Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 23 Feb 89 05:17:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 23 Feb 89 05:17:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #256 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 256 Today's Topics: Re: 1992 moon base Re: 1992 moon base Voyager Bulletin Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead ! Re: 1992 moon base Congressional Members and Addresses Voyager Images Synthetic Aperture Radar ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 89 01:09:31 GMT From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base In article <1989Feb17.173746.5590@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <703@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: > >... We can't just dump people in cans and expect > >them to huddle heroically while we try to build a reliable launcher to > >get them back home. We have to give them the tools to not simply > >survive on the moon, but to take it. > > "We can't just dump people in covered wagons and expect them to huddle > heroically while we try to build a railroad to bring them back." I see similarities in the analogy, but important differences. When people know they aren't going back, you can count on a maximum effort, and you might be pleasantly surprised. But comparing the American West to the Moon? Before the White Man "developed" the West, it already boasted a thriving ecosystem supporting a few million people. Game was so insanely plentiful that if you were hungry you had only to step out of the wagon and open fire. Dealing with hostile natives (and they generally were not initially hostile) was usually a fairly simple matter of introducing firewater and European diseases. Weather was a problem, but to get a nice fur coat, you only needed a large-bore rifle and a steady aim. Building materials were plentiful if you could swing an axe, the soil was fertile, the land was free, draft animals were simple to raise... On the moon you have to make everything out of rocks. I need to see those ISS studies (I couldn't find them at the University of Cincinnati libraries). Any references/pointers, anyone? Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 89 22:15:10 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base In article <1989Feb14.171358.17916@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1989Feb13.074530.17504@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >>Wonderful, Henry. Lunar colonies (= a handful of people huddled >>underground) are feasible if you don't have to pay for little things >>like labor, materials or launchers... > >Not quite what I said, which was that a startup lunar colony was very cheap, >and looked feasible *BY 1992*, if most of the big-ticket items were donated. >(As for "a handful of people huddled underground", most of the early colonies >in North America started with not much more, especially after the first >winter.) From "Toward a Permanent Lunar Settlement in the Coming Decade: The Columbus Project" by R. Hyde, M.Y. Ishikawa, and L. Wood: PURPOSEFUL EXISTENCE. The essence of a human settlement is not just to permit people to survive, but to thrive. The lunar settlement must therefore provide for purposeful activity by the settlers, not just huddling in a shelter waiting for ... the time to return to Earth to finally arrive. Exploration and exploitation of the nearby lunar environment, primarily to extend and enrich the settlement, is thus provided for, by both tele- and directly-operated lunar rover-type vehicles... and by lunar soil processing modules. > >>By the way, how many shuttle >>flights per year would be needed for support of this thing? > >This was a *colony*, not a base, meaning no crew rotation and the intent >to be self-sufficient in basic materials essentially at once. ... >-- >The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu The colony was to be self-sustaining for two years, and had its own return capability, so no further flights were required if the colony were to shut down. The total cost was to be $500 million, including 6 shuttle flights "having a current NASA-assigned value of about $240 million" (remember, NASA in those days was pricing Shuttle flights at $40 million each. sigh.) To quote further, To this cost of the hardware base must be added that of the human endeavor to carry out the Project. One peculiarly American way for the necessary effort to be provided would be on a completely volunteer basis from all walks of American life, particularly the technical professional ones. The self-selected portion of what we confidently believe is a huge talent pool committed to an American manned presence in space could clearly carry out the Project on the required time scales, and with magnitudes of ... personal contribution consonant with volunteer effort by professionals holding more-or-less unrelated full time jobs. One can argue that the Columbus Project was overly optimistic, but the authors of the proposal _had_ done their homework. Jordin Kare ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 10:33:50 PDT From: Peter Scott Subject: Voyager Bulletin X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" The following is extracted without permission from the _Voyager Bulletin_, Mission Status Report #84, January 30, 1989, published by NASA at JPL. (Comments in [] are mine.) Update: ------- Voyager 2 is 4.36 billion kilometers (2.71 billion miles) from Earth. Neptune lies 298.95 million kilometers (185.76 million miles) and slightly more than six months ahead. With a velocity of about 18.9 kilometers per second (42,380 miles per hour), Voyager 2 travels over a million miles a day. [...] Encounter Period Overview: -------------------------- The Neptune encounter period will officially begin on June 5, 1989, 81 days before Voyager 2's