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, 4 May 89 05:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 4 May 89 05:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #408 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 408 Today's Topics: Re: Magellan update Re: Smart Pebbles Re: STS-30 Dial-A-Shuttle Press Releas Magellan update Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!) Upcoming Launches effects of space Re: Private Space Companies Private spending for space science Re: SPACE Digest V9 #404 Re: Smart Pebbles Re: Smart Pebbles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 May 89 19:27:59 GMT From: jpl-devvax!leem@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) Subject: Re: Magellan update In article <890501150357.00001B116B1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: :This is most of the text of a recorded announcement made available to JPL :employees: : : :This is the JPL broadcast news service prepared at 2pm PDT, Sunday April 30. : :Since Friday's launch attempt the Magellan spacecraft and the attached IUS :booster have remained in the payload bay of Atlantis. : :The Magellan receiver lockup observed after the MYLAR [?] tracking station ^^^^^ :[Launch has been rescheduled for Thursday since this recording.] : :Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) That's MILA or MIL71, the Merritt Island Tracking Station which tracks the launch vehicle and payload receiving the telemetry and transmitting the uplink commands. Except for the antenna, it is pretty much like the GSTDN or DSN stations that do all of the orbital ( that TDRS does not) and deep space tracking. Lee "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759 |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA| |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 | |UUCP: {ames!cit-vax,psivax}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem | |ARPA: jpl-devvax!leem!@cit-vax.ARPA -or- leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV | ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 04:38:36 GMT From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Neal Woodall) Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles In article <1989Apr28.151108.15074@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes: >>See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble? >Yeah, it looked really neat. Just one question: What's the difference >between the smart pebble concept and placing smart interceptor >missiles in orbit? Not much, as far as I can discern. The "smart rocks" or "brilliant pebbles" are basically just kinetic-energy-kill devices, which rely on their on-board computers for guidance and target acquisition and discrimination. What I think is the most foolish aspect is the idea that each "brilliant pebble" will be on "automatic" when it is in orbit, deciding on its own what to attack and what to leave alone. With tens of thousands in orbit, there seems to be too much chance of error. >Is this anything like the Thor idea (ala Footfall)? (Use rockets for aiming, >but rely on gravity for acceleration.) I was under the impression that Thor was ment to attack ground based targets, but the kinetic-kill idea was similar. Neal ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 14:22:03 GMT From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: STS-30 Dial-A-Shuttle Press Releas In article <246900023@cdp> jordankatz@cdp.UUCP writes: > >CONTACT: For Immediate Release >Leonard David >David Brandt > Dial-A-Shuttle Update: > STARS ON EARTH BRING YOU OUR STARS IN SPACE > [stuff deleted] Remember, that if you live near any of the NASA installations, they'll probably be broadcasting the shuttle communications on some of the ham radio channels. You may want to invest in a cheap police scanner and monitor this yourself, without the nitwit commentary from Hollywood stars. In the South Bay Area, the Ames Research Center Amateur Radio Club will be transmitting the audio on a frequency of 145.58 mhz. We've had reports of reception as far south as King city and up beyond Marin. The radio clubs for JPL, Goddard and Johnson likewise perform a similar service. And I wouldn't be surprised if clubs in non-NASA areas were doing the same thing by picking up the audio from the NASA Select satellite channel. I myself pipe the audio through my stereo for the "true space experience" :-) mike P.S. Anyone figure out why NASA was broadcasting video from the on pad camera "134" on Telstar 301? *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick*** "Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 May 89 11:22:13 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Magellan update X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" Latest Magellan update recording, as of 4:30 pm PDT Monday May 1st: [Repeat of new launch date/time and weather info] The delay actually enhances the mission by making a propellant savings of at least 5 kg of hydrazine possible [hydrazine is used for trajectory correction maneuvers and attitude control]. There are a total of 133 kg hydrazine on board Magellan. The reason for the savings on propellant is that with the later launch date the path to Venus is more direct, resulting in fewer TCMs. For each 2kg of hydrazine saved, one complete Venus mapping cycle (which lasts for 243 earth days) is possible; thus a savings of 5 kg could allow for 2 more complete mapping cycles, or almost 2 more years (607.5 days) of mission science. Joe Cutting, mission design manager, stated that it is possible that not all of this extra hydrazine will be used to extend space science; it could be used for attitude control on the way. [Explanation of how lack of propellant results in loss of radio contact] Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 07:13:05 GMT From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John McKernan) Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!) In article <23748@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >In article <10707@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes: >> Why don't you >>speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily >>spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such. > >Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already >spending money on their own launch systems. The primary obstacle to >further investment in space systems and services is the central planning >of "The Space Program" at NASA. The situation will only change when >people stop perpetuating the myth that no one but NASA has enough money. You failed to notice that the piece of my posting you quote above specifies spending for planetary probes and manned space R&D. No private effort is spending significant amounts of money in these areas, and no organization with hundreds of millions of dollars let alone billions shows any prospect of doing so in the short term future. Furthermore the companies you refer to above are selling launch services using technology developed at government expense. It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with government money or something similar. I agree that NASA is EXTREMELY wasteful, and that its GOVERNMENT money could be much more efficiently spent (possibly by getting rid of most of NASA and using simple nonmilitary style contracts with provisions that force the return of money if the hardware doesn't deliver). John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems before it butts in with tomorrow's. