Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 05:03:45 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #170 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 5 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 170 Today's Topics: (Big) Bang in The Netherlands Antarctica (was: SPS) (2 msgs) Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't Help! Computone Serial Port Problems Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ? Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? (2 msgs) Notes from Rover Expo Space Calendar Terraforming (2 msgs) TSS EVA Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Sep 92 05:11:18 GMT From: Brett Vansteenwyk Subject: (Big) Bang in The Netherlands Newsgroups: sci.space I remember some years ago reading about "brontides" which seemed to be heard as either muffled booms to loud bangs and have been claimed to break windows on occaision. These were associated with coastal plain areas. At the time, people were not sure that they really existed, and certainly had no firm theory as to how they came about. Could this bang be a brontide, and is there any net-expert on this phenomenon that could enlighten us further? --Brett Van Steenwyk ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 03:27:04 GMT From: Brian Yamauchi Subject: Antarctica (was: SPS) Newsgroups: sci.space Glenn Reynolds' essay in the current Ad Astra provides a good reply to the "Antarctica Argument": GR> Don't waste your time on the Moon or Mars. If you want the rough and GR> manly experience of settling harsh, desolate places, try the Gobi GR> Desert or Antarctica. At least that's Tom Rogers' message... GR> Rogers is like a bus driver who keeps insisting that there is "plenty GR> of room in the back" when what passengers are asking is to be let off GR> the bus. To those who support human expansion beyond Earth, not all GR> "harsh and remote" areas are created equal: those off-planet are GR> inherently desirable, while those on-planet are beside the point... GR> Very few of us want to do it solely for the dubious pleasure of pitting GR> outselves against a hostile nature, any more than the pioneers of the GR> American West endured their hardships because they enjoyed them. Like GR> those pioneers, we are willing to face the hardships because of our GR> ultimate goal. But the hardships are not the goal, and those who do GR> not understand this are missing the point. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi Case Western Reserve University yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu Department of Computer Engineering and Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 23:29:15 From: Brian Yamauchi Subject: Antarctica (was: SPS) Newsgroups: sci.space Glenn Reynolds' essay in the current Ad Astra provides a good reply to the "Antarctica Argument": GR> Don't waste your time on the Moon or Mars. If you want the rough and GR> manly experience of settling harsh, desolate places, try the Gobi GR> Desert or Antarctica. At least that's Tom Rogers' message... GR> Rogers is like a bus driver who keeps insisting that there is "plenty GR> of room in the back" when what passengers are asking is to be let off GR> the bus. To those who support human expansion beyond Earth, not all GR> "harsh and remote" areas are created equal: those off-planet are GR> inherently desirable, while those on-planet are beside the point... GR> Very few of us want to do it solely for the dubious pleasure of pitting GR> outselves against a hostile nature, any more than the pioneers of the GR> American West endured their hardships because they enjoyed them. Like GR> those pioneers, we are willing to face the hardships because of our GR> ultimate goal. But the hardships are not the goal, and those who do GR> not understand this are missing the point. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi Case Western Reserve University yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu Department of Computer Engineering and Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 03:15:12 GMT From: Gerry Santoro - CAC/PSU Subject: Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1992Sep1.134056.25842@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) says: > >NO, it is to "protect" us from being ignorant about the world around us. >Intelligence gathering is something that will always have considerable >value, with or without any "evil empire" to be worried about. I realize this is not the place for political discussion -- so I'll make my comment and then shut up. Who is to protect us from the zealots who control the intelligence gathering operations -- and who have shown themselves time and time again more than willing to break our laws and violate our trust in pursuit of their supposedly honorable values. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and secret power corrupts in secrecy. Frankly, I'm just as afraid of our own military as I was of the 'evil empire'. gerry ps - i'm proud to be American and I believe in the human rights of ALL peoples -- everywhere! If you want to flame me, send me mail. