the dregs, not the >pinnacle. Mir has produced the BEST data on long-term effects on humans of the space environment, which data will be quite necessary for the proper design of both habitats and transportation systems (not to mention group interaction, effects of isolation, etc...) >For the Soviets, for a few years, as long as they were spending $billions >on space anyway, a space station made sense, because they lack the ability >to perform teleoperation. Mir will not return even 10% of its investment. >It will never house a signficant community of people or became >self-sustaining in any way. Its era was brief and will soon be gone. It's not supposed to make money. It's supposed to learn things, just like a college student >>Maybe you should find some way of expressing that itty-bitty bit of >>irritation that you feel toward the Soviets better-planned space >>program, or our non-planned program, rather than raging on people >>who have innocently concluded that a space-station would be good, >>including me, many strangers from this list, and even some soviets >>who know more about it than all of us put together. >Conclusions are not "innocent" until proven so. Who have I "raged" at? >I post my views and evidence for same, and I post my thoughts on other >people's views with evidence for same. I occasionally wax sarcastic >about NASA. If you think I am "raging", perhaps you are reacting >Emotionally to a message would rather not hear. Who ? - I can't remember. But it was reading your rage about OUT-OF-DATE that I realized you were picking on people Not Innocent? What, we all have a conspiracy to waste money on something that you don't like because of your lack of vision? And yes, it is lack of vision. You and I do not live in the AGE OF EXPANSION, we live at the end of the FIRST WAVE OF EXPLORATION, which will be remembered for it's economic costs and stunning suprises. Hopefully, Magellan and Galileo will be the beginning of the FINAL WAVE OF EXPLORATION. Maybe Galileo will get close-ups of the asteroids, and following that, some group of industrialists will spend the $$$ to do a mining venture, maybe they'll find lot's of iron and oxygen and nitrigen... and maybe our kids will live in THE AGE OF EXPANSION, which is finally suited to economic gains, settling down, etc. I hope it happens. A global fuedalism, with all the kings owning The Bomb does not strike me as a happy palce to be. Sorry nick, but I can't accept the assumptions that you use to reach your conclusions. I think your assumptions are a little early in the program. Maybe if we didn't have a Space program run by tired congressionals. I'm learning Japanese. Tommy Mac + One giant leap for a man, one small step for mankind + -What he SHOULD have said. Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #106 *******************