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 ; Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:24:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:24:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #202 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 202 Today's Topics: Re: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91 Re: NASA technology choices Re: Moon Treaty Re: the "face" Moon Treaty Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D 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: 25 Feb 91 16:57:45 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@apple.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91 In article <1991Feb23.235140.4876@meteor.wisc.edu> moonunit@meteor.wisc.edu (Chris Bovitz) writes: >Where are the members of the Pioneer family now? The very earliest ones, which were basically a different program despite the commonality of name, I'm not sure about. Pioneers 6-9, not all still operating, are in solar orbits in the general vicinity of the Earth's orbit. Pioneers 10 and 11 are on the fringes of the solar system, headed out into interstellar space. And if you count the Pioneer Venus missions as part of the numbered series, then Pioneer 12 is on the surface of Venus in pieces (by design!) and Pioneer 13 is still active in Venus orbit. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 91 17:24:11 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!euclid.jpl.nasa.gov!pjs@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Scott) Subject: Re: NASA technology choices In article <221.27C7998F@nss.FIDONET.ORG>, Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: > Philosophical question of the week. > > I recently watched 2001: A Space Odessey again. I rather like the > EVA pods that astronauts used to repair the Discovery. One of the > recent 'problems' discovered with Space Station Freedom is that the > number of hours of EVA required to repair the station was unacceptably > high. Thusly, NASA is spending gobs of money on telefactor and robotic > widgetry so that the astronauts don't have to leave the station. Why > doesn't NASA develop a space pod like those used in 2001? It would almost > have to be cheaper and less risky (from an R&D point of view). Any > thoughts? As a matter of a fact the Flight Telerobotic Servicer bears a fair resemblance to a Discovery pod; it's just squashed because there's no person inside. After all, if you're going to limit your dexterity to that which can be obtained by waldos, then there's no reason why you shouldn't just put the operator inside the space station and use teleoperation; no delay at that distance. -- This is news. This is your | Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech brain on news. Any questions? | (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 91 19:22:58 GMT From: borg!vangogh!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Moon Treaty In article <1991Feb25.165853.28074@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |> In article yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: |> >Which administration was responsible for this monstrosity? Nixon, |> >Ford, or Carter? |> I think it was the Carter administration, but I'm not up on the exact |> history and it may have roots going back farther. "The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (``Moon Treaty'') was introduced in the UN Committee for the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (``COPUOS'') by the USSR in 1971. On July 3, 1979 a compromise draft comprising an introduction and 21 articles passed COPUOS by consensus and was sent to the General Assembly for adoption." Art Dula, "Free Enterprise and the Proposed Moon Treaty", L-5 News V4 #10 (October 1979). In some sense all 3 administrations are responsible for it, then. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ UNDERWHELMING OFFER OF THE MONTH: "Please feel free to skip the payment on this month's statement. Normal finance charges will apply." - NCNB VISA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 22:16:41 EST From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: the "face" >From: F026@CPC865.EAST-ANGLIA.AC.UK >Newsgroups: sci.space >Subject: Mars 'face' reference >Date: 25 Feb 91 17:10:06 GMT >Every so often, when I say something about being interested in space to >people I meet at parties they start wittering about The Face, so I shut >them up by handing them >"Monuments of Mars: A City On The Edge of Forever" by Richard Hoagland >Despite the off-putting title, it has the appropriate pictures & lots of >references and looks intriguing on the book-shelf. >From looking at a copy in the New Age section at the local book store (no, I don't feel a bit guilty - I spend hundreds of dollars a year at book stores, and don't see anything wrong with looking at some of the other merchandise), I recall that the most impressive pictures are to show that if you deliberately modify the image to make it look more like a face, it does indeed look more like a face. What that is supposed to prove, I'm not sure. :-) >On the side of credence, I don't for a moment believe they're more than >coincidental rock formations: as a child I used to notice faces in the >patterned linoleum in our bathroom. >Nevertheless, if MO's camera happens to be pointing in the right direction, >I see no reason to intentionally avoid taking a photo, if only to put >people's mind at rest. (Someone else (sorry, lost the reference) suggested that perhaps NASA should appeal to public interest by mentioning items like the question of the face, then pointing out the scientific basis for a proper interpretation, I suppose sort of like Arthur C. Clarke's TV series.) Mars Observer (which is expected to image the surface of Mars with a resolution of 1.4 meters) is indeed scheduled to take a look at the face. Somebody (I think maybe a member of Congress) leaned NASA to do it, and they said okay, they would. (Of course, they probably would have anyway, as part of the normal mapping.) I don't see any harm in this, but in my opinion that's about as far as NASA should go in catering to the lunatic fringe. (Aretic?) >Besides, you never know... :-) [CAT] We know in advance that the face proponents are going to claim their theories are proven no matter what the pictures show. They'll say "it was a perfect face, but a volcanic eruption damaged it", or "of course those space aliens had one eye on one side, and two irregularly-placed eyes on the other side". I'm hoping it will be discovered that random wind erosion has produced a zig-zag ridge above the face, and in the formerly shaded portion a cartoon bubble with the words "Don't have a cow, man". That will at least convince Hoagland that the ancient space aliens were totally uncultured, and not worthy of any further attention. :-) >_________________________________________________________________ >Mike Salmon, Climatic Research Unit | R: "But there aren't any >Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, England | real people here at all" >F026@CPC865.UEA.AC.UK +44-603-592875 | Z: "So what's new?" John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 91 16:58:53 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Moon Treaty In article yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >Which administration was responsible for this monstrosity? Nixon, >Ford, or Carter? I think it was the Carter administration, but I'm not up on the exact history and it may have roots going back farther. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 91 17:47:10 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D In article <21223@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>... to JPLize the other NASA centers ... > >My guess is that this would entail a shift from engineering and >administration towards university-style scientific projects ... This would be a dreadful mistake. The shift, I mean, not the JPLizing. Most of the NASA centers *exist* precisely to do **ENGINEERING**, and this is a very important role for NASA. We don't need a dozen second-rate clones of JPL. (We could maybe use one more JPL, to get some healthy competition for the Official Pasadena Party Line, but we don't need more.) We badly need somebody doing what Marshall is supposed to do -- propulsion engineering -- and the same goes for several of the other centers. In the long run, the science really ought to be done by scientists: NSF and the universities. NASA's predecessor, NACA, is one of the most conspicuous success stories in the history of technology... because it did not try to run an airline or control the study of the atmosphere, but concentrated instead on developing technology for others to use. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #202 *******************