Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from corsica.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 ; Sat, 29 Jul 89 03:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 03:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #565 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 565 Today's Topics: Re: Moonwalk CBS Apollo Special (was Re: Moonwalk) Re: Rockets NASA, Canadians to fly plasma experiment on OMV mission (Forwarded) Re: (none) Write those Letters to the Editor Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jul 89 19:17:20 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!leem@apple.com (Lee Mellinger) Subject: Re: Moonwalk In article <2280@orion.cf.uci.edu> dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Doug Krause) writes: :Also, how did the camera that was left behind on the Moon track the :top of the Eagle taking off? and how did they get THAT reel of film :back? :Douglas Krause CA Prop i: Ban Gummie Bears(tm)! The picture that they showed of the Lunar Ascent Module taking off was from Apollo 17. The picture was sent directly to the Apollo and Deep Space Network stations by a transmitter left on the surface of the Moon. Lee "I'm the NRA" "...I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." -- John F. Kennedy 1960, NRA Life Member. |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 |{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 89 17:27:32 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: CBS Apollo Special (was Re: Moonwalk) In article <8983@chinet.chi.il.us> john@chinet.chi.il.us (John Mundt) writes: >I am disturbed that no one felt the need to explain that most of the pretty >color pictures were from the lunar rover's cameras on later flights. Yeah, they used a lot of space footage that wasn't from Apollo 11 without attribution. >Also, CBS's coverage spent most of its time showing the trivial things >being done at the same time as Apollo 11, rather than mission activities. >If I'd have wanted to see a horse being broken, I'd have checked out a >John Wayne movie! Well, I was dubious about this when I read the program description, but after watching it I liked it a lot. The special's focus was obviously Apollo 11, but they were also showing a video time capsule of what was happening in the US during the mission to the moon. I was impressed that twenty years ago a network news division felt such an obligation to history that they would send 40 crews out around the US to film everyday life during that week in 1969 -- and not broadcast it until 1989. They wouldn't do that today, and that says as much about what has happened in 20 years as the footage itself. -- "Good. For a minute I thought we were in trouble." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 89 18:35:15 GMT From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj!myers@hplabs.hp.com (Bob Myers) Subject: Re: Rockets >A friend of my and I we both plan to build a tiny rocket in our spacetime, >but we don't actually have a plan for doing it. May I offer two words which will be of immense help in making sure that your efforts in rocketry begin along a safe, reasonable path? These words are: Estes Industries. If you really want to get involved in some form of rocketry, to learn about rocket propulsion, aerodymanics, or whatever, there is no better way to start than through *model* rocketry (as opposed to "amateur", i.e., build-yer-own- engines, rocketry). Model rockets are not toys, and one can both learn a lot and have a whole lot of fun in this hobby. You might also want to contact the National Association of Rocketry (NAR), model rocketry's governing body in the U.S., for the name and address of an NAR-affiliated group near you. Trying to build your own rockets - including engines, etc. - is at best risky, and there is absolutely no need for this sort of thing. If a model rocket with an "F" or "G" engine doesn't give you a big enough thrill, then you should still consider alternatives which are safer than roll-your-own - such as skateboarding with nitroglycerine-filled kneepads in a gravel pit. Bob Myers | "Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of - myers%hpfcla@hplabs. | but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards." hp.com | - Lazarus Long/Robert A. Heinlein ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 89 16:26:30 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA, Canadians to fly plasma experiment on OMV mission (Forwarded) James Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. John M. Dumoulin Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. RELEASE: 89-112 NASA, CANADIANS TO FLY PLASMA EXPERIMENT ON OMV MISSION NASA is planning to fly a Canadian experiment to measure the behavior of radio waves in space and properties of the upper atmosphere, the ionosphere, during the demonstration flight of the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV), according to a proposal recently agreed to by the Canadian Space Agency. The ionosphere layer causes reflection of shortwave radio signals and therefore, allows global communications. It also is the region that first begins to filter solar radiation that could be harmful to life on Earth. The maiden voyage of the OMV, a remotely controlled, reusable "space tug" designed to perform a number of tasks including maneuvering other spacecraft on orbit, is currently