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 ; Wed, 4 Oct 89 05:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 05:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #108 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 108 Today's Topics: NASA to hold press briefing on Cosmic Background Explorer (Forwarded) Re: Risk of NOT launching Galileo Ariane launch V34, 35, and 36 delayed Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles Radioactivity vs Chemical toxins (Was Toxic materials on shuttle) NASA Headline News for 09/29/89 (Forwarded) Re: Radioactivity vs Chemical toxins Re: Shuttle to HEO or the Moon (was Re: Saturn V & F-1) Re: Toxic materials on the Shuttle Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Sep 89 16:35:45 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA to hold press briefing on Cosmic Background Explorer (Forwarded) Paula Cleggett-Haleim Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 29, 1989 Carter Dove Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. N89-68 NASA TO HOLD PRESS BRIEFING ON COSMIC BACKGROUND EXPLORER On Thursday, October 5, at 1:30 p.m., EDT, a news briefing will be held in the 6th floor auditorium at NASA Headquarters on the upcoming launch of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) spacecraft aboard the final NASA-owned and NASA-launched Delta- 186 Launch Vehicle. Among the participants will be Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, and Joseph B. Mahon, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Flight. Launch of COBE is currently targeted for Nov. 9, 1989, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The 30-minute launch window for that day opens at 9:24 a.m., EST. COBE, with a complement of three scientific instruments, will study the origin and dynamics of the universe, including the theory that the universe began about 15 billion years ago with a cataclysmic explosion -- the Big Bang. Background information on the spacecraft and its mission, including a press release and photograph will be available during the briefing. A 12-minute videotape will be shown at the end of the briefing. The briefing will be carried live on NASA Select TV (SATCOM F-2R, transponder 13, 72 degrees west longitude). Interactive question and answer capability will be available at NASA Headquarters and most NASA field centers. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 17:21:26 GMT From: frooz!cfa.HARVARD.EDU@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Risk of NOT launching Galileo From article <14753@bfmny0.UU.NET>, by tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff): > If one assumes that a decision not to launch Galileo has no impact on > the future launch of Mission To Earth, then comparing the RISKS of not > finding out something about Jupiter's weather, thus not understanding > something about Earth's weather, thus blundering into some weather > related tragedy down the road, versus the RISKS of breaching the RTG, is > not too impressive. What do you mean by "not too impressive?" Some people are seriously suggesting that Galileo be cancelled because of the risk of breaching the RTG. I have simply pointed out that a rational assessment of that risk must also consider risks of not launching, calculated in the same way. The risk of not launching appears to me to be orders of magnitude greater. (I was going to add an explanation of that estimate, but it's long and I'm in a hurry. If people want to see it, I'll post Monday.) If my estimate is correct, cancelling Galileo because of the RTG risk is misguided. > There are other missions possible and planned to > give us good Earth information. I agree and support those missions. > The purpose and value of Galileo is in > other areas. Studying Jupiter needs to be evaluated as worth it or not > on its own terms, not in terms of far fetched spinoffs and "risk > comparisons," or else other pure research missions with no such glib > connections are going to get KO'd. Whether Galileo is justified scientifically (i.e. worth priority over other missions) or politically (i.e. worth spending the money on) is not the question being addressed. The immediate question is whether to launch or cancel. Some people are seriously suggesting "cancel" and are apparently being listened to. That suggestion demands a response. As regards the general issue of justification for Galileo, I agree that there are many reasons for its being worthwhile. I further agree that the benefit I have mentioned is not the main one. (Or at least not the most probable.) It is simply an easy one to translate into human lives lost and is sufficient for the purpose intended. Additional benefits strengthen the conclusion that launching is the right decision. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 29 Sep 89 18:20:24 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Robert McGwier) Subject: Ariane launch V34, 35, and 36 delayed Arianespace called us yesterday to tell us that they have found that pyro initiators on the Ariane 4 third stage on V34, 35, and 36 have been found to be sufficiently out of spec that a considerable delay in our launch (Microsats along with Spot-2) of at least a month is to be anticipated. We are quite happy with the quality control people at Arianespace. They really don't let much get by them and this another instance of why they are about the most successful launchers in the world at the moment and getting better. For those of you looking forward to a November use of the UOSAT's or the Microsat's I believe that is now looking like January. 73 Bob McGwier N4HY ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 89 00:48:13 GMT From: prism!ccsupos@gatech.edu (SCHREIBER, O. A.) Subject: Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles businessman any good to save a few hours of flight from LA to Tokyo if he spends two hours in urban traffic at either end anyway just to go in and out of the airport. -- Olivier Schreiber (404)894 6147, Office of Computing Services Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ccsupos ARPA: ccsupos@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 23:44:08 GMT From: rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) Subject: Radioactivity vs Chemical toxins (Was Toxic materials on shuttle) As a budding chemist I'm a lot more afraid of toxic chemicals then radiation, mainly because there are a lot more leathally toxic chemicals in far greater concentrations around then there are dangerous (ie significantly above background) radiation sources. Both chemical toxins and Radiation can indeed kill or cause cancer. Both are things you should not fool around with, the problem with radiation is that it is associated with nuclear weapons etc. I'de guess that chemical toxins have caused a lot more deaths, but deaths due to radiation poisoning, or vaporization is a LOT more dramatic... Also radition is dangerous in that it can't be easily detected (but neither can CO, I wonder how many people have died from car