Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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 ; Sun, 17 Sep 89 21:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 17 Sep 89 21:11:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #55 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Re: Trajectory of ULYSSES. Observing Oct 12 Launch Corporate Space Administration - AN OVERVIEW Linguistic Tidbits apo/peri Re: Linguistic Tidbits Re: Galileo Mission Earthlings weaker than believed? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Sep 89 19:12:53 GMT From: amara!babar!khai@uunet.uu.net (S. Khai Mong) Subject: Re: Trajectory of ULYSSES. How does the energy needed to put Ulysses into the polar solar orbit compare with a trajectory to send something directly into the Sun? As I remember it, there was a discussion here about dumping things into the sun and the consensus was that no useful payload could be put into such a trajectory. -- Sao Khai Mong: Applied Dynamics, 3800 Stone School Road, Ann Arbor, Mi48108 (313)973-1300 (uunet|sharkey)!amara!khai khai%amara.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 89 09:18:41 GMT From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!mimir!hugin!augean!sirius!chook.ua.oz!francis@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Francis Vaughan) Subject: Observing Oct 12 Launch I will be visiting the US in two weeks, (mostly on business) but find myself with about a week of free time neatly coinciding with the Oct 12 shuttle launch. I would greatly appreciate some advice on what will be involved and what pitfalls exist in trying to observe the launch. Also appreciated would be advice on what is worth visiting. I will be in the Bay area a couple of weeks before so a visit to Ames looks like a good idea as well. This will be a bit of a pilgrimage for me, very high on my lifes wish list. Some of this has been lightly covered before, but not in much depth. Maybe we could produce some sort of guide for readers or the net noise. Questions include. What do mere mortals get to see? How far from the launch area are you put? (ie how long a focal length lens is needed?) Do non US citizens have any problems? Perhaps some pointers on accomodation, transport, how many other spectators would one expect etc. What are the odds on a delay of the launch. (Bad question I know, but a gut feeling of whether I am pushing my luck or not would be good.) What is the weather likly to be like? Is anyone else on the net going to be there? Maybe we could meet up, and make up some sort of party. Dept of Computer Sci. Francis Vaughan University of Adelaide francis@chook.ua.oz.au South Australia ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 89 20:56:49 GMT From: pezely@louie.udel.edu (Dan Pezely) Subject: Corporate Space Administration - AN OVERVIEW Here is a rough draft of the overview for the CSA. The specifics of how the organization will operate are still being revised, but for a copy of that in its current form and in its final form, just send me e-mail. I will be distributing that to everyone on my mailing list. Please comment about this and respond either by e-mail or follow-up postings. Please keep "Corporate Space Admin" or "CSA" in the subject line. See my signature if you need a postal address or phone number. Thanks. -Daniel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Overview The Corporate Space Administration has one goal: Construct a space station with both rotational and non-rotational sections to allow all of the benefits of a zero-gravity environment and have a crew of researchers and staff able to take residence for prolonged periods of time in an environment which is most familiar to them--one that has gravity. We want this goal to become a reality by the year Two-thousand. The design of the station will be similar in function to NASA's in that it will be a backbone for other "third party" modules to be attached. The major difference is in the housing for a full-time crew. This brings up the possibility of working with NASA's space station, should their's ever be built. We will do whatever needs to be done, with full moral integrity, to see that our goal is achieved. At this point in time, there are a few stages of growth for the organization to go through. Starting from a volunteer group, we will quickly obtain financial supporters and form a central office. Although there are many stages of development, our goal is firm. Those stages will be under constant change so that our goal may be realized in the best possible manner for everyone involved: mankind. To make this venture succeed, we will need financial support. The best possible way to find that support is to function as a for-profit organization with stock holders. Financial advisors have predicted that the next billionaires will be made in the space industry. With this long-term return on investment, we should be able to find major financial backers. Stages of Development 1. BACKGROUND RESEARCH The members will operate as volunteers, initially, while research is done to find other people and organizations with similar goals. As the number of members grows, we will seek investors and establish a temporary central office. During this time, contacts will be made in industry, government, and other organizations for the next stage to be more successful. 2. SPACE INDUSTRY LIAISON By this time, a permanent central office will have been set up and a full-time staff will handle questions and requests from the phone, electronic mail, postal mail, and walk-in individuals. With established contacts in the space industry, we will offer our services as a liaison between industry, government, organizations, and individuals. A team of engineers and designers will start to be assembled and will investigate existing plans for space stations. 3. DESIGN RESEARCH The newly formed engineering and design team will work with both new and existing plans for space stations to come up with the most practical design by following these guidelines: INEXPENSIVE - use proven techniques and cut R&D costs. MODULAR - build in stages and allow for expansion. IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY - move in with the completion of the first stage. These parameters will always be open for discussion and and suggestions for other guidelines will always be accepted. We will work with the space contractors closely so as to reduce the number of manufacturing surprises to a minimum. 4. DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING After simulating and analyzing the designs, working models will be made to confirm our theories. With this reassurance, our public relations people will be notifying the public about our progress. It will be very important to keep the faith of everyone watching our progress since we will be needing their financial support later. 5. CONSTRUCTION AND MANUFACTURING The organization will raise the money necessary to purchase the components and construct the station. 6. LAUNCH AND ASSEMBLY We will hire the necessary contractors to launch the station modules into space. 