closest approach to Neptune. The first 62 days are called the "observatory" phase, and will consist of continuous observations of the Neptunian system and numerous pre-encounter calibrations (checkouts) of Voyager 2's instruments. Science observations will include repeated scans across the entire Neptunian system with the ultraviolet spectrometer to look for neutral hydrogen and excited ions. The imaging cameras will monitor long-term atmospheric motion on the planet and search for ring arcs and satellites. A trajectory correction maneuver is scheduled for August 1. On August 6, 19 days before closest approach, the "far encounter" phase will begin. By then, at least two narrow-angle camera frames will be required to capture the entire planet and the ring-arc region. Satellite observations, detailed ring observations, and infrared observations of Neptune will begin. [...] The "near encounter" period, from August 24 to August 29, will contain all of the highest value Neptune science, including a distant look at tiny Nereid, a close swing over Neptune's north pole, and a close look at Triton, as well as characterization of Neptune's magnetic field and searches for possible ring arcs and other satellites. Voyager 2 will pass about 4,850 kilometers (3,000 miles) above the cloudtops of Neptune at about 76 degrees north latitude. This will be Voyager 2's closest approach to any object in the Solar System since it left Earth nearly 12 years ago. Voyager 2's aimpoint at Neptune has been carefully chosen to bend the flight path sharply below the equator again, where Voyager 2 will intercept Neptune's large moon Triton at a distance of about 40,000 kilometers (25,000 miles) five hours after the spacecraft's closest approach to Neptune. [...] New News about the Neptunian System: ------------------------------------ The imminent encounter with Neptune has sparked increased Earth-based observations of Neptune's system, and some of the information is summarized below. Neptune: Using the Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) at Mauna Kea, Dr. Heidi Hammel of JPL has detected discrete cloud features moving across the disk of Neptune as the planet rotates. These features are clearly visible at 6190 Angstroms, the same wavelength as the methane-band filter on Voyager's wide-angle camera. As Voyager 2 gets closer to Neptune, these features should become apparent in Voyager images. Dr. Hammel also reports that clouds at 38 degrees south latitude have a roation period of 17 hours, while at 30 degrees south latitude the rotation period is 17.7 hours. In addition, she reports a deep haze (down to an atmospheric pressure of about 100 millibars) at the south pole, and a higher haze (down to about 50 millibars) at the north pole and in the northern hemisphere. Spectrophotometry observations indicate that Neptune may have a three-layer cloud structure of icy hydrocarbons, a thin methane haze, and a hydrogen sulfide cloud [thereby qualifying it as the most obnoxious-smelling planet in the Solar System]. [...] Triton: Estimates of Triton's size are shrinking as some researchers now believe that the largest diameter that Triton could have is about 4,000 km (2,500 mi). Judging from light reflected by Triton, the satellite's temperature may be about 52 K for a diameter of 3760 +/- 780 km (2340 +/- 480 mi). [...] Rings? And finally, the question of Neptunian rings remains open. Out of 110 observed occultations of stars by Neptune, only 8 occultations produced effects that could be attributed to rings or ring arcs near Neptune. Small satellites shepherding ring particles at Neptune could be as small as 10 km (6 mi) in diameter at distances of a few hundred kilometers. And, going far out on a limb, simulations show that polar rings around Neptune would be stable [sheesh!]. [...] Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 89 18:53:36 GMT From: mcvax!kth!osiris!sics!bruno@uunet.uu.net (Bruno Poterie) Subject: Re: French small space shuttle: A go ahead ! In article jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: > [... news about Hermes] > *Beware ! Europe (beside England) is waking up !* You should care about your titles: Hermes is a *European* project, backed up by the ESA. Your national pride, although comprehensible, gives a strange idea of Europe to the locals on your side of the Atlantic: France first Great Britain never Germany sometimes Believe me - a *lot of* subjects of H.G.M. are pro-Europe, including most of their companies. It is actually Tatcher and Co who give the impression that UK wants to remain out of the game. So _please_ do not confuse the UK as a whole with the attitude of the British government. [Personal note: Ne prend surtout pas ca pour un ordre, simplement je pense qu'une attitude plus positive envers nos voisins d'outre-Manche avancera davantage le schmilblick tant spatial qu'europe'en. Il y a d'ailleurs en ce moment sur ce sujet une discussion tres inte'ressante dans eunet.politics, dommage que tu ne puisses pas la suivre.] And *for once* i may share some of Tatcher's fears: The Hermes project is more the result of national/european pride and political motives than the outcome of a real need. It will be dependant on a heavy and expensive booster, and will be redundant with the American and Soviet shuttles. In order to use it with reasonnable costs, we would need as well a sort of vehicle to put it outside the Earth' attraction, at least high enough outside the atmosphere (like a wind-glider is put in position by a small plane). But this project is not going to be implemented abny time soon. So... It is time we stop spending too much money on expensive projects, when those costs could be shared between all (and i mean, all space-faring entities). Military/civil control would be the major problem i believe, but there should be a way to