exhausts over the years?), all in all for every radiation horror story I'm sure there is a chemical horror story, but the public believes that radition is evil etc. so anything involving plutonium is going to be a problem with PR... // Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu \\ \\ #include stddisclaimer.h // \\ "I never respected a man who could spell" // \\ -M. Twain // ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 16:42:45 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 09/29/89 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- NASA Headline News Friday, Sept. 29, 1989 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Friday, September 29.... Three anti-nuclear activist groups have filed suit in federal district court in Washington, D.C., in an attempt to stop the launch of the Galileo spacecraft aboard the space shuttle Atlantis next month. The organizations...the Coalition for Peace and Justice, of Orlando, Florida, and the Christic Institute and the Foundation on Economic Trends, both of Washington, D.C., claim that a catastrophic accident could release nuclear material from the Galileo's electrical power generators. Launch is scheduled for October 12. There are more warnings about the deterioration of the earth's environment. The Wall Street Journal says U.S. Scientists have identified acid rain and artificial fertilizer as new sources of "greenhouse" warming. And a NASA atmospheric scientist predicts that the ozone hole over antarctica will get even larger this fall due to the increase of chloroflourocarbons in the atmosphere. The New York Times says the Soviet Union has finally opened its busiest and most secret space launch complex to foreign media. The Plesetsk Space Center, 500 miles north of Moscow, has launched almost 1200 rockets since it was founded in 1957. That's more than all American, European, Japanese and Chinese space launches combined. General Dynamics corporation has selected former Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders to be its chief executive officer. Anders will assume the position of vice-chairman of the giant space and military supplier January 1 and assume the top positon in January 1991. NASA has selected 248 proposals for immediate negotiations under the agency's 1989 Small Business Innovation Research Program. Proposals were selected from 198 small, high tech firms located in 35 states. And NASA turns its attention to the arts tonight at Kennedy Space Center. NASA and Florida civic officials will attend the premiere performance of the musical composition "Return to Flight" at Spaceport USA. The program will be telecast on NASA Select TV at 7:00 P.M., Eastern time. * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Tonight..... 7:00 P.M. Broadcast of new musical composition "Return to Flight" from Spaceport USA. Monday, October 2..... 12:00 noon NASA Administrator Truly speaks to NASA employees on quality month. 1:00 P.M. A Voyager/Neptune video summary from JPL. 30-minutes duration. Thursday, October 5..... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. 1:30 P.M. Cosmic Background Explorer news briefing from Nasa Headquarters. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 89 03:44:25 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca!pooter!kendalla@uunet.uu.net (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-028;;pooter) Subject: Re: Radioactivity vs Chemical toxins In article rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > > I'de guess that chemical toxins >have caused a lot more deaths, but deaths due to radiation poisoning, >or vaporization is a LOT more dramatic... Also radition is dangerous in >that it can't be easily detected (but neither can CO, I wonder how many >people have died from car exhausts over the years?), all in all for every >radiation horror story I'm sure there is a chemical horror story, but the >public believes that radition is evil etc. so anything involving >plutonium >is going to be a problem with PR... For those of you who missed the Galileo update on NASA Select yesterday, a reporter asked if it was worth risking lung cancer for every citizen of Florida just to get some data from Jupiter. The answer, I thought, was excellent. The NASA spokesman said "if I had a spoonful of plutonium and a spoonful of strychnine, which one would you rather swallow?" The reporter said strychnine. "Then you would die, and I would eat the plutonium and walk away". He then gave a more detailed explanation of how the plutonium must be vaporized and inhaled before lung cancer is a threat. Also, it appears that NASA has followed every legal step, including getting the approval of the White House, before deciding to launch. The opponents are going to get thrown right out of court, in my humble opinion. Kendall Auel | kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM Tektronix, Inc. | P.O. Box 1000, m/s 61-028 Visual Systems Group | Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Interactive Technologies Division | (This message composed on a TEK w/s) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 13:53:32 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Shuttle to HEO or the Moon (was Re: Saturn V & F-1) Oh no, didn't we go through a round of these pseudos a month ago? -- 1955-1975: 36 Elvis movies. | Tom Neff 1975-1989: nothing. | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 15:43:32 GMT From: xpiinc!ctr@uunet.uu.net (Christian Reimer) Subject: Re: Toxic materials on the Shuttle In article TCEISELE@MTUS5.BITNET sez: >...the window framing on the Shuttle is made from beryllium to save weight, >and beryllium's purely chemical toxicity is in the same range as that of >plutonium, even including its radioactivity. The point you are missing is that while the shuttle's beryllium will only become a health hazard if it is vaporized/powdered and dispersed (so that it can get *inside* an organism), plutonium can and will pose a threat to public health even if it is dispersed in large chunks (radioactivity can act from *outside* an organism). >But nobody seems to worry about beryllium, simply because it isn't >*radioactive* (whoooooo!). Radioactivity isn't just a boogey-man; it does bring into play different health hazards, and warrants greater concern than purely chemical toxins. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 89 00:52:20 GMT From: prism!ccsupos@gatech.edu (SCHREIBER, O. A.) Subject: Re: Concorde, NASP, shuttles In article <5286@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >It's not clear to me that SSTs will ever be economical >forms of transport. Indeed, it may not do a businessman any good to shave a few hours of flight time off his schedule if he spends two hours in urban traffic to get in and out of the airports of departure and destination. -- Olivier Schreiber (404)894 6147, Office of Computing Services Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ccsupos ARPA: ccsupos@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #108 *******************