Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 05:00:10 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #257 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 29 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 257 Today's Topics: Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs) govn't R&D Hypersonic test vehicle proposed (2 msgs) MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions (2 msgs) Mars Observer Update - 09/27/92 Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) (4 msgs) Space and Presidential Politics (2 msgs) Space Calendar - 09/27/92 With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? 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: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:08:30 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Clinton and Space Funding > There are very many of us who consider government oppression the norm in > the world today, including in the US, one of the least oppressive. If it > turns out that man can survive on a reasonable scale out there, this group > will want to go, even at considerable financial cost to them. > I second that emotion... ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 15:22:15 GMT From: Jim Mann Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep27.115950.29032@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > In article <25SEP199215572129@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > >Funny how the space program is stalled because of the insistance on > >Scientific missions as opposed to development oriented missions. Why do > >I say this? Look at the record. Since 1972 we have visited every planet in > >the solar system plus most of their moons with Gaspra thrown in as a bonus. > >How many Lunar missions have we had in that time period? How many asteroid > >only misions have we had? Actions speak far louder than words on this subject. > > Well, we haven't visited Mercury or Pluto *yet*. Didn't one of the Mariner probes flyby Mercury? -- Jim Mann Stratus Computer jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:42:27 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: govn't R&D > >With the government, > >you can bet that every part of the program will be recorded. > > This is a good point. The big reason NASA can make their > "spinoff" argument is not because they do better R&D, but because > they publish it and make sure it gets in the engineering libraries. > I'll add to that. I think most of us would prefer a little more off the shelf hardware and a lot less historical paper. I'd like to see more action and fewer words. The US has become a goverment of the paper, by the paper and for the paper... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:20:04 EST From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed It seems that there are a lot of hypersonic, sub-orbital and orbital projects in the U.S.A: Aurora TSTO/XB-70 like aircraft (AW&ST, August 24, 1992) X-30 (AW&ST, September 14, 1992) HALO (AW&ST, September 14, 1992) HL-20 SSTO/DCX/DCY others ? Could somebody on this list explain the differences between these projects ? Only the SSTO has been well explained, thanks to Allen W. Sherzer. AW&ST gives also some clear info in its September 14 issue. (I know, that's more or less secret, and I am French. But, owing to the U.S. debt, I'm not sure that I don't pay for that... Also, why is there secrecy, since there is no more serious enemy ? Is it just secrecy against financial inquiries ?) J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:04:45 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed > Followers of "Black" programs should also note that the relative ease with > which this could be done says a few things about what may have already been > done. > Instead of the Blackbird, why not use the first stage aircraft that has recently dipped from black to grey? (As a reader of AvLeak, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about) I suspect (WAG) that the supersonic separation tests described in the article were a predecessor to the new vehicle. For the non-readers of AW&ST, there have been sigthings of a very large aircraft with planform like an XB-70 that may be a high speed launch vehicle for rapid response launch of small defense satellites. There is a need for on demand launch of satellites into orbital inclinations that make its' launch and its' appearance (the first time at least) unpredictable. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 11:38:36 GMT From: "John C. Mallery" Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches Newsgroups: sci.space A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored the Mac stack. John Mallery Join the Clinton/Gore '92 Volunteer Email Campaign Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG Subject: Volunteer Info ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:51:06 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions > scientist greed and there are some elements of that. But > big missions are expensive. There is no real way around that. > Since there can by the very definition of "big missions" be only a couple in the pipeline in any given decade, they are risky propositions. But if you instead do what you can afford, and do a lot of them, you will get science now, you will increase the