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 ; Thu, 28 Feb 91 01:43:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 01:43:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #209 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 209 Today's Topics: Re: Japanese Space Effort, II Re: Terraforming, sun shield Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Ulysses and the Little Engine that Could Re: Celestron Telescopes Re: The Moon => Existance of God...? (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #102) Flight control systems etc... Re: Terraforming, sun shield (Why in sci.optics?) Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Re: space news from Jan 7 AW&ST Re: UN Moon Treaty (was Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes) 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: 26 Feb 91 17:22:57 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Japanese Space Effort, II In article <21225@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >> *Autonomous Japanese space station.... > >"Automomous" -- that's certainly not the traditional Western conception >of a "space station". Sounds more like the Fairchild concept which >NASA killed in the early 80's for automated microgravity research and >production. Uh, Nick, I think you are letting your prejudices get in your way. :-) Almost certainly they are using "autonomous" to mean not "unmanned" but "all-Japanese", i.e. not dependent on US launchers. >They have shrugged off the obsessions with "manned" projects and >mis-scaled technology... Again, I think your prejudices are getting in the way. The Japanese are very interested in manned projects. NASDA's Christmas card this year featured the impending (although not as impending as they thought!) Japanese Spacelab mission. >... NASDA's main strategy is to >develop and deploy technology incrementally and quickly -- their motto >is "quick is beautiful"... ??? Evidence? They're certainly not doing that for the H-2, which is a radical and very non-incremental step and is giving them lots of trouble with lots of schedule slips. Are you perhaps confusing NASDA and ISAS? -- "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: Tue, 26 Feb 91 13:45:30 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.space,sci.physics Cc: In article <53987@sequent.UUCP> dafuller@sequent.UUCP (David Fuller) writes: >I find the concept that humans find "uninhabited" planets fertile ground >for cultivation repulsive, ignorant and a propulsion of the status quo. I'll second that. After all, it took us three million years to climb out of this gravity well. Why go to all that effort just to slide down into another? 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: 26 Feb 91 19:47:44 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!csa2.lbl.gov!jtchew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (JOSEPH T CHEW) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Participants in this debate may wish to have a look at "Roundtable: New Challenges for the National Labs," Physics Today, February 1991, p. 24. Basically, five heavyweight administrators (Gen. Lew Allen, Sig Hecker, Solomon Buchsbaum, John Gibbons, Edward Knapp, and Gerold Yonas) argue about the nature and future of Federally-sponsored research institutions. It's a readily available magazine, and further details would spoil the fun. --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 10:29 CST From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Ulysses and the Little Engine that Could Original_To: SPACE > ULYSSES STATUS REPORT > February 19, 1991 >...On February 4, all commands were being rejected by the spacecraft. The >reason for the command rejection was traced to doppler shifts in the command >subcarrier channel. >Doppler shifts are commonly illustrated by the whistle of a passing >locomotive. In Ulysses' case, the spacecraft is moving away from the Earth at >a relative speed of nearly 80,000 miles per hour, lowering the frequency of >the signal Ulysses receives from the ground... Huh? Ulysses is being passed by a locomotive? At 80,000 mph? ====================== Bill Higgins CNN: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET The Iraqi War Picture Show. Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ====================== SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 91 23:46:45 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!phx.mcd.mot.com!mikec@ucsd.edu (Michael Collins) Subject: Re: Celestron Telescopes > Are celestron telescopes any good? Define "any" in this context? Are they junk? No. Are they useful? Yes. Are they perfect? No. Celestron markets several types of telescopes. Some are manufactured in the U.S. by Celestron, others are imported from Japan under the Celestron brand name. The most common Celestron telescope is the C-8, which is a domestically- produced 8" (20 cm) f/10 Schmidt-Cassegrain. As a general purpose telescope, it is an excellent choice. While it won't provdide the wide-field views of a "faster" instrument, nor the high-magnification image quality of a long, unobstructed refractor, it does reasonably well for most applications in between. The field is fairly flat, and off-axis distortions aren't a big problem. You can buy a C-8 on a German equatorial mounting, though most come in the more compact and intuitive fork. This makes for an easily portable instrument which will show you more sky than you can learn in a lifetime, at a price most can afford if they're willing to save their pennies for a while or settle for a used instrument. Some people buy something like a C-8 and are happy with it forever. Others, after learning the sky and being tantalized by mere glimpses of objects which other telescopes reveal (or perhaps after becoming disenchanted with the effort to transport large amounts of equipment to a remote site), desire more specialized telescopes. That can be a never-ending quest. My advice is to learn your way around the sky with binoculars and naked eyes until you know what you _want_ to look at with a telescope. More advice (hey, you asked): Read some introductory astronomy books, especially those which cover the topic of amateur observing. The net is a good forum for discussion, or specific questions, but the library is the place to look for in-depth information. > Are these the rigth (sic) newsgroups to ask? Sci.astro, yes (although this question is answered so often that the regular readers are getting a bit tired of it.) This is not a good topic for discussion in sci.space -- not enough potential for political diatribes and personal attacks :-) -- MC -- -- Michael P. Collins | mikec@phx.mcd.mot.com Technical Systems Division | ...!asuvax!mcdphx!mikec Motorola Computer Group | These are not Motorola's official 2900 S. Diablo Way | views or policies. Tempe, AZ 85282 (602) 438-3776 | ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 91 01:15:47 GMT From: dweasel!loren@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) Subject: Re: The Moon => Existance of God...? (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #102) In article <1991Feb26.191851.7382@lonex.radc.af.mil> andrewsh@lonex.radc.af.mil (Harold G. Andrews II) writes: > >There was an individual (who shall for now remain nameless, if for no other >reason than I forgot his name) who seemed to think that the existance of >the moon was at the very least "suggestive" of the existance of God. I offer >my response to his thoughts unto you. [a lot of stuff deleted...] You people have it all wrong. The reason the Moon is so conveniently sized is because the Moon is a Goddess and she enjoys entertaining us with eclipses. What could be simpler? >God always was and always will be. He is the one thing that will never change. Will it someday happen that 2 + 2 != 4? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try: loren%sunlight.llnl.gov@star.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 91 15:31:22 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!xanth!usenet@ucsd.edu (The Forgotten One.....) Subject: Flight control systems etc... From: popkin@cs.odu.edu (The Forgotten One.....) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics Subject: Flight Systems And Navigation Systems References: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Virginia Keywords: I am currently doing a research project on flight systems and navigation systems, I have not been able to find much information on these subjects, If anybody has any information or knows where to write to get it could someone please let me know.. I would greatly appreciate any information, Thank you, Brian mail to popkin@xanth.cs.odu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 91 09:08:44 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!sics.se!sics.se!roland@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Roland Karlsson) Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield (Why in sci.optics?) I insist. Why do you send this to sci.optics? Please STOP. ( I do send this notice to sci.space because those that send the articles only read sci.space. That's maybe the reason for them not knowing that they send it to another unrelated newsgroup ) -- Roland Karlsson SICS, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN Internet: roland@sics.se Tel: +46 8 752 15 40 Ttx: 812 61 54 SICS S Fax: +46 8 751 72 30 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 91 05:09:10 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@uunet.uu.net (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D In article <4411@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >In article <21217@crg5.UUCP>, szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes... >... With rocketry though, if I >remember the history, we know what happened until the (German) >government got interested: nothing. This is false, since modern liquid-fuel rockets developed by Goddard and the German Rocket Society predate the V-1 and German military funding. It could be argued that nothing happened _after_ the late 30's except a massive but technologically trivial scaling-up (but that would also be an over-simplification). -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 91 05:45:03 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@uunet.uu.net (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: space news from Jan 7 AW&ST In article <1991Feb25.013310.8439@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >NASA to establish a Nuclear Propulsion Systems Office at Lewis, as a >joint project with DoE and DoD, to resume work in advanced propulsion. >[About %$#$%#$%ing time!!!] The official goal is a functional test >engine by 2005 to support Moon/Mars efforts. Both nuclear-thermal >[classical nuclear rockets] and nuclear-electric [nuclear-powered >ion thrusters] are being considered.... I agree, this is great news! This is another step NASA can take to get back into the technology development instead of technology operation business. (For some other worthwhile items to pursue, see the Japanese Space Program thread). Nuclear rockets are of course not tied to the Moon or Mars; they would be especially useful for visiting asteroids, comets, and Jupiter. They might even replace chemical rockets as GEO comsat upper stages. >Pictures of Earth and Moon from the Galileo flyby Dec 8. Nothing remarkable. Some interesting new angles, though. Also, think about the resolution, and compare it to Voyager.... if Galileo makes it out there, we're going to have some _incredible_ pictures of Io (volcanoes and the most differentiated geology in the solar system) and Europa (complex patterns of melting ice and dirt and ????? <- we could find out!) and many of the other moons (I hope they get a shot at Metis.... :-) Here's another item for NASA -- how about a Galileo follow-on? After Galileo runs out of steam, it would be good to have something at Jupiter to look closer at all the new things Galileo has found and new questions it has raised. Nothing ambitious -- just a small Jupiter orbiter to be launched by a Delta or Atlas/Centaur, containing a smaller, more modern bus and instruments (I would guess that we can fit instruments with a resolution similar to Galileo's on a Delta if we try). If we start now it could get there by the time Galileo poops out. Whadya think? -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "What are the _facts_, and to how many decimal places?" -- RAH ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 91 00:08:12 GMT From: voder!pyramid!ctnews!tsnews!ward@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ward Griffiths) Subject: Re: UN Moon Treaty (was Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes) 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: > That is exactly my point. There are plenty of members of the >Security Council, China, USSR, Third World countries, who would >undoubtedly tout the Moon Treaty in order to appropraite as much >$$$ from lunar operations as they could. Using this >legitimate complaint, they could make life somewhat unpleasant >for the USA, imposing economic sanctions, seizing assets, >cancelling contracts, etc, etc. Basically, the only things the United States NEEDS from most of the Third World are energy and mineral resources. The last time I checked, anyway. With reasonable space exploitation, those requirements are taken care of. The Third World, on the other hand, is dependant on the US for manufactured goods, food and military equipment (technically manufactured goods, but I'm going to count it as separate anyway). The USSR is unlikely at this point to object to the commercialization of space, and they'd be major players. China is a complete nonentity in this situation and can be safely ignored. Oh yeah, the Third World provides us with cheap labor both at home and in the form of illegal aliens. Not a controlling issue. Personally, since the Third World countries are the ones in the General Assembly, and the five nations in the Security Council outvote the General Assembly, I'm not really worried about complaints by countries that aren't in the real competition. Once we've got the industry up there, let'em bitch. They bitch too loud and somebody might get a little "sloppy" maneuvering an asteroid into orbit. -- Ward Griffiths, Unisys NCG aka Convergent Technologies The people that make Unisys' official opinions get paid more. A LOT more. =========================================================================== To Hell with "Only One Earth"! Try "At Least One Solar System"! If I say love, I'll sound sentimental, and if I say sex, I'll sound cynical. I'll call it pair bonding and sound scientific. The Golden Apple ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #209 *******************