Message-ID: <IY9UHmy00UkZMBOU4-@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 03:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #302

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 302

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SSI Lunar Probe
		 Re: Space station & stone-age units
			      Re: Sanger
			      Re: Sanger
			 Shuttle Experiments
		       Statistics and astrology
			    US/USSR costs
   New earthquake faults discovered with Landsat images (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 17:41:31 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: SSI Lunar Probe

In article <101270005@hpcvlx.HP.COM> gvg@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Greg Goebel) writes:
>SSI has several proposals for a Lunar Polar Probe.  By far the most interesting
>is one that would be launched from the Space Shuttle -- carried into orbit as a
>"getaway special" (GAS) cargo.
[....]
>The LGAS probe would be ejected from the Shuttle; then it would deploy its
>solar panels and begin a slow spiral away from the Earth that would place it
>into lunar polar orbit in about two years' time.

Well, if they don't get bending metal soon they'll be beaten to it.

The March 1989 issue of "Spaceflight", on page 83, reports
that the Soviets (who else?) intend to launch a probe called
"Luna '92" to map the lunar surface including the polar
regions to a resolution of a few metres.

The craft will be based on the basic design and systems of
the Phobos spacecraft and will carry cameras, gamma and
x-ray spectrometers, an infra-red spectrometer and a
magnetometer.

And on looking for volatiles on the Moon.

A TV Science programmme in the UK (The Sky at Night) last
week mentioned that a greek scientist has produced firm
evidence for the so-called Transient Lunar Phenomenon (TLPs).

He has taken a series of photographs which show what appears
to be a temporary bright cloud of material in a crater.

Examination of the camera and photographs appear to rule out
optical effects.

Some people believe TLPs to be the outgassing of volatile
substances like water from deep below the Moon's surface.

Comments?
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 89 17:19:59 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space station & stone-age units

In article <4400@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for
>technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them 
>as an international standard.   Nobody commented on this.  On second
>thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA.
>...Is there any move now to standardize
>... user-interface criteria, so that it's possible to build one probe
>and (in theory) fly it on whatever carrier has the best deal/time frame/
>service?  

Ha ha.  Ho ho.  You really think there are standards within NASA and ESA?
It is to laugh, pretty much.  The only place where anything is standardized
is in places where multiple interchangeable parts absolutely have to exist,
notably modules for space stations.  It's not a question of reconciling
three standards, it's a question of reconciling dozens.

On the specific question of man-capable docking ports, things aren't so
bad.  There are only two or three standards for that.  The US space
station standard is probably the best for the users, although it's not
ideal for the vehicle designers (it's big).

There has been talk of international standards for manned-spacecraft
docking ports, but so far it's all just talk.

>It seems pointless to establish three separate sets of standards for 
>simple matters that will become very important to clients building 
>commercial space packages - different types of onboard power, different
>docking hardware, oddball connections, materials with dissimilar ratings
>and physical characteristics

Things like power may be hopelessly irreconcilable.  The US is hell-bent
on its insane 20kHz power system for its space station, and nobody in
their right mind will adopt that.  Certainly the Soviets won't; they
prefer cheap hardware that works.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 05:35:17 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Sanger

>This seems like a better idea than HOTOL or NASP: no need to take the
>entire vehicle to orbit or to make the first stage capable of flight
>at extreme hypersonic speeds.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

If I'm not mistaken, the original concept for the space shuttle called for
a manned, reusable plane to carry the shuttle to an altitude from which it
could make orbit by itself.  The solid-rocket boosters were a cost-saving
plan when the budget got cut.

Wouldn't a re-activiation of this design objective be one of the least
costly and most safe ways of turning our technological duckling into a
technological swan?

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 89 17:17:39 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sanger

In article <78@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>... Still, air launch does promise something--I read that OSC's
>Pegasus gains about 15% in usable payload by air launch at Mach 0.8. 

As I recall, the velocity is a relatively minor consideration -- it's
the altitude that helps Pegasus significantly.  (It might be different
if a hypersonic carrier aircraft were available, but none is.)

>Just imagine the gain if they had an XB-70 to launch from... :-) :-) :-)

At least one study for a successor to the X-15 was figuring on using an
XB-70 launch.  This pretty much died when the second XB-70, the one of
choice for this job for some reason, got wiped out in a mid-air collision.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 16 Mar 89 12:36:45 EDT
From: Eric Wallis <347DODT%CMUVM.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Shuttle Experiments

With all of NASA's budget cuts and cost overruns doesn't it seem a little(?)
ridiculous for our astronauts to be WASTING valuable time, and consequently
money, performing such useless activities as studying chicken egg embryo
developement and rat leg healing. Grante in the (much) distant future we
could gain valuable, aplicable, knowledge... but for now don't you think
this time and money could be used for more practicle, usefull purposes?
                          Respectfully,
                          Eric Wallis
                          Central Michigan University

=========================================================================
347DODT @ CMUVM.BITNET  * " May fortune favor   * " Houston, we have
ERIC E. WALLIS          *   the foolish...      * a negative on that
NO MORE BURRITOS!!!!!   * -- Admiral James T.   * orbit trajectory..."
CENTRAL MICH UNIV       *    Kirk ( NCC- 1701)  * --- Calvin and Hobbes
=========================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 23:44:50 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Statistics and astrology


>>It is in the nature of statistical evidence that it is hard to make an
>>absolutely final case, but this study would have to be a disappointment to
>>anyone seeking evidence for astrology.
>>Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists,
>>jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
>>1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
>What, pray tell, is the model for any of these planets having anything to
>do with base hits?
>Why would anyone waste time testing a theory without a model? Why not
>test for correlations with the insect population for that year? Or the
>average age of the guests on the Ed Sullivan show? Or, etc, etc....
>I'd be more interested in things like the effect of temperature, humidity
>or morning breakfasts on base hits....:-) 
>    Paul K. Rodman 
>    rodman@mfci.uucp