ability to do risky and innovative missions (if the price tag is low and there are a lot of them, congress will find more newsworthy fish to fry ... I mean oversee...) Big mission is a relative term. If we fly mass produced small probes, we improve our ability to do missions quickly. And at the rate of technological advance (still accelerating with no sign of abating before we get to nanotechnology), "large" will become "small" in a matter of a decade. If instead of immediately doing another Cassini class mission we do a number of smaller, faster, cheaper missions PLUS propulsion (and other) technology demonstration projects, we would find that in a decade those "big" missions have magically become small, affordable and SUSTAINABLE (EXCUSE the use of CAPS. I don't WANT to OVERUSE them!!!) programs. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:00:40 GMT From: Mike Wexler Subject: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions Newsgroups: sci.space anita@astro.as.utexas.edu (Anita Cochran) writes: It goes with out saying that A single-purpose craft won't be able to study the systematics as well as a more expensive multipurpose craft. I think the more important question is whether several simple, quick & dirty craft are more cost effective than a single expensive craft. >Well, if we agree that we want to study the system as a whole, this >puts certain requirements on the instrument complement. It suggests >one needs an imaging instrument, IR and UV spectrometers, and >fields and particle experiments. A probe for Titan's atmosphere >is a nice thing to have too, once you have a spacecraft going that >way. So, add these together and what do you have? You have >a Mariner Mark II class mission. And once the spacecraft is going, >you might as well send a full spacecraft. Imagine instead of a Mariner Mark II class mission you have a series of missions starting with a relay satellite and following up with separate craft with imagine, IR, UV and fields and particle instruments. And with the quick turn around you can send updated instruments based on knowledge gained by early instruments. You can afford to try more risky techniques like ion propulsion and aerobraking. How about a Titan probe that uses aerobraking in Titan's atmosphere instead of slowing down with a rocket, for instance. Could someone with a better idea of the costs involved come up with a quick estimate of the previous two approaches for a similar set of overall goals. Note, that it might be possible to launch more than one of the above craft at the same time. -- Mike Wexler (mikew@kpc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:50:55 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 09/27/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT September 27, 1992 All systems are operating normally on the Mars Observer spacecraft on the second day following launch. Mars Observer was launched at 1:05 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (10:05 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time) on Friday, September 25, from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. Performance of the Titan III launch vehicle and Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS) upper-stage booster appear to have been normal, although telemetry was not received from the TOS during launch. Approximately 1 hour, 10 minutes after launch, the spacecraft executed commands to deploy its solar array and high- gain antenna in cruise positions. Ground controllers did not receive confirmation from microswitches onboard the spacecraft that the high-gain antenna had latched in its cruise position until 4:32 p.m. PDT, or about five hours later. They believe that the antenna probably deployed most of the way immediately but did not latch into position until later. Other minor anomalies following launch have also been resolved. When the sun sensor on the solar array did not acquire the sun, the spacecraft's fault-protection software switched to a secondary sun sensor, which acquired the sun and is operating normally. Also during the first hours after launch, an unknown torque on the spacecraft occurred which required action of gyroscope-like reaction wheels to restabilize the spacecraft, but this has not reoccurred. Also on the first day after launch, a series of star calibrations failed which caused the spacecraft to switch from its normal cruise mode, called "array normal spin," to a mode in which the spacecraft revolves in relation to the sun. Ground controllers believe this may have been related to forces introduced during the high-gain antenna deployment. On Saturday, September 26, controllers sent the spacecraft commands to return to its normal cruise mode. The spacecraft executed these commands and has been operating normally since. At about 4:35 a.m. PDT today, ground controllers sent the spacecraft its first regular command load. Among other tasks, these instruct Mars Observer to play back data recorded onboard during the launch phase Friday. This will help evaluate performance of the TOS booster. The next major activity planned for Mars Observer is deployment of booms for two of its science instruments, the gamma ray spectrometer and the magnetometer. Controllers will transmit commands for these events on Monday and the deployments will take place Tuesday. As of 12 noon PDT today, Mars Observer is approximately 700,000 kilometers (430,000 miles) from Earth, traveling at 13,000 kilometers per hour (8,060 miles per hour) with respect to Earth, and 120,000 km/hr (74,400 mph) with respect to the sun. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | much. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 14:26:11 GMT From: Dillon Pyron Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <27SEP199216051882@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >In article <1992Sep27.122955.25347@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes... >>In article <26SEP199222073863@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >> >> >> > 1. Shuttle is not a failure 49 out of 50 ain't bad. Look to Congress >> > and Cap Wineburger for the high operational costs of the shuttle. >> >>In other words, "the shuttle's not a failure, and it's not NASA's >>fault anyway!". Can you write two sentences without contradicting >>yourself? >> >>The purpose of the shuttle was to reduce the cost of getting into >>space. The shuttle has been a dismal failure in meeting this, >>its primary goal. > >Only half right. The primary reason for the Shuttle is REGULAR access to >space. Cost was also supposed to be lowered but that went out the window Gak! You call every now and again regular? The original plan called for 20-26 launches a year by now, one every other week. We're lucky to get one every other month! >with Cap Wineburgers redesign, in 1971. The shuttle has been an awesome >success for one reason. It keeps people interested in space. I have not >seen a single spacecamp set up anywhere by anybody to do planetary flybys, >or robotic exploration. Each year 40,000 kids go through space camp here in >Huntsville, a similar number in Florida. Spacecamps have been and are being >set up in Japan, France and Russia. The stimulus for all of these as been man >in space and execpt for the Russian the central motif is shuttle and space >station operations. How many lives have been changed in childhood because >of these spacecamps, especially Huntsville's? I know personally of several, >most of them women that have dedicated their lives to the space program >because of your "failure". Nothing more needs to be said How many of those 40,000 will actually acheive their goal of making it into space? Nobody wants to be a ground controller, everybody wants to be an astronaut. In a way, the Shuttle is killing dreams by letting them become fantasies. And NASA, with its PR machine, is the real guilty party. > >> >> > 2. Clinch River Breeder. Congress cut the money due to Three Mile >> > Island and the anti-nuclear hysteria. On this and the other topics, I am not qualified to comment. Which has never stopped me or anyone else :-) :-) :-) > >Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville > > -- Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated. (214)462-3556 (when I'm here) | (214)492-4656 (when I'm home) |"Repay kindness from a stranger by kindness pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com | to another stranger." PADI DM-54909 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:30:57 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) >> 3. Synfuels. Jimmy Carter's idea to destroy mountains in the west for >> shale oil. Would have been so toxic to the environment that even the >> oil companies did not want to deal with it. Bad idea pushed by so called >> environmentalist President (can you name his latter day descendant?) Of Gore >> you can. > > Synfuels failed because the price of oil dropped, not because > environmentalists complained. Oil companies were leery of oil shale > development because they could make no money on it. > Actually, you are both wrong! Oil shale development is quietly going on under PRIVATE financing. One of the largest ventures is in Australia and has Australian, Japanese, USAnian and other corporate funding behind it. They are building a prototype plant soon and will eventually scale up to full production. The synfuels program of Carter was unneeded and was a completely political beast intended only to answer the question: "The electorate is upset about oil prices going up. What can we do right now that will make it look like we are doing something about it?" The oil shale venture in Australia has been going for about 15 years now (I've been holding a small amount of stock in it for nearly that long). Talk about long term thinking? The business plan extends about halfway into the next century. So much for corporate shortsightedness... The venture is a matter of advance planning by oil and mining ventures. When the quantity of oil out of self pumping holes in the ground inevitably declines and it's price inevitably climbs, the production capacity for oil shale will already be coming on line. No fanfare, no publicity. Millions if not hundreds of millions in private investment... Yes, there is some government research involved. But this is primarily commercial, which is my point. As Nick says, when there is a way to make money in space, the private money will be there, and the long term planning will be there. If anyone is REALLY excited about this, I could pull some numbers and other info off their quarterly report. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:02:29 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) > The French do not seem to think so. They still have an active breeder program. > My sister happens to live near the CRBR and your memory has to be real short > not to remember the political wrangling that went on with the anti-nukers > and that project. > This time you are both right :-) Carter was pushing nonproliferation and recycling was considered to be one of the key issues to preventing the spread of enriched materials. That made the program a political liability. But when the economics came down against it as well... then the plug was finally pulled. More the knockout punch than the total reason for the shutdown. You can probably find some references to this in Science Magazine. For some reason I think it would have been about 1984 that it shut down. The french had their own reasons for building the breeders. They are more dependant on nukes than just about anyone else, and I believe they are more dependant on external sources than say, the US. The french government is also very well known for supporting targeted industries regardless of how much money they lose. On the anecdotal level, a brother-in-law of mine has told me stories about bidding against subsidized french firms in large civil engineering projects. Keep in mind that things may be changing in France as well as other places. You can only keep so many tax subsidized plates spinning at once. Eventually you either apply triage or your economic goes down the tubes. I do not have enough information to say where the french reprocessing plant falls on a scale of economic viability. I suspect it will be another decade before anyone can say for sure in any case. At present it serves their national interest. Clinch River did not serve the US national interest to any great extent. As Nick said, the prices went down... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:14:53 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding) > When Government R&D has been given a specific, concrete goal and has been > given the resources to carry it out, (Early American canal system, Railroads, > Panama canal, WWII, A bombs, H Bombs, Apollo) it has been wildly successful. > The common denomonator in the above so called failures is a lack of will and > lack of vision (sense of purpose) in carrying the effort to its finish. > The point is not that government, or ANY OTHER institution, cannot be wildly successful if conditions are right. It is that the political coalitions required make such conditions extremely rare. Even if a coalition does come together, the end result is not necessarily a good one. The forging of a coalition can easily turn an initially elegant solution into a committee'd monstrosity to get a large enough constituency on board. The shuttle is an excellent example of this. The point is not that a government program can NEVER succeed. It is that it USUALLY doesn't succeed. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 92 23:52:00 GMT From: Mark Goodman Subject: Space and Presidential Politics Newsgroups: sci.space Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org This newsgroup has recently contained some rather absurd opinion and speculation about the effect of a Clinton/Gore administration on the space program. The simple facts are that neither party has said much about what they would do and that the issue is rightly peripheral to the campaign. Most reasonable people understand this. I would like to comment on some of the more egregious extrapolations that have been made. For example, Allen Sherzer accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in years. All the action in the Senate takes place in the full committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings. In fact, the real action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where Barbara Mikulski is the main player. Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO technology. Consorting with a known agnostic! I know John Pike, and if he has a fault it is that he is too much of a space enthusiast. Others have followed the bizarre chain of logic that 1) Clinton wants to spend a little bit of money on what appear to be sensible things, 2) he will have to cut something else and 3) NASA is the only game in town (ever hear of agricultural subsidies?), so 4) Clinton will clobber NASA. Another chain of logic seems to go like this 1) Clinton wants to cut military spending a tad more than Bush does, 2) a lot of defense is aerospace, 3) NASA is aerospace, so 4) Clinton wants to cut NASA. If anything the true political logic works the other way: be kind to NASA so aerospace doesn't suffer too much. I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and 2) loose marbles. Get real! Space is not and should not be a big issue in this Presidential election. The issues are how to strengthen the economy and give people real opportunities to improve their lot while reducing the deficit and the burden of the national debt and healing the divisions in our society. Without that, NASA is going nowhere. Only a prosperous and united society will support space exploration. So don't lose the forest for the trees. Vote on the big issues. Vote for Bush and Quayle if you really believe that they are better for the country as a whole (I