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:55:16 GMT From: Jeff Prekopa Subject: Help! Computone Serial Port Problems Newsgroups: sci.space I recently replaced a failing Computone Intelliport 16. The new board has more recent firmware (firmware v.3.17, driver version 4.62). The new firmware/driver combo doesn't initialize my "device" ports properly. Login ports work fine, but "device" ports won't initialize at anything but 9600 baud. I'm using hardware handshaking for the ports, but I doubt that is part of the problem. The previous firmware worked fine for 2 years. Computone tech support bailed out with a meager "it oughta work, I dunno". Has anyone worked with this junk, and can offer advice? TNX in advance. -- jprekopa%admiral.uucp@yale.edu (Jeff Prekopa) The Admiral's Public UNIX - Greenwich, CT - System Administrator: Doug Fields (HST/V32) (203)661-2873 -- (PEP/V32) -1279 -- (V32) -0450 -- (V29/MNP6) -2967 >FREE!< Unix shell accounts, Usenet access, and Internet-style mail available ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 09:42:48 GMT From: ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ? Newsgroups: sci.space In article katzr@ucs.orst.edu (Russell Katz) writes: This is a bit related to the topic...I think. I have read in several sf stories about using the shuttle main tanks as modules for space habitats...just having the shuttle carry the tank with it into orbit. Some authors stated that it would not take any extra fuel(??) to do so. Any of you experts out there have an answer as to why NASA doesn't use the tanks as at least a temporary habitation? --- I'm NOT an expert but I've read some of those sf stories and they seemed great (particularly David Brin's "Tank Farm Dynamo"). I've also read NASA is spending some money on a feseability study of putting a small booster under the shuttle ET to give it the extra push into orbit. Then, after parking some ET's in LEO, they could be sold or used by NASA. Rui -- *** Infinity is at hand! Rui Sousa *** If yours is big enough, grab it! ruca@saber-si.pt All opinions expressed here are strictly my own ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 00:42:32 GMT From: "Thomas H. Kunich" Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder) writes: >two days ago I read an article on the topic of Mars in the german >magazine 'GEO'; they talked about some of the planned missions to >our neighbour planet and mentioned that there were still some >dreamers at NASA that actually intended to transform Mars. >I'd say, forget about that. Even a manned mission to Mars would cost >*at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher). >Terraforming is a nice SF idea and sounds like an easy thing to >do, but IMHO we don't know enough about the involved systems >to even think about changing a planet. It's stupid, will cost >too much (NASA will not be given the money for 'Big Tickets' in the >next years) and belongs to SF. If you look back in the postings some you will find that I made a suggestion for cheaply testing a cheap method of terraforming. And it doesn't even belong in SF. If you would like, I could repost it. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 16:11:35 GMT From: smd@fct.unl.pt Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort) writes: > A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters > tells me: > A fairly large team , is planning the terraforming > of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it. > Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C. And with minimal study of > that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur. > After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based > micro-organisms and rugged plant life. > > Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise > elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars? We all suspected NASA was a bit senile, now we have the confirmation! -- Sergio Duarte *** smd@fct.unl.pt *** FCT/UNL *** PORTUGAL ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 04:26:23 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: Notes from Rover Expo Newsgroups: sci.space On Wednesday, I went to the September 1-2 planetary Rover Expo that was described in sci.space and sci.space.news. It was extremely interesting. All of the rovers were on display, and they took turns moving about on a simulated martian terrain (large rocks and local clay soil mixed with pigment to give it the vivid orange color of martian soil). There was also a smooth runway between the simulated terrain and the audience, with a considerable number of small children allowed to sit along the runway, and the smaller rovers were moved along the runway so the kids could see them up close. (Naturally the rovers tracked a lot of the colored soil onto the runway, and the kids rolled in the dust and quickly spread it to the bleachers and everywhere else in the tent - few people escaped getting Mars-colored.) A running commentary was given with each demonstration, often with the same person talking and controlling the rover. The main sponsors of the Rover Expo were NASA, the National Air and Space Museum (which had a sign inside the door of the museum), and the Planetary Society. Co-sponsors