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 21:01:22 GMT From: opus!dante!dbirnbau@lanl.gov (David Birnbaum) Subject: Upcoming Launches Can anyone tell me how to find out a launch schedule for June at Kennedy Space Center? I'll be in Florida from June 1 to 4, and I'd like to see a launch if at all possible. Thanks. David Birnbaum "It shouldn't suprise anyone when the Small Systems, Computer Center net messes up; the suprise is that New Mexico State University it works at all! Find me at: dbirnbau@nmsu.edu VTIS001@NMSUVM1.BITNET /dev/null ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 14:54:33 GMT From: srcsip!m2!leilaj@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Leila Johannesen) Subject: effects of space I'm interested in finding out about any recent American or Soviet studies on deconditioning/psychomotor effects of space, particularly as they might affect astronauts' operation of the spacecraft. Can anyone refer me to a source, or does anyone know of any such studies? Thanks, Leila Johannesen ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 15:54:03 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Private Space Companies In article <3930@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> larryb@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Larry Brader) writes: >How much of Arianne is private? Does Europe have any totally private >space outfits? Very little; essentially none. European spaceflight is even more tied up with governments than it is hereabouts. There has been discussion of some private projects in Europe, but nothing's happened. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 May 89 13:39:02 EDT From: John Roberts 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: Private spending for space science >From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) >In article <10707@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes >> Why don't you >>speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily >>spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such. >Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already >spending money on their own launch systems. The primary obstacle to >further investment in space systems and services is the central planning >of "The Space Program" at NASA. The situation will only change when >people stop perpetuating the myth that no one but NASA has enough money. I don't think anyone here is seriously questioning the anticipated ability of private companies to handle routine launches into earth orbit of paying government payloads, communications/remote sensing satellites, commercial microgravity research packages, and other "sure-fire" moneymakers. The problem arises with projects that are almost certain to lose money (spinoffs aside) in the short run (extraterrestrial human habitation), and in the long run (Voyager, Galileo, HST, Magellan, and other "knowledge-oriented" programs). It could be argued that nothing that doesn't promise a near-term profit should be attempted, but I (and many others) happen to feel that there are a considerable number of possible space-related projects which could have a substantial benefit to humanity that one would not expect to be reflected in a profit by the organization that undertakes them. Many of these projects are affordable from the viewpoint of the government, but not from the view of private industry, since they would reflect a net loss larger than an individual corporation is normally willing to take. Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own expense in the next 20 years? (I can, but there are some undesirable side effects.) John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 May 1989 17:35-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #404 > "Hi. We're from the planet Kolob and we'd like you to ask yourself if > you died right now, are you sure you would go to dimension 5? If you're not > sure, we have some free information pills we'd like to leave with you. > We're sure you would find them very interesting and tasty." If they WERE any good, I'm certain Nancy Reagan would mess her diapers trying to get people to just say NO.... :-) ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 04:31:31 GMT From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Neal Woodall) Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles In article <3761@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes: >See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble? >That looked _NEAT_!!!!! That thing sitting there bursting its jets holding >a hover was slick!!! I agree....even though I think that most of the money spent on SDI will turn out to be a waste in the end, this kind of piqued my interest. I wonder where one can get a copy of the video tape of the test? The thing becomes really cool when you remember that it was dynamically balanced in real time...there seemed to be one main motor that held the mass up, and several smaler motors that provided balance/vector-thrust. Does anyone have any idea as to what kind of motors the thing uses? They must be some kind of throttleable liquid fueled motor. I wonder how much fuel the thing can carry and how long it can remain aloft in the air.....riding on a larger version might be quite fun! >Watch the nets around it... Yes, I couldn't tell if the nets were being burned through or not. >(hear the crowd in the background?) I would be pretty damn happy too....this kind of success means that they will undoubtedly get major funding, and more toys to play with. Of course, I am not so sure of the wisdom of the program itself, unless there are also major changes in the US nuclear policy as a whole to accompany the deployment of SDI (and what about the foolishness of having tens or thousands of these things in orbit, all acting on their own....does anyone see any RISKs involved here.....? Neal ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 89 08:23:08 GMT From: blake!sealion@beaver.cs.washington.edu (sealion) Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles [sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu ] >> The film shows the first full-bore laboratory test of what is sometimes >> referred to as a "smart bullet". The space based weapon is designed to >> eliminate it's target (ICBMs) through high speed collision during the >> boost and mid-course phases of flight. [mstuard@ace.cs.OHIOU.EDU] > If this is to be a space based weapon why would there be ground based test > of this nature. I would think that the manuverability and acceleration > requirements would be different in orbit than in a 1g atmospheric situation. > We know that it can accelerate at at least 1g and is quite manuverable > (based on the apparent stability during the hoverv) but what real data about > its capabilities in orbit can be determined in this test. Good question. I would assume there was an emphasis on the tracking abilities of the vehical. Interesting Note: According to United Press Int., "SDI officials said the test cost $ 500,000, about 1 percent of what it would have cost to test the device in space. The reusable device itself cost $3 million." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." || - Jeremy S. Anderson 12/15/88 #include sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #408 *******************