scheduled for launch aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1993. Its payload will be a 3-part, high-frequency radio wave experiment called Waves in Space Plasma (WISP-HF). Developed by the National Research Council of Canada, the experiment will measure the interaction of an antenna with the tenuous upper atmosphere that has been transformed into a plasma -- a gas of charged particles -- by sunlight. This layer is called the ionosphere. This interaction will be measured close to the antenna. WISP-HF will study the propagation of radio waves through the ionosphere within a few miles or so of the antenna and then make measurements with the OMV up to 60 miles from the orbiter to clarify the scale structure and behavior of the ionosphere. WISP-HF is the high-frequency portion of a collaborative U.S.-Canadian investigation that was scheduled to be flown on one of the first space plasma laboratory missions in the l990s. These missions were delayed due to the Challenger accident. Flight of the WISP-HF hardware on the OMV-1 mission will accomplish many of the original science objectives while requiring only limited modification to the hardware. By operating the transmitter at heights near the maximum density of the ionosphere, radio waves will be sent directly or bounced between the orbiter and WISP/HF receiver aboard OMV-1. Instruments aboard the orbiter and OMV-1 will monitor disturbances in ionospheric plasma. The WISP-HF equipment will generate, receive and process signals in the 0.1- to 30-MHz range. The orbiter-based transmitter will have variable pulse-power levels up to 500 watts and will use a dipole antenna, 164 feet tip-to-tip. WISP-HF receivers will be located both on the orbiter and on OMV-1. During its checkout, the OMV-1, remotely controlled from the ground, will be flown as far from the orbiter as 60 miles. The OMV project, WISP-HF mission integration and hardware for integrating the WISP-HF to the OMV-1 will be managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 89 17:54:35 GMT From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com (Greg Goebel) Subject: Re: (none) / hpcvlx:sci.space / hess@FERMAT.MAYO.EDU (d. scott hess) / 12:26 pm Jul 7, 1989 / Subject: RE: Re: Vaguely space related queries ( and then some) Arnold Gill writes: }Will Martin asked several questions, which got various responses, some }of which were rather dubious attempts at physics. } }>1) Regarding X-ray astronomy -- the X-ray detectors must be placed into space, }> [ stuff deleted about atmosphere X-ray absorption ] } }Henry Spencer, among others, gave the correct answer. The }atmosphere is actually opaque at all but visible wavelengths (plus a few }others). The penetrability of ANY type of radiation has little to do }with the density of the matter by itself, but rather with ALL of the }properties of the matter, of which density is only one. Remember: It is no coincidence that the light getting throught the atmosphere happens to pretty much fall in the set that we can see easily. Its not that surprising that all the others are outside the visible spectrum, because if they came through well, they'd more than likely also be in the visible spectrum. }>5) Neutronium and similar compressed matter -- is there any theoretical There were a couple good books by Robert L. Forward, Dragons Egg, and Neutron Star. They are fiction, but he's pretty good with his science. The electrons do get pretty much free rein in a neuron star - who's to slow them down? Its my impression that neutronium isn't a solid, but more like a liquid. There isn't really anything holding the neutrons together, besides gravity. Its sort of like a planet made up of billiard balls. But then again, I didn't get all that far in physics, so take this with a grain of salt. Later, same issue, Tom Neff has (in reply to Henry Spencer): }> General Dynamics, }>Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Arianespace, etc., will scream bloody }>murder, hire lobbyists, and start talking excitedly to Congressthings, }>because they simply can't do it. } }Precisely the kind of catfight that kills missions. QED. Ooops- out of context here. The next bit said he thought the private agaencies would jump in and do it for them. Of course, the private agencies certainly aren't going to be doing a lot of heavy-listing for a while ... }>Why can't we get the hardware in place for that in 10 years? } }Our track record supports my assertion better than your objection, I }think. We can't get that hardware ready in 10 years because we can't do }ANYTHING in 10 years anymore. The can-do technocracy that gave us }Vietnam and Apollo is ancient history. It's suicidally futile to }predicate a Mars mission on JFK rising Arthur-like from the grave. We }have to design something around the do-able. While we don't have }Sputnik or Camelot to lean on anymore, we do have new dynamics like }international cooperation, plus the huge quantum leap in one fundamental }ability: to send back killer images from anywhere we visit. Neptune }about to provide a fresh example it appears. The early Moon race had }the support of the nation even though most Americans only "saw" it through }paragraphs in the newspaper. What could Ogilvy & Mather do with the }Viking stuff and the JPL Mars Movie? But I digress. Sorry, I have to side with Tom here. The original letter floored me when I saw it - Henry Spencer being really optimistic! Noooo. Really, I'd like to see this happen soon, but I don't see it coming. I think 10 years is a bit much to ask. Maybe in ten years, it won't be though. }Apollo was not strangled at birth, it was conceived in haste and }repented at leisure.