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, 4 Jul 91 02:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 02:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #774 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 774 Today's Topics: NASA selects TRW for ozone mapping spacecraft (Forwarded) Re: Mining El Dorado Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow Nonsexist terminology (was Re: Hermes) Re: Hermes (was Re: (none)) Re: Magellan Images Slandering Nick (WAS Re: Fred's Operatic Death) Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED 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: 22 Jun 91 01:13:40 GMT From: news.arc.nasa.gov!usenet@handies.ucar.edu (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA selects TRW for ozone mapping spacecraft (Forwarded) Brian Dunbar Headquarters, Washington, D.C. June 19, 1991 (Phone: 202/453-1749) Randee Exler Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. (Phone: 301/286-7277) RELEASE: C91-t NASA SELECTS TRW FOR OZONE MAPPING SPACECRAFT NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., has selected TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, Calif., to negotiate a cost-plus-award fee contract for one Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer/Earth Probe Spacecraft (TOMS/EP), with an option for an additional spacecraft. These two spacecraft will each carry a single TOMS instrument to observe global ozone levels and help scientists track depletion of the Earth's protective ozone shield. The contract is expected to be effective on Aug. 31, 1991. The total proposed costs are $29.3 million. The basic spacecraft cost is estimated at $21.7 million, with the optional spacecraft cost at $7.6 million. The contract will provide for the design, development, fabrication, assembly, test, integration, launch and post-launch support of each spacecraft. The original TOMS instrument, flying on the Nimbus-7 satellite since 1978, has been providing the data necessary to monitor ozone levels to date. A follow-on TOMS instrument will be flown on the Soviet Meteor-3 satellite, scheduled for launch in August, to continue providing ozone data. Goddard awarded a separate contract in July 1990 to produce a series of four more instruments to replace these instruments and provide for continuous data into the next century. The TOMS/EP spacecraft will carry the first and third instruments produced in the series. The TOMS program is managed by Goddard for NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 14:09:58 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (James Davis Nicoll) Subject: Re: Mining El Dorado In article <1991Jun20.015007.10409@nntp-server.caltech.edu> steinly@zeppo.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > > Why assume that you must use rockets or bombs to move >asteroids, after all you have plenty of time (for mining - different >problem for dinasaur killers but then the deltaV is smaller) - instead >use continuously operated ion thrusters and/or solar sails. With the >thrusters you can take a long time of low continuous acceleration, >your reaction mass will mostly come from the asteroid, and your >acceleration only depends on the power available - start with solar >cells or small nuclear reactor and either build more cells in situ or >ship more power units - you can in principle also build more thrusters >in situ. - of course unless you have a continuous stream of these >things the interest on your capital costs will wipe you out before the >first one arrives, so you use the old railroad trick, capitalise a >dummy company, file bankruptcy _after_ you get the think moving and >have someone else pick it up in earth orbit... Nukes have the advantage that we know how to make them and after almost half a century of tinkering with them, understand their behavior fairly well. While the potential of the systems you mention is no doubt formidable, we don't have the demonstrated ability to make ion drives or solar in anywhere near the scale needed, while we do have a demonstrated ability to builds Tons-O-Nukes. Besides, it'd be nice to be able to actually *use* the damn things, instead of paying maintainance fees on silos. Note that there is no reason I know the requires us to use a few big nukes as opposed to many tiny ones. Use enough tiny ones, and they start looking like a continous propulsion system (How much do you notice that your car engine uses a discontinous process to generate power to move?). As well, even using nukes, most of the reaction mass comes from the rock. That's why we need 6000 tonnes of warheads, ah, nuclear propulsion units, instead of whatever .008 of the rock's mass works out to. Not, of course, that we're likely to *see* nukes used in space in the near run; it's probably illegal and we don't need the resources right now (Well, more acccurately, the USA doesn't. Canada doesn't, either, but given our deplorable lack of thermonuclear pacification devices, we are not in a position to worry about the legality of their use. Canada isn't in the nuke business, unless you count selling reactors to India). Resources are not the Soviets' big problem these days, and I don't think the ESA or China are hard up for resources enough to push to legalise nuclear pulse propulsion, especially given the ease of manipulating the governments of the resource producing nations to discourage repeats of the OPEC shenanigans of the 70s. James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 91 23:30:55 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: CNN Report On Paris Airshow In <159792@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell): > In <31509@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca): > > The MiG-31 isn't exactly a new aircraft; it's basically a reworked > > version of the MiG-25, which was initially designed to counter the B-70 > > Valkyrie. > Does the CNN broadcast actually show the B-70 in flight? > IMHO it still qualifies as one of the most beautiful > aircraft ever built. Not quite. The CNN video showed the MIG-31 for about 8 seconds. This is the first time I have seen a MIG-31, and the first time that it has been publicly displayed that I am aware of. The MIG-31 has been around for a few years, but the Soviets were not anxious to show it off. My guess is that it is a Soviet attempt to clone the Tomcat or F-111, but this is just my uninformed opinion. If you want to see video of the Valkyrie, keep your eyes open for 'Wings' on the Discovery channel. They have an entire 1 hour show on the XB-70, and clips of the Valkyrie show up on the F-15 & B-1 episodes. I also recall seeing XB-70 clips on other Wings shows (perhaps the episode on strange shapes or giant planes). You can always tell who the real Valkyrie fans are--they are the ones that cry after seeing the video of 20207 rolling over and nosing down towards the desert. > When the Kennedy administration killed the B-70, I became > a permanent republican.... The B-70 was never meant to be. The B-1A is another example. To be a truely great plane, it has to be the right plane at the right time, like the P-51 or the B-52. A bigger shame is when a plane like the F-20 gets cancelled. -john- -- ============================================================================= John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 91 00:32:36 GMT From: leech@apple.com (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Nonsexist terminology (was Re: Hermes) In article <1991Jun19.212029.16199@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article la_carle@sol.brispoly.ac.uk (Les Carleton) writes: > >>...manned (is there a non-sexist version of this?) > >Yes, "astronaut" or "cosmonaut". One is an adjective, the other a noun. Try again. >Unfortuneately, the pro-astronaut >crowd has decided that the language should be "manned" vs. "unmanned", >turning an economic and technical issue into a Luddite debate of human vs. >machine. When I point out that "manned" is not only sexist but innaccurate, >since there are many fine men and women building and using automated >spacecraft, I am accused of "perverting the English language". There is no Politically Correct clique setting the terms by which 'manned' spaceflight is referred to, just common usage. It will change if people start using other terms. I'm partial to 'piloted' myself, though it's not ideal. -- Jon Leech (leech@apple.com) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 14:51:33 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Hermes (was Re: (none)) How did Hermes become overweight? (That seems to be the next logical question, right?) Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 16:17:38 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Magellan Images In article <80611@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, bowen@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Devon E Bowen) writes: > >In article <1991Jun20.011815.9421@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, steinly@zeppo.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >|> Yay! he's back, the forces of democracy and progress have >|> overcome the evil bureaucracy ;-) Now can we stop asking where Ron >|> Baalke is? > >You people are so naive. You really think this is the REAL Ron Baalke don't >you?! I have it from a very good source that Ron is in a prison camp some- >where in a Mexican desert. This is obviously an imposter created when the >government realized we were catching on. This *simply can't be him*. I say >we keep pressing JPL until they talk! No, I thought that the Szabo Asteroid Society had complained to JPL about too many factual postings being made to the net just to justify NASA's budget and workforce and Ron had been shipped off to Star City to teach PR techniques to Glasascosmos . Of course, this will aid the Soviets in selling their Soyuz tin-cans back to the United States under the Shezer plan, so Nick's efforts to shut down the manned spaceflight program have been thwarted..... Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 23:33:05 GMT From: Teknowledge.COM!unix!ctnews!pyramid!nsc!amdahl!JUTS!outs!jjh00@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Joel J. Hanes) Subject: Slandering Nick (WAS Re: Fred's Operatic Death) shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > >It was not my intent to slander Nick and if his feelings, amour propre, >or net reputation were damaged by my comment, I apologize and retract >my comment. I can believe that Nick Szabo's feelings or amour propre might have been hurt ... but his NET REPUTATION? It might be theoretically possible to damage Nick's Net Reputation more than his own incessant flames have already done, but I doubt it. --- ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 18:19:29 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!Dixie.Com!