work that out. *Beware* is therefore a ill-choosen word. Why not try this line: *Hello* America & Russia, Europe is there and ready to cooperate! -- Bruno Poterie, IM, Kista, Suede email: bruno@inmic.se ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 89 20:43:24 GMT From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base One additional problem with the shuttle (vs. the Saturn V) is that a lunar vehicle launched by the shuttle must use solid or storable propellant rockets to leave earth orbit, rather than oxygen/hydrogen, unless you are proposing to refuel in orbit with propellants launched by something other than the shuttle. If a shuttle can carry 27 tons and we use storable propellants with an Isp of 300 to inject to and land on the moon, then six shuttle flights lets us land about 21 tons on the moon (including the dry mass of the landing vehicle). Question: what was the mass and payload capacity of the LEM? Henry argued for the lunar colony not needing to be totally independent by asking (rhetorically) what communities on Earth are independent. I do not think the comparison is fair, because transportation costs to any community on Earth, even in Antarctica, are far lower (by orders of magnitude) than the cost to the moon. Therefore, we'd expect an "Earth colony" to be much more dependent on imports than an economically viable lunar colony. I noted with interest that the quotes from the document describing the moon base mentioned teleoperated rovers. This is a wonderful idea. I assume the teleoperation is from Earth. If so, isn't their use independent of whether a manned base is set up? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 89 00:06:30 GMT From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!tank!nucsrl!accuvax.nwu.edu!lentz@rutgers.edu (Rob Lentz) Subject: Congressional Members and Addresses Hello, Since we have all these wonderful ideas and opinions about what should (and what is going to) be done with/in the space program I was wondering if there was anybody who could post the new congressional members of the various committees (and just plain influential positions) that deal with space/science. This would be especially helpful with Quayle's report coming up and all the dire consequences people are forecasting. Or has the list not changed at all since last year? Thank you. Robert Lentz Internet: lentz@accuvax.acns.nwu.edu Bitnet: lentz@nuacc UUCP: {gargoyle,chinet}!nucsrl!accuvax!lentz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "How can you be a man, til you see beyond the life you live?" -Boston, "What Does It Take To Be a Man?" _Third Stage_ ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 89 19:36:03 GMT From: romeo!currier@cs.duke.edu (Bob Currier - DCAC Network Comm. Specialist) Subject: Voyager Images Does anyone know if the Voyager images are available to the public? If so, can they be obtained in machine-readable format, i.e. 9 track tape, or better yet, by anonymous FTP? For that matter, are there *ANY* images available free of charge, or for a modest fee that can be had for experimentation with image processing? We want to use our new NeXt box to play with the images... Bob |============================================================================| | La prima parola della guerra e pronunciata | | dal cannone ma l'ultima e sempre detta dal pane. | | | | Robert D. Currier | | Duke University currier@romeo.cs.duke.edu | | Department of Network Communications | |============================================================================| ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 89 01:00:05 GMT From: Portia!hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) Subject: Synthetic Aperture Radar I attended a seminar here recently about the devastating Sept, 1985 earthquake in Mexico (the one that showed why it is not a good idea to have highly populated flimsy buildings on top of jello). In order to predict how often you can expect such an earthquake, it is useful to know how much the ground actually statically moves during one. In California, for example, they do "we expect 5cm / 1 year movement on the San Andreas, the 1906 earthquake moved 21 feet, so expect an Earthquake like that every 120 years or so". Unfortunately, they lamented at the seminar that in Mexico there HAS NEVER BEEN A GEODETIC SURVEY! (For some reason the English and all English-influenced cultures are big on drawing straight lines on the ground, while Spanish-influenced cultures are not.) So although they suspect there was a large static ground motion, they really don't know how much there was. The question is, is there some way to CHEAPLY measure such ground motions (on the order of a meter or two) from space? We had a professor here a year ago (Fabio Rocca from Italy) who used Stolt migration of SeaSat data from two passes over Death Valley to create "interference fringes". The result clearly showed elevation changes of ~6cm in the very flat Death Valley floor. So it seems it should be possible. I asked him about it, and he said if you wanted to be accurate you'd probably need to lay out a grid of Radar corner reflectors. These would be half-cubes of metal about ~1m on a side. Should be cheap. So, questions: 1) Would countries like Mexico be amenable? Would the DOD be amenable? 2) Is there going to be a SAR equivalent to LandSat anytime soon, that seismologists could use to measure relative displacements of their corner reflectors? 3) Who would be in charge of actually setting up such a thing? The USGS? NASA? A University? 4) Has it already been done anywhere? How did it work? Enquiring minds want to know... \ /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ \ / \ / \ /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___ \/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #256 *******************