included the Russian Mobile Vehicle Engineering Institute, the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, and the Space Automation and Robotics Technical Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. >From the literature, here are the rovers that participated, and the organizations that provided them, with some comments by me: .............. Babakin Center NPO Lavochkin, Moscow Space Research Institute Russian Academy of Sciences Mobile Vehicle Engineering Institute (VNIITransMash) - Unnamed Marsokhod (Mars Rover) size: 1.2 x 1.0 x 0.8 meters mass: 75 kg speed: 10 cm/s comments: Rover will be named in an international student contest. Three pairs of long, tapered wheels with small blades. "Wheel mode" can handle slopes of 20 degrees, "wheel-crawler mode" 30-35 degrees in loose soil. Largest individual stones 0.5 m. Service life 100km. Can be commanded directly from orbiter for use in dangerous conditions, programmed mode for motion along a specified route, and autonomous mode for motion in a given direction, with route corrections. Returns high-resolution color stereo images of surface, also has numerous scientific instruments. Scheduled for a demo. Tested in the Mojave Desert with the aid of the Planetary Society. Also shown was a "hot air balloon" to represent the SNAKE instrument (dragged along the Martian surface by a balloon) developed by the Space Dynamics Laboratory (Utah State University), JPL, the French space agency CNES, and the Planetary Society, and scheduled to be launched on a CIS Proton booster in 1996. .............. Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - Ambler size: 4.5 x 3.0 x 5.5 meters mass: 3 tons speed: 0.8 cm/s comments: The six-legged walker that Marc Ringuette has described. It's been operational for a year or more - I've seen it on CNN and NASA Select. It's really enormous, and apparently is quite a job to control - there was a battery of computer workstations set up to do it. Apparently the last demo Tuesday was to walk the Ambler out onto the terrain, and the first demo Wednesday was to walk it back to its resting place. Able to step over objects 1 meter high, and maintain a level body on a 30-degree slope. Laser rangefinder on top of body. There are plans to give the Ambler considerable autonomy. (This should largely make up for the low speed, for use on Mars.) - Dante -- the Erebus Explorer size: 3.0 x 1.9 x 3.5 meters mass: 400 kg speed: 2 cm/s comments: Another (6-legged?) walker, hard to describe. It appears to be made of beautiful purple anodized aluminum. It's intended to explore the active volcano Mount Erebus in Antarctica in 1992. Another robot, Virgil, also called the transporter, is to ascend to the rim of the crater, where it will lower Dante, also called the rappeller, to observe the lava lake, measure temperatures, take samples, etc. Not scheduled for a demo. Cameras return anaglyph stereo display. .............. IS Robotics Cambridge, Massachusetts - Attila II size: 38 x 25 x 30 cm mass: 3 kg speed: 5 cm/s comments: No other information. Apparently it was not scheduled for a demo. - Genghis II size: 38 x 25 x 20 cm mass: 1.7 kg speed: 10 cm/s comments: Was scheduled for a demo. A 6-legged walker. - T-1 size: 38 x 45 x 25 cm mass: 6 kg speed: 30 cm/s comments: Was scheduled for a demo. Looks like a wheeled vehicle in the photograph, but hard to tell. - Treader size: 45 x 35 x 35 cm mass: 4 kg speed: 30 cm/s comments: Was scheduled for a demo. .............. Jet Propulsion Laboratory Robotic Systems & Advanced Computing Technology Section Pasadena, California - Rocky III size: 80 x 80 x 80 cm (JPL literature says 60 cm long by 45 cm wide.) mass: 8 kg (JPL literature says 15 kg, which seems more likely.) speed: 10 cm/s comments: Six-wheeled design with articulated, "rocker-bogie" suspension to allow it to climb over objects 1.3 times as high as wheel diameter. Wheel encoders, bumpers, articulation sensors, magnetic compass, and attitude sensors. Developed for autonomous sample-acquisition experiment using computerized navigation system called "behavior control". User determines location of interest - rover travels to that location autonomously, scoops up a soil sample, and returns it to the lander, following an infrared beacon as a homing device. Large obstacles are avoided. I saw a demo of Rocky III. - Rocky IV (not present at show) size: 60 cm long by 45 cm wide mass: 7.2 kg speed: ? comments: Interest in use as Mars Environmental Survey Pathfinder. Same basic design as Rocky III. Deploys microseismometers, scoops soil samples, and chips rock surfaces. This is the model that uses stereo cameras with alternate-field liquid crystal shutter goggles for the operators. I spoke with the JPL people, and they said they're using standard NTSC format, 30 frames per second. Onboard spectrometer. - Go-For (pronounced gopher) size: 50 x 50 x 50 cm (actual volume is very small) mass: 3 kg speed: 30 cm/s comments: This is the weird little yellow rover that looks sort of like a dog (named Rover, no doubt) without the head. It has four wheels, mounted on the ends of front and rear forks. The forks can be pivoted, which helps greatly