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@ucsd.edu (Gary Coffman) Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED In article jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes: >So.... DON'T BUILD FRED! > >The only NEED to play some those nasty political games comes from the >big project approach to space. Unlike DoD, there is no good reason JSC >has to choose activities that require large projects. They could pursue >lots of small ones and quickly synthesize enough of a market for space >services that the private sector would build the REAL WORKING space >industry we actually need. The history of Adam Smith vs Karl Marx and >the market vs communism is on my side in this argument and very clearly >against JSC and its minions. > >Lots of small projects also have the political advantage of spreading >out the money across districts so as to "buy constituency" but >in a way that is difficult to manipulate politically. In other words, >you depoliticize space with small diverse projects, but you still >have constituency. Combine that with the synthesis of a commercial >market, which makes Adam Smith instead of Karl Marx work for you, >and you have a compelling argument for axing JSC/Fred et al and >going small science, exclusively. The fundamental errors here are assuming Freedom is primarily about science, small or large. Freedom is primarily about infrastructure. Like the Interstate Highway system, it's not expected to pay off on it's own. The benefits of activities that are facilitated by having the infrastructure are the payoffs. There is no reason to believe that private industry would have attempted to build the Interstate Highway System, but the fact of it's presense has allowed many industries to develop in ways that would have been cost prohibitive without it. You can agrue successfully that a single project might be done cheaper without this piece of infrastructure, but spreading the cost over many projects, some extremely expensive to do without an existing infrastructure, makes infrastructure of this type more than competitive. This is not an endorsement of Freedom as presently envisioned nor of the Shuttle system as presently constituted. These are but the forerunners of systems that could be compared to the Interstates. They are, however, necessary forerunners needed to build the base of technological experience to allow better systems to be built. >Waste isn't the problem. If JSC were simply wasting the money we >send it, I wouldn't give a hoot. JSC is, quite deliberately and for >obvious reasons, making it virtually impossible to raise real private >space capital (as opposed to politically connected space capital). If >you want to talk about a "nasty game" talk about THAT game. Kill >JSC DEAD DEAD DEAD and we might have a chance of creating markets for >space goods and services thereby attracting private capital to the >field. Then we could get on with dealing with the real problems that >affect our technology competitiveness which related to needed fixes in >our securities laws and tax policies -- not which big techno-project >to blow our wad on for the next N decades. This is simply ideology talking. There is no evidence that large scale capital is available for space investment. There is no plausible scheme that starts from where we are and bootstraps us to large scale industrial use of space based solely on private capital. As Nick is fond of pointing out, the comsats are the only commercially viable industry that is space based and primarily privately funded. And that industry depends in large part on infrastructure developed and paid for by government funds in it's previous generation. Without infrastructure and technical demonstration projects, private capital in the large quanities needed for industrial development of space is simply not going to be risked by the private sector. Most industrial development in history has started at the mom and pop level. Look at the history of the steel industry in this country, or the history of the mining industry for examples. Only after mom and pop developed a market did the big money and the big companies come in and take over an already proven industry. In space, there is currently no room for mom and pop because of the costs to orbit and because the infrastructure to support activities there doesn't exist. Without an infrastructure to supply basic utilities, mom and pop are left with no way to start space industries and the huge private companies that are able to do so see too much risk of too much money for too long a time before possible payoffs start rolling in. The government isn't mandated to turn a profit or show results in six months. It can build the infrastructure to support garage workshop level industrial startups. One early, and sadly cancelled, attempt at this bootstrap process was the Shuttle Get Away Special program. But it didn't offer the longer term leases or close supervision needed by most space industrialization pilot projects. A space platform potentially offers this type of operation, offering power, communications, and supervision to small projects operated at a subsidized low cost. The station, whatever it's name or form, should be considered to be a form of industrial incubator among it's other uses. As industrial technologies are proved, no doubt big companies will be willing to move in and operate them on their own Leasecraft type platforms. Once a process is well understood, automated factories are possible and profitable. To operate an experimental pilot line on a strictly automated basis is likely in many cases to run costs up so much that the work won't be done. Operating a pilot process that requires a fairly large amount of power as a standalone satellite is similarly too expensive. Most industrial processes touted for space do require relatively large amounts of power. A large multipurpose platform like Freedom will have that power available for at least short periods each day for each of it's experimental racks. Gary ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #774 *******************