Message-ID: <8cGmhui00WBwIYuE4s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue,  4 Jun 91 01:56:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #591

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 591

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Should Galileo be rerouted?

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: 17 May 91 18:46:34 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Should Galileo be rerouted?

In article <9105171817.AA00433@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu writes:
(In response to me, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu)

>>If the first two are useless rocks, what makes you think
>>the next dozen are going to be any better?

>What if, indeed.  I'm suggesting we find out.  You're saying the knowledge is
>less valuable than what we'd learn at Jupiter.  This is the crux of our
>disagreement, and I think neither of us will concede what is essentially a
>feeling, or at best, an opinion.

I think of it in this manner: say rock #1 is a dud, and rock #2 is a 
dud.  Knowing that these are two samples of the asteroids out there, 
do you (a) go on to rock #3, hoping that rocks #1 and #2 were flukes, 
or (b) go on to where you *know* you will learn something?  If this were
a game show, it would definitely be option (b) for me.  

You are right, though, that we're not going to change each other's mind...
this will likely be my last post on the topic, as we are both starting 
to sound a bit dogmatic.

>>Assuming CRAF still has its penetrator on board, (I heard it was having
>>budgetary problems a while back) CRAF will do exactly what is needed to
>>help us start understanding what resources are out there.  Galileo will
>>not.

>Maybe Galileo could SOLVE those 'budgetary problems'.  And Galileo COULD
>tell us if the resources are there, though the details may wait a while
>longer.

I have been informed privately by a couple of people that the penetrator
(which I now recall from memory was for comets, not asteroids) has been 
removed from the craft because of development and cost problems, a very 
poor decision, IMHO.  

Like I've said, Galileo is already going to visit two asteroids (the 
first in, Gaspara, in 1992, I think) on its way.  If it discovers anything
interesting, it will be that much boost to CRAF.  If not, we still go 
on to Jupiter and learn nifty things, and CRAF goes to the asteroids anyway.
As someone pointed out, even if the main antenna never deploys and we never
get a relay sat out there, we still learn wads of information, including
the data from the atmospheric probe.  Remember, we know less about the 
atmosphere of Jupiter than we do about the asteroids...

>>We have some idea of what asteroids are composed of, from spectral data
>>and pieces that have come to earth.  Galileo can add some more spectral
>>data, perhaps slightly better than what we have now.  CRAF will (likely)
>>render that data obsolete in a few more years.

>Definition of "few", please.
>And I think Galileo will give us better than 'slight' knowledge.

CRAF is supposed to be launched in 1994, if I am not mistaken.  Probably
will slip to 1995 or 1996, the way things go.  

Okay, is there someone out there who can shed some light on this?  What 
instruments does Galileo carry that can be turned onto asteroids, what 
might we learn from them, and how will this compare with what is expected 
from CRAF?

>>Again, we aren't in a position to exploit asteroids in the interval between
>>Galileo and CRAF, so why are you wanting to abandon all the knowledge we
>>can gain at Jupiter for obsolescent data on asteroids?

>I assume that you know the schedule for CRAF?  And know that we couldn't start
>on the Asteroids, given the correct motivation?

CRAF goes sometime around 1994-1996, as I mentioned above, unless I am 
way out of touch with the latest developments.  As for starting on the 
asteroids, there's no way we can start anytime soon: our shuttle is 
creaky, our station likely gone, and we have people trying to push us 
back to the days of tin cans by buying Soyuz capsules for manned transport.
Robotic and teleoperation technology is nowhere near what is necessary to 
start exploiting (I am assuming exploit = mine) asteroids, and despite
what some people like to think, it's not likely to make a quantum leap 
in the next few years.  Tell me this, though...what makes you think we *can*
start on exploiting asteroids?

>Would you concede that Galileo could increase the budget and decrease the
>scheduling of CRAF to the point of saving, say, twenty years? Ten? Five?
>Pretty substantial, if you consider the possible payoff at $ 3e+12 / year.
>Sure, it's speculatory.  So is invoking NASA flight schedules.

I would concede no such thing.  CRAF is slated for the next few years, so 
I fail to see how we could save more than a year or so under any circumstances.
As for a payoff of over half the GNP of the United States per year, I 
have to ask where you pulled *that* number from.

>If you feel that the answer to the questions ;

>"Is CRAF far more important than we thought?"  and
>"Are the Asteroids potential resources"

> are less important than information about the Jove's, fine.  I don't.

CRAF is important.  Asteroid resources may be important.  Learning 
more about Jupiter is important.  I am saying we should go for all three, 
whereas you are saying that we should only go for two.  Different strokes
for different folks, I guess.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca                   
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu    _The Number of the Beast_

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #591
*******************