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 ; Thu, 21 Sep 89 03:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 03:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #59 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Re: How is Voyager powered? Space Industry Liaison Org (was Corporate Space Admin) MARS FACE to FBM conversion Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. Re: Was Voyager another damaging Apollo one-shot? Re: Progress M-1 (new type of cargo craft) launched to USSR's Mir station Mail for William Baxter Re: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Sep 89 04:06:10 GMT From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net (nick szabo) Subject: Re: How is Voyager powered? In article <1268@calvin.EE.CORNELL.EDU> johns@calvin.spp.cornell.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >In article <6087@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.UUCP (Neal Woodall) writes: >> >Why screw around with strontium? If you are willing to pay $2500 for >300 watts, solar cells can do that right now, including the batteries >to get you through the night. >"P"TG's are in use in the Cascade Mountains*, to power remote weather data >gathering stations (rain, snow depth). They have some solar cell power as >well, but people know what they are, and steal the panels. Not too many >people know a "P"TG when they see it. "P" is for propane, by the way. > Solar cells are not reliable because weather is not reliable (over many days, not just one night); propane must be continually replenished. The strontium RTG's presumably suffer from neither of these disadvantages. I would like to see how they plan to protect customers from the radiation, and how they plan to dispose of depleated RTG's. "Life depends less on an abundant supply of energy than on a good signal-to-noise ratio." Freeman Dyson -- -------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 12:45:35 GMT From: pezely@louie.udel.edu (pezely) Subject: Space Industry Liaison Org (was Corporate Space Admin) The corporate space administration idea is transformed into a more practical plan: INDEPENDENT, NON-PROFIT LIAISON FOR THE SPACE INDUSTRY. Rather than have a corporate (for-profit) company with the hopes of making money, many people have contacted me about how to revising the proposal. Another NASA is not needed, or rather, is not really feasible due to the budget which is involved: tens of billions of dollars. Two competing space agencies would be too much, and the division of the public's money might harm both programs. A "disinterested" third-party is needed to act as a channel of communication between NASA, government, the international space industry, space organizations, researchers, and universities. With this, it would be possible to have a truly unbiased liaison and information database which would be of service. My original plan, and still present in my mind, was to have a space station ready to be constructed by the year two-thousand. Obviously, I can't do it by myself, so I was going to be the focal point to bring the necessary people together to make that dream a reality. The original plan of what evolved into a second NASA would be the wrong direction and would waste time. NASA has a design for a space station, and it is supposed to be modular. Maybe an organization can pull the right group of individuals and companies together to make NASA's station into the type of station which is needed, and maybe we can find the money which NASA is loosing. This could be done, possibily, by stripping NASA's design and replacing it with better modules which are funded and owned by the contractors. I still believe that if the contractors are shown exactly how profitible it would be for them to assist in putting up a station, partially owned by them, then they will do it. That will save the money which NASA has to overspend with, and might make the station into a true orbiting industrial complex. And, that could/would be better for those who would be using (renting a module of) the station. REASONS FOR THE LIAISON ORGANIZATION: Channel of communication to/from NASA. Channel of communication to/from space contractors. Channel of communication to/from space organizations. Channel of communication to/from researchers and institutions. Act as a consulting team. Use NASA's budget. Assist NASA in raising funding. Go to the public and show them that professionals are indeed working on the space station and that their tax money (and hopefully donations) is being spent on a worthwhile project. Assist with public relations for the industry's plan, and show the uninterested general public what they're missing. Help NASA develop a space station which suits the needs of science and industry more effectively. Information clearing-house -- "one stop shopping" for what the international industry has today in terms of who (people and companies), what (designs, talents, etc.), where (where they are), etc. DRAWBACKS Must deal with NASA's / government's / USAF's bureaucracy Must handle NASA's over spending and inflated prices POSSIBILITIES Have the contractors, as individual entities or as a few small consortiums, put up their own space station(s) and we will just assist them with design and help find customers based upon need and availability of facilities as known from our information database. This type of organization could get off the ground immediately by having access to the internet through a university. I'm sure that the space contractors will contribute to the database, and getting a computer system donated might be possible. Once we have enough info in the database, then we should have obtained enough funding to move into an office and have a paid staff to answer questions and respond to info requests. The operating details are not the concern with this draft other than that the organization could start functioning as soon as next week! Making the contacts would start by obtaining the database info, but would also take a while to cultivate a working relationship before the rest of the industry could use us as a service. Please let me know what you think about this plan. * Is it better or worse than the previous plans? * Is this more geared to what is needed? * Do you foresee this type of organization being successful (doing what it set out to do)? * Do you think that the industry will welcome it or ignore it? (Not that they will be able to ignore it, though. :-) ) Thank you. - Daniel -- 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: 12 Sep 89 00:15:08 GMT From: pilchuck!seahcx!phred!daveb@uunet.uu.net (David Burd) Subject: MARS FACE to FBM conversion Recently a program was posted to convert the MARS FACE data into FBM format. Could someone be kind enough to email this program to me? Thank you in advance -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- uw-beaver!pilchuck!seahcx!phred!daveb David Burd ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 16:07:34 GMT From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (N = R*fgfpneflfifaL) Subject: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. Someone recently sent me this news blurb. If it is true, then this is no laughing matter for our space program if Quayle is truly so outdated in his thinking of the planet Mars and who knows how many other astronomical subjects: In an August 11 interview on Cable Network News, the head of the National Space Council, Vice President Dan Quayle, explained why the United States should undertake a manned mission to Mars: "Mars is essentially in the same orbit. Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 21:13:06 GMT From: lightsabre!kenobi@sun.com (Rick Kwan) Subject: Re: Was Voyager another damaging Apollo one-shot? Some time ago, in article <14616@bfmny0.UUCP>, tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) wrote: > ...I wonder if the Grand Tour wasn't > the unmanned equivalent of the Kennedy space race and its resulting > one-shot lunar landing program -- in the sense that, having rushed > ahead to grab the dessert, we found ourselves in no mood to continue > eating our vegetables, i.e., building a solid and lasting program. Others have pointed out the knowledge gained; my view here is *much* more mundane. Certainly, we have rushed ahead to make the Grand Tour schedule, but I thought it was because the GT planetary alignment only happens about once per century. In about 15 years, we managed to cover a large part of the solar system. The alternative would be to send many more probes, spaced out over a longer time, and probably culmulatively costing more; but I have my doubts about their survivability (more below). Besides covering many planets, the Grand Tour shortens the length of a mission (versus a purely elliptical trajectory ...okay, it's not purely elliptical, but you know what I mean...), which gives one the gut feeling that more of the on-board instruments might actually be working by the time the spacecraft gets to its destination(s). From what I gather, most of the Voyager people were amazed that the thing lasted as long as it did. I would think that a direct trip to Uranus or Neptune before the end of the century, based on current technology, is exotic and very daring compared to Voyager technology. (...perhaps we should have spent more money on ion thrusters... ;-) Agreed, Voyager is going to be hard to match. But in terms of satisfying engineering and economics within the lifetime of most current readers, I can't think of any alternatives, except going without *any* of the resulting knowledge until the next century. Rick Kwan (aka Obi-Kwan Kenobi) Sun Microsystems - Intercontinental Operations kenobi@sun.UUCP or kenobi%lightsabre@sun.COM ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 18:30:55 GMT From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net (nick szabo) Subject: Re: Progress M-1 (new type of cargo craft) launched to USSR's Mir station In article <1989Sep5.053041.13079@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Was this wishlist based on an coherent, specific *plan*, or is it just all >the projects you find attractive this week? No and no. Undiscovered nature and untapped markets are not coherent. They do not have a "theme" or a "goal", and neither do my suggestions. This was a general list of stuff space scientists and industrialists have desired for a several years; it was meant to demonstrate the wastefulness of "Freedom", not to be a plan. >I don't see any mention of >Venus, not much of Mars, very little on asteroids, not much on the Moon, Lunar Polar Orbiter, Mars Observer 2, Asteroid Rendesvous, asteroid surveys, and Lunar/Martian/Asteroid sample-return missions to Antartica were all on the list. Venus was regrettably missing. It does not happen to be high on my priority list but that may change after Magellan. Also not on the list were smaller things we should do, like Lunar Getaway Special. Mars Rover was purposefully missing because, like Space Station, it costs too much money for such a narrow aim. International missions I left out because I was talking about NASA, not ESA or Japan or the Soviets. These are important too. >no Starprobe (which despite the name is a solar probe, not an interstellar >mission, sigh), etc etc. What is the underlying reasoning? Starprobe is not high on my list either, but may be on other's. I'm easy (as long as you don't propose spending $tens of billions!!!) The underlying reasoning is: "if you want oil, drill lots of wells." Not one garganguant dry hole at LEO. > >And of course, assuming that killing the space station will free up that >money to be spent on "worthier" space projects is ridiculous. It's not ridiculous to expect that we'll get a lot farther in space if we get our priorities straight. It's not ridiculous to expect NASA to alter its budget proposals to give more to space science and industry, if that is the way political winds are blowing. I'm simply adding my breath to the wind. "Never sacrifice economies of speed to achieve economies of scale." Freeman Dyson -- -------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 89 13:53:47 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Mail for William Baxter To: web@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: HR2674 Discussion (William: I attempted to send this as a reply to your mail message, but our mailer didn't want to recognize your address; thus this posting to news. -Kieran) I am indeed enjoying the discussion. I realize that you, and the people in Congress that you're supporting, are at least trying to do something innovative, trying to get rocketry development off of the unproductive track it somehow got onto in the '60's. "Doing Something To Help" is something that most space enthusiasts profess to want to do, but few ever get around to. Good on you on that score. Kieran -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 89 19:14:00 GMT From: pur-phy!tippy!fireman@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Re: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT Could you send me a copy of the resolution? ************************************************************************* * Rob Dale ++ N8GSK .=. tippy!fireman * * Purdue University .=. @newton.physics * * Atmospheric Sciences .=. .purdue.edu * ************************************************************************* ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #59 *******************