with maneuverability. Normally, the forks are adjusted so that 80% or more of the body weight is on the rear wheels, which allows the front wheels to climb over obstacles as high as 70% of the length of the rover. The forks can be stretched out straight to allow the rover to lie flat, and the body can be tilted forward to get extreme close-ups of rocks or soil using a front-mounted camera. It can also drop microseismometers out the back, though it will only be allowed to do this in the pet exercise area. :-) If a maneuver is miscalculated and Go-For tumbles over on its back, the forks can be pivoted to turn it rightside-up again. (Few if any of the other rovers shown have the capability to right themselves, so they have to have safety systems to stop motion if they start to become unstable.) I saw Go-For operated twice, once while Rocky III was still running, and once while Robby was being demonstrated (they had to be careful to prevent Robby from running over Go-For). It worked very well, and successfully recovered from a tumble. Go-For was a great favorite with the kids, who mauled it mercilessly. It survived that, so I guess it should do pretty well in the less hostile environment of Mars. :-) - Robby size: 4 x 2 x 2.5 meters mass: 1.8 tons speed: 1 meter/s comments: Six 35-inch diameter wheels on a pivoting 3-part body, to allow it to go over obstacles about 3 feet high. It has four video cameras on a pivoting bar up top, and a robot arm in front. The camera bar sweeps up, down, and side to side as Robby maneuvers. It also has a gyrocompass and attitude and articulation sensors. Robby scans the terrain with its black-and-white stereo cameras, then plans and executes a safe path. Autonomous navigation at the rate of 80 meters per hour has been demonstrated. During the demo, Robby was kept well away from the kids, so none of them were run over. .............. Martin Marietta Corporation Astronautics Group Denver, Colorado - Beam Walker size: 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.2 meters mass: 160 kg speed: 3 cm/s comments: There are two sets of legs, which can move straight up and down either individually (I think) or together in sets. The outer set consists of two legs in front and one in back, mounted to the main frame of the rover. The inner set is made up of four legs in a square configuration, mounted to an inner frame. In normal operation, the inner frame goes down, lifting the three outer legs off the ground. The inner frame then glides backward relative to the rover body, causing the body to move forward relative to the ground. The inner frame then moves up, raising the inner legs off the ground and causing the rover to rest on the outer legs. In this position the inner frame then glides forward relative to the rover body, and the cycle repeats. Steering is accomplished by rotating the inner frame while its legs are holding up the rover. I saw the demo. .............. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles Stark Draper Laboratory Cambridge, Massachusetts - MITy size: 53 x 34 x 35 cm mass: 10 kg speed: 45 cm/s comments: Scheduled for a demo. .............. National Institute of Standards and Technology (hey, that's us!) Robotic Systems Division Bethesda, Maryland (didn't even know about the Bethesda site - I know there's some robotic work done at the Gaithersburg site - mainly computer control of advanced industrial robots, but also other projects such as the Flight Telerobotic Server (?) ) - Spider size: 3.7 x 3.7 x 3.7 meters mass: 18 kg (very open framework) speed: 2.25 meters/s comments: It turned out that one of the people exhibiting it was an old friend from high school, who explained how it works. NIST has been working on a revolutionary type of crane, which consists of a batch of long poles connected to the ground at three anchor points, plus six winches and cables, running through pulleys to a triangular central platform, where the crane equipment is attached. This structure is useful because of its stability, and because it can lift many times its own mass. Somebody apparently figured out that you could attach tractor treads in place of the ground anchor points with sophisticated angle detection sensors, add a long boom to the top with stereo cameras on the end, and make the crane into a rover. I was there for the second demo, but the control computer had blown out. However, there was a videotape showing it in operation. I still don't understand exactly how it works. .............. Sandia National Laboratories Advanced Vehicle Systems Albuquerque, New Mexico - Dixie size: 1.6 x 1.0 x 1.0 meters mass: 180 kg speed: 13.5 meters/s - Raybot size: 1.9 x 1.0 x 1.0 meters mass: 180 kg speed: 11.25 meters/s comments: Dixie and Raybot are apparently converted small 3-4 wheel all-terrain vehicles (including the gasoline engines, though I didn't see them in operation - presumably a planetary version would have a different power source). Dixie and Raybot are designed to be used together, controlled from a single Command Driving Console (CDC). Raybot is similar to Dixie, but includes an advanced multiprocessor control architecture and an articulated arm at