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) ID ; Sun, 9 Jun 91 03:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 03:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #626 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 626 Today's Topics: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated Magellan Status for 05/17/91 (Forwarded) Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED All except Henry, skip this article LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WATCH CANCELLATION Re: Why the space station? Monthly space flight briefing set for May 20 (Forwarded) Solar Sail info? Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition 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: 18 May 91 05:27:26 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!pc.usl.edu!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Phil Fraering) Subject: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated Let's face it: this was going to be posted by someone sooner or later. I've deceided to post it now. It seems that at present most of the traffic of sci.space consists of an endless repetition of the same articles. I'm convinced that some posters out there (I won't mention names; everyone knows who I'm talking about) have some basic articles with a 100 line length, which they repost several times a week (with minor variations in wording thanks to the emacs command M-x dissociated-press). So most of the readers are likely to make judicious use of their 'n' or 'd' keys, and are really likely to miss something new if it is posted. Occasionally I have seen one or two new ideas on sci.space... I would like to suggest that the position of moderator be rotated; I don't think anyone could stand to do it for more than a couple months at a time, and given that power corrupts, the moderator's views will eventually influence what gets posted and what not. Rotating the moderator would allow the readership an occasional change of 'filter' through which to view the group, and would keep the group from being a stagnant reflection of a single person's ideas. By this I do not mean to denigrate any moderators out there, and I suspect that most of you know what I am talking about and at least partially agree (but don't let me put words in your mouth...). Although the fatigue problem will probably be more dominant over the 'personality' factor. Even though there are probably people reading the whole group out there, right? BTW, am I doing this right? I think I posted to the neccesary groups... Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418 ''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_ ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 07:04:48 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Magellan Status for 05/17/91 (Forwarded) MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT May 17, 1991 The Magellan spacecraft, now in its second mapping cycle, went through an orbit trim maneuver today so it will not duplicate the first cycle's altimeter data. The new altimeter track will interleave with the first cycle's track. In order to improve the quality of data, it was decided to slightly rotate the spacecraft's orbit around the node -- an imaginary line drawn through the poles of Venus. Mapping was suspended at 6:43 a.m. PDT today in preparation for the orbit trim maneuver which began at 11:33 a.m. The burn, using the small thrusters, lasted for little more than 33 minutes. The burn shifted the orbit about 11 kilometers (6.8 miles). The spacecraft also was switched from the high-gain antenna to the medium-gain antenna for the operation. Normal mapping is to resume at 7:46 p.m. The spacecraft and radar system are performing well. Six of the seven star calibrations Thursday were fully successful. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 11:35:40 GMT From: agate!linus!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED In article <11359@hub.ucsb.edu>, 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: > Your comparison with roads, airports etc is only partially appropriate. > Freedom is a facility for PURE research, primarily life sceince > and technology development. Private enterprise will never > fund it. Before WWII, almost all of pure research WAS privately funded, and without all the administrative gobbledygook which now eats into research. Research universities included it in their budgets, not all specifically labelled as such, as faculty were expected to do research as part of their normal activities. In addition, there was support from industry and private philanthropy, and those state universities which wanted to be considered as research institutions funded it from state funds, and other foundation funds. There was always some government-funded research, but it was the tail, and not the dog. Also, technology development is not pure research. Commercial firms are willing to support this, and even related pure research, as an investment in the future. Industrial-faculty relationships were much better in the past, without our paranoia about conflict of interest. There was always a concern here, but only those without interests can avoid conflict. There are also philanthropic organizations which support research. Many scientific societies do this to a small extent. The National Geographic Society does a fair amount of geographic and anthropological research. I firmly believe that, without government interference, such could be done for space activities. Let the appropriate profit and non-profit organizations be formed, and let them proceed without government interference. The first step is for the government to allow these organizations to form and operate freely. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 18:27:10 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED In article <1991May18.071631.19572@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>There is a middle ground between our current socialistic approach and >>total government non-involvement (nither of which will work IMHO). >We've never tried a totally non-government approach, actually, so >it is hard to say how it would turn out. No large infrastructure project has ever been done without major government involvement. >The steps required are so numerous and radical... >that this approach is for now politically impractical. In one fell swoop you are correct. However, it is very practical in several small steps. The first steps have already been taken. >In the succesful cases the government followed the lead of industry >regarding the type and scale of the technology, rather than dictating >a central plan bearing little relation to the current market. In the case of the Kelly Act it was Government setting the pace (although with feedback). They started out by dictating radio frequency and set prices to stimulate development. This is the approach we need to take. If we want to reduce launch costs, let's gurantee a large market at 75% of current prices and reduce that price periodically. We need to take similar steps for other industry as well. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 91 06:16:39 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mintaka!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Subject: All except Henry, skip this article In article <1991May18.212442.21075@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: [more misunderstanding] For about the fourth time I will repeat what I have been saying. SIRTF and AXAF are saved _this year_ in the Congressional committee by the cutting of Fred. SIRTF, AXAF, and many other actual and potential programs are saved in _ensuing years_ if Fred is cut permanently. The evidence couldn't be more overwhelming. From the $2G this year, to $3G next year, and up to a peak of $10G in ensuing years (according to GAO estimates), for a total of $120G in new programs made possible. Economists call this "opportunity cost". I hope I don't have to say this again, people are getting tired of repitition in this newsgroup. >No, Nick, a momentary effect won't pay for these things... unless that >"momentary" effect somehow gives planetary science at least the equivalent >of a year of Fred's supposed peak funding, as you suggested. Dream on. I'm not dreaming, I'm doing simple arithmetic. Of course, you don't like "bean counting". Fine: stop eating beans. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably knew it already. The more bewildered you are, the more successful the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 May 91 12:57:23 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WATCH CANCELLATION X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WATCH 19 MAY, 1991 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ WATCH CANCELLATION: The effects from the major flare of 16 May failed to materialize. The window for possible terrestrial geomagnetic and auroral storming has passed. The Low Latitude Auroral Activity Watch has been terminated. Geomagnetic activity and auroral conditions are expected to remain dormant over the next 24 hours. The next possible Watch period may commence on 23 or 24 May, due to recurrent effects from a well placed coronal hole which produced strong terrestrial effects in late April. Geomagnetic and auroral storming may be possible after 24 May, peaking between 25 and 27 May. A Watch may be issued sometime during the period if recurrent effects are expected to be strong. More will be known in the days to come. The Low Latitude Auroral Activity Watch has been cancelled. ** End of Watch ** ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 00:18:22 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Why the space station? In article <1991May19.185310.17500@quest.UUCP> schaper@quest.UUCP (Steve Schaper - SSB) writes: \Would it possibly be less costly to send the polar corer probe with /onboard electron microscope, gas chromatograph, etc, and sample the \core every cubic milimeter and take a while to do it, then to transfer /the material back to earth, with all the capabilities needed, not to \mention the very tiny, but _not_ politically insignificant chance that /there might be living spores frozen a goodly way down? I'm just not sure we know what needs to be done to the core when we get our hands (micromanipulators?) on it. Yes, I know that the cores will be _analyzed_, but noone is very sure what they're looking for at the moment. -- Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):dlbres10@pc.usl.edu || YellNet: 318/365-5418 ''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_ ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 91 06:57:20 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Monthly space flight briefing set for May 20 (Forwarded) Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. May 15, 1991 (Phone: 202/453-4164) N91-37 EDITORS NOTE: MONTHLY SPACE FLIGHT BRIEFING SET FOR MAY 17 The Office of Space Flight monthly press briefing will take place Monday May 20, from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. EDT. The briefing will be held in Room 425, building 10-B, 600 Independence Ave., S.W. Participating in the briefing will be Dr. William Lenoir, Associate Administrator for Space Flight and Richard Kohrs, Director, Space Station Freedom. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 16:43:04 GMT From: skipper!bowers@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) Subject: Solar Sail info? I know some time ago, there was some disscussion of Solar Sails. Not being of any importance to me at the time, I ignored most of it (dumb move). Well, (you guessed it) I'd like to get some info on solar sails. Did anyone archive that disscussion? If so, could you e-mail me? Mucho appreciado. -- `In the changing of the times, they were like autumn lightning, a thing out of season, an empty promise of rain that would fall unheeded on fields already bare.' -Abe Shosaburo Albion Hideto Bowers ARA #3239 MCI #91-5896 DIOC #5937 DOD #900 PSIA #137 Ducati owner/enthusiast/apologist Sandan Muso Shinden Ryu Iaido bowers@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 91 19:28:13 GMT From: hela!aws@uunet.uu.net (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991May20.041328.9144@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >> ... a station >>like this would be involved in lots of other activites. >Do you really want a multi-purpose station? Trying to be all things to all >people in one of the things which is killing/has killed/will kill Freedom. If wisely selected I don't see any problems. We would set up a LLNL inflatable station and a series of free-flyers. The main station would be used to house crew, perform life sciences work, house a 0G dry dock and some microgravity (so experimenters can see their experiment in real time and make changes). Outside would be a number of free flyers for microgravity, manufacturing, and a fuel depot. You would need to insure that everybody is compatable but it wold reduce costs to share the basic facilities. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 91 00:28:49 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: Fred vs. Exploration: head-to-head competition I am glad to see a space science person say something positive about Freedom, I was starting to get paranoid.... I need to correct you on one point, Bill Lenoir most certainly DID fly on the Shuttle, he was a Mission Specialist ( or maybe Payload Specialist ) and deployed two communications satellites. I have had the pleasure of working with him briefly some years ago, and he is technically one of the sharpest engineers I ever worked with.... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #626 *******************