** I don't think the right people are doing the repenting, though. The stranlgers are still out there ... }> ... set your sights higher. Mars is not that }>hard. } }Prove it! Let's go there and prove me wrong! } }Mars is too easy? Nice problem to have!** Wait? Mars isn't that hard, if we put our minds to it. It seems that the main point you made was that we wouldn't do that, though. And I'm sure Apollo looked hard to those who were in charge of implementing it. And now, for some original thought. I think NASAs main problem today is that they tried to be TOO far-thinking. Apollo was NOT that far ahead of its time - it broke new ground, but alot of it wasn't really that new - it was just an engineering problem. They'd had experience with rockets, etc. They basically needed to build them bigger. The Space Shuttle, meanwhile, was conceived to be way ahead of its time, and it was! They had little or no experience with much of the technology involved. And thus, they spent much more time than they thought they would building new industries for it. If they had waited a bit, exeperimented more, then maybe we'd be in a better position. The shuttle program would have been better off to have started in the 80's, and launched in the 90's. Who says we couldn't have done most of what we've done with the shuttle with apollo-era equipment? ( I didn't say all. There have been things which were done just because we have a shuttle, some with very little reason beyond that.) And now it looks like they've finally figured out that they aren't going to have enough launch space on the shuttle, and its not the best thing since the invention of the wheel. And the older technology does have its uses. So, what I want to say is that I would like to go to Mars, or to Freedom, but I think they should try building it to be useful, not revolutionary. Lastly, about the use of "vapor"-ware on the Space Station (and anywhere else) - 256M chips will be around by 1998, in all likelyhood, but I'll consider myself lucky if I can buy 16M chips. Same with high density LCDs. That would be nice to have on the Space Station, but I'd not want to be trusting in equipment which hasn't been around long enough to be fully debugged. I would wait at least five years on equipment, because by that time industry has generally gotten their act together. And I don't mean five years between announcement and usage, I mean between shipping in quantity and usage. Right now I'd trust 80386s, or 68030s, but probably not MIPs or SPARC. And definitely not the 80486 and 68040, and 64M RAM chips. They simply do not work yet. There is no need for NASA to pioneer this area anymore. Others are doing very well, thank you. Scott Hess These opinions may or may not be fictitious or otherwise non-existent. Any reflection of reality found therein is probably distorted. ---------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 89 05:08:14 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric William Tilenius) Subject: Write those Letters to the Editor If you've ever considered writing a Letter to the Editor of a newspaper in favor of space exploration and development, now is the time to do so!! With the 20th anniversary just around the bend, papers are RAVENOUS to get material -- opinions, different angles, anything! So write down your thoughts about the space program and send them off today... It's the best opportunity you'll have of getting a pro-space letter published for many a year! Remember, when you write a letter to the editor, leave WIDE MARGINS, always DOUBLE SPACE, and put your home address, along with a day and evening phone. And don't send the same letter to multiple publications. (Variations may be acceptable, but certainly not the same wording.) But most of all, DO IT NOW! The space activist community won't get this good a chance to be heard for quite some time... - ERIC - Eric W. Tilenius | ColorVenture Software | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET Quadrangle Club | 11 Prospect Drive South | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU 33 Prospect Avenue | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni Princeton, NJ 08540 | 516-424-2298 | princeton!pucc!ewtileni 609-683-4411 | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 * | CIS: 70346,16 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 89 11:10:02 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!syma!andy@uunet.uu.net (Andy Clews) Subject: Re: Apollo 11 anniversary. Re: I'm getting too old for this From article <5307@hplabsb.HP.COM>, by dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith): > I don't recall whether the baby was boy or girl, but the name given was > Lunar Module McGee. I do hope the poor kid doesn't get their name shortened (as in the way my name Andrew is shortened (admittedly by choice) to Andy). Imagine being called "Luny" by all your friends :-( :-) Still, "Lunar" does sound nicer than "Module" so it's not so bad. -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac Voice: +44 273 606755 ext.2129 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #565 *******************