the rear of the robot. Dixie is driven out to an overlook position, from which it provides a wide-field stereo image to be used for analysis and planning. Dixie is then put into a safe state, with ignition [!] off and the parking brake set, and the operator switches control from Dixie to Raybot. Raybot is moved to a specified location within the field of view of Dixie, and the robot arm and scientific equipment used. Control may be switched back and forth between the two rovers to change their positions. Dixie and Raybot were scheduled to be demonstrated together. - Ratler size: 60 x 60 x 46 cm mass: 15 kg speed: 10 cm/s comments: Scheduled to be demonstrated. .............. General comments: - Most (but not all) of the rovers described are intended to have some degree of autonomy in their final application. In the live demos, I think most of these were more directly controlled than would be the case in normal use. As one speaker put it, these demos were intended mainly to show the mechanical capability of the rovers - in many cases, autonomous control systems are not yet fully functional. There was also the matter of controlling the rovers in the limited environment of a tent with people in it - even Robby, which has demonstrated autonomous operation, was probably pretty closely monitored to keep it from damaging the set or hitting the spectators. - According to one speaker, the typical maximum slope most of the rovers can negotiate in loose soil is around 30 degrees, because of the physics involved. - Many of the speakers were optimistic about getting their rovers into off-earth use within the decade. - A lot of the information in the comments above is from literature that was available at the show. Not all the booths had literature, but I was there late on the second day, so there may have been more at the beginning. JPL had nice big color photos of all four of their rovers. - For the most part, the representatives were very informative and helpful. I was impressed by the heavy involvement of the Planetary Society. (Of course, this is probably the one technical thing that they do really well.) I'll have to watch the NASA Select tape I got of their Case for Mars conference, and decide once again whether I want to sign up. I get some impression that they're slightly more technical and less political than in the past. At least, the fact that they're supporting rovers to Mars before humans is encouraging (since it's something the space program can afford now). - I've tried to double check all the information, but there could still be errors. - I was only there a few hours of one day, so I only saw a few of the rovers in operation. However, I got some good 3D video (same format as JPL uses) of those demos, plus the rest of the rovers on display. When I review the video, if I come up with any additional information or corrections, I'll try to post. Overall, I'd say the Rover Expo was very interesting, and was very well attended. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:58:21 GMT From: HoloNet Guest Services Subject: Space Calendar Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 00:33:24 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: Terraforming Newsgroups: sci.space -From: aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder) -Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? -Date: 4 Sep 92 14:38:43 GMT -Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH -I'd say, forget about that. Even a manned mission to Mars would cost -*at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher). -Terraforming is a nice SF idea and sounds like an easy thing to -do, but IMHO we don't know enough about the involved systems -to even think about changing a planet. I'd agree with you that it's not practical or desirable at present, but I also think that we don't know enough yet to make a decision for all time that it will never be practical or desirable. Terraforming is an interesting concept anyway in the sense that some of its principles might apply to smaller things like space colonies. (It doesn't *all* have to be done by brute force machinery.) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 04:29:00 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: Terraforming Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9209050033.AA26423@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >I'd agree with you that it's not practical or desirable at present, but >I also think that we don't know enough yet to make a decision for all time >that it will never be practical or desirable. Terraforming is an interesting >concept anyway in the sense that some of its principles might apply to >smaller things like space colonies. (It doesn't *all* have to be done by >brute force machinery.) I especially agree with the last sentence. Surely, in the long-term it makes more sense to alter the human organism to life on another body (or deep space for that matter) than to alter the body (or space). I imagine that many of the advances in molecular biology required to terraform a body would lead to parallel insights into how to adapt ``humans'' for currently hostile environments. Life needs an energy source, a way to replicate (optional), and some way to dump waste products. *** Let's leave Mars for the Martians, but let's provide the Martians! *** -- Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu 919-962-7169 NC 27599-3255 USA If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. -- Chairman of US Space Council. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 ** ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 00:57:46 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: TSS EVA Newsgroups: sci.space -From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) -Date: 4 Sep 92 15:29:17 GMT -Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana -Just commenting... -Anyone notice that despite being designed for the Shuttle, TSS was -_not_ apparently designed for astronaut servicing? -Aster all the trouble the program has experienced from being -tied to the Shuttle, they should have at least taken advantage -of some of the advantages they could have gotten, and put someone -outside in a spacesuit to shove on it or kick it or wave a dead -chicken over it or whatever needed to be done... -Moral of the story: If you insist on having the people there, -at least use them... the way the mission was run, it might -as well have been teleoperated, apparently. There definitely was an EVA contingency - if the tether had failed to retract, they would have gone out and used the hand crank that's available to close the cargo bay doors to reel it in. They also had the option of using the Shuttle thrusters to bring the Shuttle to the satellite, while an astronaut hauled the line in hand over hand. An unplanned EVA is a real nuisance, so they weren't anxious to have one when they could conduct the activities from inside the Shuttle. Once they got the TSS into a mode in which it could reel in, they apparently decided to play it safe. The only question was whether to try to continue the deploy. But they didn't know what the problem was, and they didn't know whether another deploy attempt would make matters much worse. (Earlier, when they thought the problem was buried loops on the reel, they *were* willing to continue.) They were also running out of time - remember that the Eureca deploy took a day longer than predicted, and the tether operations were behind schedule. Another factor that hadn't been discussed on sci.space or in the news media at the time - it turns out that even before the TSS mission, there had been talk of another TSS mission in two years (see Henry's July 20 AW&ST summary). Given the prospect of future use, it was very much in their interest to save the satellite, and that didn't require an EVA. TSS may have a better chance for a reflight than some other missions because it doesn't take up the entire payload bay. John Roberts | The sea was wet as wet could be, roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov | The sands were dry as dry. | You could not see a cloud, because | No cloud was in the sky: | No birds were flying overhead -- | There were no birds to fly. ------------------------------ id AA03982; Fri, 4 Sep 92 21:22:03 EDT Received: from crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU id aa13014; 4 Sep 92 21:13:15 EDT To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:47863 rec.travel:40372 soc.misc:3751 Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!mattb From: Matt Baney Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.travel,soc.misc Subject: Business Travel? Message-Id: <5545@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com> Date: 3 Sep 92 14:53:22 GMT Sender: news@ssc-vax.boeing.com Reply-To: Matt Baney Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics Lines: 41 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU I'm trying to get some information about how other companies treat employees traveling on company business; so I have a couple questions: Does the Frequent-Flyer mileage earned for company travel go to the employee for his/her private use or is it retained by the company?? What type of rental car do you get? Cheapest possible ( ) What ever the traveler desires ( ) ?? What is the policy for eating/living expenses when travelling?? ( ) Flat rate per diem and you can spend it however you like How much per day $(_____) ( ) Actuals, company pays whatever amounts the employee acrues during the business trip. receipts required yes( ) no( ), daily maximum no( ) yes( )-how much $( ) Any restrictions on what is allowed/ paid for, etc?? Are there any restrictions/policies about when trips should be scheduled, ie. do you have to fly on your own time, or is travel done on company time, or whenever is convienient?? ---------------------------------------------- Just a few questions I was curious about?? Anyone out there have any thoughts/comments -- | Matt Baney | Boeing Defense and Space Group | | "I can't tolerate | UUCP: ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!mattb | | intolerant people!" | Internet: mattb@ssc-vax.boeing.com | |---------------------|--------------------------------------| ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 170 ------------------------------