certainly don't), but don't vote on the basis of dimly defined space policies. Mark W. Goodman ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 13:48:54 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Space and Presidential Politics Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Note the followup line. In article <1469100016@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman writes: >The simple facts are that neither party has >said much about what they would do On the contrary. Both canidates have said what they would do. Both canidates also have track records which can be evaluated. Simply because Gore's track record doesn't measure up is no reason to call other people absurd. Are you suggesting Gore will suddenly change several years of activity just because he becomes VP? >and that the issue is rightly peripheral to the campaign. Rightly? Not in my opinion. To me space exploration and colonization is very important. A canidate who supports it tells me that he/she has vision and a belief in a brigher future. Canidates who say that we cannot afford to explore show they are not looking to the future. They are stagnant and willing to throw away the seed corn for some short term political gain. In the future sir, do not tell people how important they should regard ANY issue. That is for each of us to decide, not you. >I would like to comment on some of the more egregious >extrapolations that have been made. For example, Allen Sherzer >accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the >space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and >Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in >years. All the action in the Senate takes place in the full >committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more >properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and >Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings. This is simply wrong. According to the rules, the full committee cannot act on a bill until the subcommittee reports it out. Gore routinely fails to do so therefore the full committee can do nothing. Who told you this anyway? The intent was that both house and senate would pass authorization bills by June or so every year. The appropriations committees are then to use the authorization bill as gideance in their appropriations. To see how it should be done, look at defense. Gore's subcommittee is a laughing stock but nobody laughs at the Armed Services Committee. Gore doesn't pass authorizations, ASC does. Gore is ignored, ASC isn't. >In fact, the real >action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where >Barbara Mikulski is the main player. True enough. That is because Gore's refusal to pass authorizations means that the appropriations has a free hand. This is why Traxler managed to kill NASP and convert it into pork for his district; had Gore done his job, the NASP program (which is far more important that pork for Traxler) would have lived. The House committee under Brown worked hard this year to pass a timely diciplined authorization. This would have gone a long way toward restoring the power of the Authorizers, but Gore couldn't be bothered. I suppose his golf game was more important than doing his job and passing a timely authorization bill. >Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are >relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses >of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO >technology. Not at all. I know lots of people skeptical about SSTO and I respect their opinions. The difference here is that those people have specific technical objections. Pike is different. His objection is: "nothing we have dont to date has reduced costs therefore costs can never be reduced". This shows a person who simply is too close minded to accept new ways of doing things. Putting such a person in charge of the space council at this time would be a disaster. >I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you >would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and On the contrary, we have an extensive track record of the top space policy makers within a Clinton adminstration. I consider that a lot to go on since actions speak louder than words. >2) loose marbles. Get real! Space is not and should not be a big >issue in this Presidential election. for reasons stated above, space should be an issue. It shows how a canidate views the future. >improve their lot while reducing the deficit Clinton going to reduce the deficit? Come on now, nobody actually believes that. Surely you don't? Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------208 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:08:12 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Space Calendar - 09/27/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle,alt.sci.planetary Here's the latest Space Calendar. If you see any updates to the calendar, then please let me know. Note that launch dates are subject to change. ========================= SPACE CALENDAR September 27, 1992 ========================= * indicates change from last month's calendar October 1992 ?? - Galaxy 7 Ariane Launch ?? - UFO Atlas Launch 04 - 35th Anniversary, Sputnik Launch (1st Satellite ever) 05 - Progress Launch (Soviet) 09 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver 15 (TCM-15) 10 - Draconid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 197.0 degrees) *10 - Mars Observer, 1st Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-1) 12 - SETI Scanning Begins 12 - 500th Anniversary, Columbus Discovers America *12-15 - Galileo, Dual Drive Actuator Test #4 (DDA-4) *12 - DFS-3/Kopernikus Delta 2 Launch 15 - STS-52, Columbia, Laser Geodynamics Satellite (LAGEOS-II) 15 - Freja Long March Launch (Sweden/China) 20 - AUSROC II Launch 21 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 208.4 degrees) November 1992 ?? - Superbird A Ariane Launch ?? - Geotail, 2nd Moon Flyby 03 - Southern Taurid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 220.7 degrees) 05 - STS-53, Discovery, Department of Defense (DOD) 07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 6 Launch (Moon Soft Lander) 13 - Northern Taurid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 230.7 degrees) 13 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver 16 (TCM-16) 17 - Leonid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 235.7 degrees) December 1992 ?? - Pioneer Venus Burnup ?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch 08 - Galileo, Earth Flyby 08 - Asteroid 4179 Toutatis, Near Earth Flyby (.025 AU) 10 - Lunar Eclipse 14 - Geminid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 262.0 degrees) 14 - 30th Anniversary, Mariner 2 Venus Flyby (1st Flyby of Another Planet) 19 - 20 years since man has been to the Moon (Apollo 17) 22 - Ursid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 10:00 UT, Solar Longitude 258.7 deg.) 25 - Isaac Newton's 350th birthday (or January 4) January 1993 ?? - Eutelsat II F-5 Ariane Launch 03-4 Quadrantid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 10:00 UT, Solar Lon 283.13 deg.) 07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 7 Launch (Moon Soft Lander) 12 - STS-54, Endeavour, TDRS-F *12 - Mars Observer, High Gain Antenna Deployment *16 - Mars Observer, 2nd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-2) February 1993 ?? - Hispasat 2 Ariane Launch 01 - 35th Anniversary, Explorer 1 Launch (1st U.S. Satellite) 06 - Astro-D Launch (US/Japan) 15 - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch *16 - Mars Observer, 3rd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-3) 18 - Jules Verne's 165th Birthday 18 - STS-55, Columbia, Spacelab Germany (SL-D2) 19 - Copernicus' 520th Birthday March 1993 ?? - SPOT-C Launch ?? - Radcal Scout Launch 01 - Ulysses, 3rd Opposition 11 - STS-56, Endeavour, Atmospheric Lab for Applications and Science (ATLAS-2) April 1993 06 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 11 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission) 22 - Lyrid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 02:00 UT, Solar Longitude 32.1 degrees) 23 - Pi-Puppid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 33.3 degrees) 28 - STS-57, Atlantis, European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA-1R) May 1993 04 - Galileo Enters Asteroid Belt Again 15 - Magellan, End of Mission? June 1993 04 - Lunar Eclipse 14 - Sakigake, 2nd Earth Flyby (Japan) 22 - 15th Anniversary of Charon Discovery (Pluto's Moon) by Christy July 1993 01 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite(ACTS) 29 - NASA's 35th Birthday August 1993 ?? - Seastar Pegasus Launch ?? - ISTP Wind Delta-2 Launch ?? - ETS-VI Launch ?? - GEOS-J Launch ?? - Landsat 6 Launch 08 - 15th Anniversary, Pioneer Venus Orbitor 2 Launch 12 - Perseid Meteor Shower (Max: 04:00 UT, S.L. 139.6 deg and 15:00 UT, S.L. 140.1 deg.) *13 - Mars Observer, 4th Trajectory Correction Manuever (TCM-4) *24 - Mars Observer, Mars Orbit Insertion 25 - STS-58, Columbia, Spacelab Life Sciences (SLS-2) 28 - Galileo, Asteroid Ida Flyby September 1993 Nothing scheduled. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | much. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 12:43:11 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep27.000341.22100@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >>I will judge it to be here when you allow a surgeon to do a heart bypass >>on you by teleoperation with a 1/10 second delay. If you live, we can >>talk about it. >How about brain surgery? Robots, for example the Puma 260 robot arm, >have been doing stereotactic drilling, probe placement, and medicine ... I note that they still have brain surgeons and they still don't seem to have been replaced by robots. However, I'll accept that. You may place whatever equipment you want in the OR. However, no human (except you) is allowed in the room and all inputs and outputs to the room are delayed by 1/10 second. I will allow you to set bandwidth limits but remember, the more you use the less activity telepresence can replace in space. If you think you would survive (even with the Puma 260) with today's technology then you do indeed need brain surgery :-). Personally, I don't think you would survive long enough for them to get to your brain. But if you do survive, then I will agree that for very small levels of activity humans are not needed in space. We can then move on to the limits set by your bandwidth requirements. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------208 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 257 ------------------------------