The forces described by astrology may not have any significant effect on
humanity, but the institution of astrology does have a strong influence.
It effects the views of a large part of the population toward science and
logical thought. The wife of a recent president scheduled important
government actions and decisions based on the predictions of an astrologer
(Read "Stranger in a Strange Land"). The Ed Sullivan worshippers, if there
are any, have much less influence on human society. Since astrology makes
claims about the future, its validity can be tested to some extent by
statistical analysis. In particular, it is plausible to infer that base
hits, which are of great personal importance to professional players, ought
to be influenced by the "astrological forces", as shown by correlation with
some astrological phenomenon, if these forces indeed have considerable
influence over human existence, as claimed by the astrologers. (The test
is more valid if it is established in advance that the players are unaware
of any astrological predictions while they play.) If someone is willing
to undertake this job at his own expense, it would appear that he is
performing a valuable service.

A similar experiment was performed a year or two ago, to determine whether
a specific cryogenic treatment would improve the mechanical properties of
tool steel. Test subjects used treated and untreated tools, without knowing
which was which, with the net result that no significant improvement was
found. Assuming test conditions were properly controlled, I would consider
this a legitimate scientific inquiry.

By the way, the moon, by providing variable illumination at night and
influencing the tides, has a demonstrable influence on animal and human
activity, on a month-by-month basis.
                                       John Roberts
                                       roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 22:53:33 EST
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: US/USSR costs


>    I find it interesting in the middle of the manned vs unmanned debat here
>the Soviets maintain a continously crewed space station while sending at 
>the same time their most complicated interplanetary mission to Mars.  Maybe
>we should learn a bit from their style of space operations.
 
>                                                      Glenn Chapman
>                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab

One thing I would like to learn about the Soviet space program is how much
it costs. I have seen numerous postings on the net comparing the American
and Soviet space programs, but never a solid attempt to estimate the
actual cost to the Soviets of a specific launch or of their entire space
program. It is probable that the cost to launch a person into orbit is
less than that of the US, but by how much? I suspect that the quoted price
of $10 million for a launch is heavily subsidized. There are at least three
plausible incentives for maintaining an artificially low rate:
 - Prestige: It is politically valuable to be able to claim that you can
     conduct a manned launch for only $10 million.
 - Foreign Exchange: The USSR has only a limited supply of Western currency
     for the purchase of food, technology, and military secrets (at bargain
     rates). Thus a US dollar can be considerably more useful to the Soviets
     than its exchange equivalent in rubles.
 - Economies of scale: The ability to maintain a high volume of launches
     and to accelerate the learning curve (and possibly to discourage the
     competition) can make it economically attractive to sell products or
     services for less than the actual cost. This has been a favorite
     Japanese strategy for years.

Similarly, the Energiya is a fine booster, and has enjoyed two demonstration
launches, but this does not guarantee that it is not fabulously expensive
to build and launch.

To reiterate my main point, I have seen many *qualitative* comparisons
of the costs of the Soviet and American space programs, with the general
"feel" that the Soviet program is more cost-efficient, but unless there
is a reasonable estimate of the actual numbers, a *quantitative* 
comparison is impossible, and the usefulness of any resultant analysis
is severely limited.
                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 89 03:43:08 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: New earthquake faults discovered with Landsat images (Forwarded)

Charles Redmond
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.               March 15, 1989

Mary Hardin
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 

RELEASE: 89-33

NEW EARTHQUAKE FAULTS DISCOVERED WITH LANDSAT IMAGES


     Several previously unknown geological faults, some of which 
may be active, have been discovered in the central and eastern 
Mojave Desert in California by geologists at NASA's Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., and Louisiana 
State University analyzing images from an Earth-orbiting Landsat 
satellite. 

     The strike-slip faults were identified by images taken by 
the Thematic Mapper (TM) instrument on Landsat 5, which obtains 
images simultaneously in seven bands at optical and infrared 
wavelengths.  Scientists used the TM images as a "map" which 
pointed them in the right direction to locate and confirm the 
faults in the field.

     JPL's Dr. John Ford, who helped locate and verify the faults 
in the field, said that "without Thematic Mapper images we would 
not have found the faults and TM images may enable us to find 
many more unmapped faults in the Mojave."

     The newly observed faults are located in and near the 
unpopulated Bristol Mountains and Cady Mountains.  Scientists 
have determined that the faults in the Bristol Mountains are 
overlain by unconsolidated alluvial fan debris (gravel) and are 
probably inactive.  In contrast, faults lying to the west (Cady 
Mountains) cut all deposits and are seismically active.   The 
faults all form part of a complex regional network of right-slip 
faults that run between the Death Valley region and the San 
Andreas Fault System.

     The newly observed faults are much smaller and less active 
than the San Andreas Fault but they all show evidence of a strike 
slip, Ford said.  During an earthquake, movement on a strike-slip 
fault is dominantly horizontal and parallel to the trend of the 
fault.  Scientists are now trying to determine how the newly 
observed faults fit into the regional structure in this part of 
the Earth's crust.

     The faults add new pieces to the geological puzzle of how 
the Death Valley Fault zone and the San Andreas Fault system are 
related in space and time.  The presence of these newly observed 
faults indicates that there are other yet-to-be discovered faults 
in the area.

     The research is being conducted by geologists, Dr. John P. 
Ford, Dr. Robert E. Crippen and Dr. Ronald G. Blom of JPL and 
Professor Roy K. Dokka of the Department of Geology and 
Geophysics, Louisiana State University.

     The project is funded by NASA's Land Processes Branch of the 
Office of Space Science and Applications, Washington, D.C.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #302
*******************