7. OPEN FOR BUSINESS With the completion of the first phase of the space station, we will be open for business and ready to start attaching the modules of our customers. The additional modules for the backbone of the station will be added once a sufficient number of customers have been connected. This industrial complex in space will operate, in principle, just like any other industrial facility and will be managed as such. With this station, our customers will also be customers of the space contractors since the contractors will have to be used to launch modules into space. This will bring in an income not only for our investors, but also for the other contractors. Hopefully, the research/manufacturing from within the station by the customers will benefit the general public by finding new discoveries, keeping hazardous research far from innocent people, or composing new container-less chemicals and medicines. Conclusion We will achieve our goals because those goals must be attained. The exact method and the form of our organization is not precisely known, but we will accomplish the tasks necessary to realize our goal. -- Daniel Pezely (Home: 728 Bent Lane, Newark, DE 19711) Computer Science Lab, 102 Smith Hall, U of Del, Newark, DE 19716 * 302/451-6339 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 89 19:07:11 GMT From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Linguistic Tidbits From article <757@hutto.UUCP>, by henry@hutto.UUCP (Henry Melton): > I have wondered in the past: what are the generic terms? > [for apogee, perigee, etc.] > Many times I have seen (as in the case above) the 'gee' words promoted > to the generic case. Is there already an accepted generic, or should we > quitely drop perilun and aphelion and just use the 'gee' words? The generic terms are apoapsis and periapsis. The plural, in case you want to speak of both, is "apsides." (Pronounced with three syllables: aps'-uh-deez.) By the way, the apsides of lunar orbit are the "aposelene" and "periselene;" the Greek prefixes should be used with the Greek root words helion, gee, and selene rather than the Latin roots sol, terra, or lune. (Or something similar; my lack of proper classical education may be showing here.) The incorrect terms "apolune" and "perilune" are often used, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 89 15:31:16 GMT From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU (Paul Rodman) Subject: apo/peri In article <757@hutto.UUCP> henry@hutto.UUCP (Henry Melton) writes: > >I have wondered in the past: what are the generic terms? It makes no >sense to have 'peritriton' and 'apotoon'. Even having seperate terms Hmmmm. Is the generic term "apoapsis / periapsis" or does that just refer to stars in general, but not planets? I fergit. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 14:53:08 GMT From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Linguistic Tidbits From article <192@cfa.HARVARD.EDU>, by willner@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Willner): [Farthest and closest points to the primary in an orbit...] > The generic terms are apoapsis and periapsis. The plural, in case you > want to speak of both, is "apsides." (Pronounced with three syllables: > aps'-uh-deez.) Steve points out that we should use Greek roots: > By the way, the apsides of lunar orbit are the "aposelene" and > "periselene;" I thought it was "pericynthion" and "apocynthion"? (These ones I know:) Generic: periapsis apoapsis Generic star: periastron apastron Earth: perigee apogee Sun: perihelion aphelion How about the rest of the solar system? I think that it's Mercury: perihermes aphermes Venus: ? Mars: periares apoares Jupiter: perizenon? Saturn: perikronon? Any offers from classical scholars? .----------------------------------------------------------------. | Jonathan McDowell | phone : (617)495-7144 | | Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell | | 60 Garden Street | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet | | Cambridge MA 02138 | inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu | | USA | span : cfa::mcdowell | | | telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM | | | FAX : (617)495-7356 | '----------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 89 10:55:30 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Galileo Mission In article <5982@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) wrote: >In article <24fbc5fb@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >:In article <1050400001@cdp>, christic@cdp.UUCP wrote: >:I keep hearing 47 and 50 POUNDS of plutonium (so far only from opponents of >:launching the Pu). I can believe that the *RTGs* weigh 50 pounds, but 50 >:pounds of Pu??? That sounds way off. > >There is 48 pounds, 24 in each of two RTG's that supply a total of >4200 Watts of electrical power. Thanks. I guess Galileo will be broadcasting with a bit more than 21 watts of power.... (Voyager started with 400 or so watts from the RTGs) -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 FAX: available on request Disclaimer? I claimed something? You know it's going to be a bad day when... ...your birthday cake collapses from the weight of the candles. ...you wake up face down on the pavement. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 20:08:22 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@rutgers.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Earthlings weaker than believed? In article <1989Sep11.155812.29281@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >More to the point, [temperature extremes, radiation and vacuum] don't >reliably kill bacteria. The bacterial colony that was found inside >Surveyor 3's camera survived deliberate attempts at sterilization plus >2.5 years on the surface of the Moon. This one's been niggling at the back of my mind for a few days, so I finally hunted it down. From Dr. P.M. Molton, ``Survival of micro-organisms on the moon'', *Spaceflight*, Vol. 15, No. 2, February 1973: ``...The only positive result was from [sample tube] 32 [of 33], which showed growth in 3-4 days incubation in undiluted THIO medium [thioglycollate broth, which supports anaerobic organisms], from a 1 mm^3 piece of foam from the Surveyor 3 camera. The organism was identified as *Streptococcus mitis*. ... Since only 1 tube showed growth, from a single sample, possibly from only a single microbial cell, the result is in question. No growth was obtained from other parts of the lunar-retrieved camera [an unflown spare camera was used as a control], or from the electrical cable similarly examined. The bodies of the astronauts were host to *S. mitis*, together with a number of other organisms. Despite the careful approach, contamination by the investigators is a possibility, which is why the result has been met with scepticism.'' In other words, we *don't* know that terrestrial life can survive extraterrestrially for extended periods. We certainly don't know that it *can't*, so none of the arguments either way about contaminating Jupiter are invalidated. But the data on which they're based isn't as firm as is generally believed. --- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto and People's Glorious United Freedom-Loving Popular Democratic Front for the Defence of Canada From Nasty Vicious Aggressive Imperialist Expansionist Neffoids (Join now---special rates for Tom Neff) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #55 *******************