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/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 17 May 90 01:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 17 May 90 01:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #410 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 410 Today's Topics: space news from April 16 AW&ST Earth Orbits (was: space news from April 9 AW&ST) Hubble Space Telescope Update - 05/16/90 Re: why there are no ETs Re: SPACE Digest V11 #387 Re: NASA Headline News for 05/15/90 (Forwarded) Re: Endangered squirrels Re: The Vatican Connection Deep Space Relay Satellite ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 May 90 20:50:56 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 16 AW&ST HST launch slips due to APU replacement. Pictures of the Pegasus drop and ignition. The satellites seem to be functioning normally, and tracking confirms that they are in almost exactly the intended orbit. (It's about 5nmi lower than desired, but that's good enough for first flight.) [Especially since OSC/H chose to calibrate motor performance using the first few actual flights rather than extensive ground testing.] There were hopes of recovering the first stage after ocean impact, both to conform to Vandenberg rules (which require recovery of surface objects) and to assess how well it functioned, but although debris was sighted and photographed, nothing was found on the surface when recovery vessels arrived. There will be no recovery attempt on future flights. Of note is that Pegasus development took about 2 years, and the Pegsat payload was put together in about 6 months. [This is, uh, quick.] Asiasat 1, formerly Westar 6, returns to space on Long March April 7. The launch had been set for later in the month, but was moved up, quite probably to get Asiasat 1 up before the other shuttle-rescued satellite goes up on Delta. Insurance executives watching the launch were "visibly relieved" to see Asiasat 1 up successfully, after the recent Ariane and Titan failures. Asiasat does have one complaint: the low price offered by the Chinese was partially offset by poor support facilities at Xichang, which required more effort by the satellite supplier (Hughes). Cause of Ariane V36 loss established: a piece of cloth blocking the main water valve on the malfunctioning engine. The water flow is used to regulate propellant mixing, control combustion pressure via the gas generator, and cool tank-pressurization gases. The loss of water sharply reduced engine D's combustion pressure, and the resulting loss of thrust went beyond the guidance system's ability to compensate. The inquiry has found no fundamental design problems, and its recommendations are mostly for tighter quality control during launcher integration and checkout. Launches are expected to resume in summer. Apollo 17 astronaut Ron Evans, with more time in lunar orbit than any other human, dies of a heart attack April 7. Brown & Root, a heavy-engineering company, proposes a launch-site concept using offshore-oil technology, with the pad towed to a launch site at sea. They claim a possible 50% reduction in site/operations costs. B&R is preparing a presentation to the NSC, USAF, and NASA. Pioneer Aerospace successfully tests a parafoil [gliding parachute] carrying an 11400-lb payload, the largest ever flown. This is part of a test series leading up to precision landings of 20klb weights, aimed at better recovery technology for reusable launcher hardware. -- Life is too short to spend | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology debugging Intel parts. -Van J.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 90 17:41:15 GMT From: sdcc6!sdcc10!bruno@ucsd.edu (Bruce W. Mohler) Subject: Earth Orbits (was: space news from April 9 AW&ST) In article <1990May16.053143.4156@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... > > The basic Zenit is Zenit 2, two LOX/kerosene stages lifting 15.7 tons > into low orbit from Cape York. Zenit 3 adds a third stage from Proton, > giving 4.5-5.9 tons into GTO, giving 1.9-2.4 into Clarke orbit. The > Zenit 3 has not yet flown, although its components all have considerable > flight experience, with Zenit 2 flying since 1985 and the third stage > used many times on other boosters. Glavcosmos says Zenit reliability > is 95%. Cape York is looking at putting a Western third stage on Zenit 2. > > ... > -- > Life is too short to spend | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > debugging Intel parts. -Van J.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Just curious. Where can I learn more information about the three types of orbits Henry mentions in the above segment? The only book that I have (_Fundamentals of Astrodynamics_, Bate, Meuller, and White, Dover) mentions low-altitute and high-altitute orbits, but that is it. Pointers appreciated. Thanks, in advance. Bruce Mohler -- Bruce W. Mohler Systems Programmer (aka Staff Analyst) bruno@sdcc10.ucsd.edu voice: 619/586-2218 ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 90 23:18:42 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 05/16/90 Hubble Space Telescope Update MAY 16, 1990 All the telescope's flight systems are functioning well and checkout and activation of the science instruments is ahead of schedule. Operators continued voltage checks on the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph and continued stability and photometric performance tests on the faint object camera. Operators plan to repeat Bootstrap Phase A on Friday to further refine focusing of the secondary mirror. "First light", the first image taken by a science instrument, could occur this weekend. _ _____ _ | | | __ \ | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | |__) | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | ___/ | |___ M/S 301-355 | |_____| |_| |_____| Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 90 22:06:05 GMT From: china.uu.net!dan@uunet.uu.net (Dan Williams) Subject: Re: why there are no ETs >> >>3. About space colonies and industrialization: >> >Venus has more surface area than all the solid bodies of the solar system >combined! (And I'm correcting a statement I made in a previous posting >in which I said Venus had more solid surface area than all the INNER >solar system bodies... This time I can confidently include all the moons >of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, Charon, the ateroids). That is if we leave it as it is. Possible Terra-Forming as discussed in other articles should provide water cover over low land features and we will have a body with a surface area like Earths. With a large fraction covered by water, although I would doubt that the fraction will get as large as Earths since that would cost too much and we won't need it. I remeber seeing maps of Venus in a class years ago as having large land mass structures perhaps analogous to continental plates. If we throw large enough asteroids at Venus we may cause vulcanism and get the planet to produce water for us through out gassing, while building more highlands. Anyone with ideas on how much better a thicker atmosphere could protect the surface of Venus? Lets try a combination of methods for Terra-Forming Venus. Move Mars into orbit to provide a binary Earth-Moon style system. This puts them close together while we work on them. Then throw the catalyst mined from mercury (What was it, Magnisium?) to reduce the atmosphere and then start bombing the surface with asteroids to blow off atmosphere, crack the crust to start some vulcanism to burry waste products from the burning catalyst and provide water. You could even use the new moon to shadow the surface. If we start postulating moving planets to different orbits I can't belive that the rotation period will be an unsolvable problem. Using Mars as a moon will impart some spin slowly from tidal drag at least. Mars could even sweep up some of the gas we blow off of Venus to provide us with more atmosphere there. We could adjust the atmosphere of Mars later. -- | Dan Williams (uunet!china!dan) | FRP: It's not just a game, | | MCDONNELL DOUGLAS | it's an adventure! | | Denver CO | "Of course thats just my opinion" | ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 90 14:30:35 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucsd.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V11 #387 Mark S, shouldn't take this as support, but... If North American history is a proper guide, the industrialisation of space will probably have little effect on the rate of warfare or population growth on Earth. While [for example] the European Jews or Scots-oppressed Orkney Islanders *could* have relocated to found new 'homelands' in the Americas, most of them did not [Although at one point, the Brit gov't seriously discussed the idea of using Ireland as a New Israel, since they saw the Jews as being more peaceful,law abiding, cultured and likely to pay their taxes on time,in full and with relatively few deaths among the tax collecters]. Most people prefer to stay in their countries of birth, despite often grim situations. In any case, there was and is a limit to the number of people that it is physically possible [and these days, legally possible] to ship from Eurasia to North America. If homeland birthrates don't fall, then emigration will do little to reduce the population. This as true for space colonies as it was for the American colonies, if not more so. Rising levels of wealth do seem to reduce the birth rate, but while the industrialisation of space can increase our overall wealth, if the new resources remain in only a few people's hands, the majority would have no wealth caused birth control. As for war, it is my belief that there have been several wars in Eurasia since the colonisation of America. If memory serves, the conflicts in 1916-1918 and 1939-1945 hold records for numbers of people killed. New worlds will not necessarily bring peace. However, they might give us areas that could sit out a foolishly destructive war. I can think of very few cultures that warred themselves to death [I have dim memories that the Maori nearly wiped themselves out because the Europeans introduced war technology that was incredibly lethal in the context of Maori culture of the day] so perhaps there is an upper limit to human-human predation. Some clarifications: The British were the people who discussed the Ireland=New Israel idea, and this is not an 'Elders of Zion' style attack of antisemitism. Talking about the colonisation of the Americas neglected to mention the indigenes for reasons of space. JDN ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 90 15:00:53 GMT From: usc!srhqla!quad1!ttidca!jackson@ucsd.edu (Dick Jackson) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 05/15/90 (Forwarded) >This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, May 15.... > >A bright rogue star was discovered during a test of the telescope ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >guidance system. The Hubble mistakenly pointed toward it >preventing the instrument from locking onto the proper stars for >correct guidance. After ignoring the star, focusing procedures >were repeated successfully. Simplistically I read this as saying that there is a bright star that had not previously been catalogued (at least by NASA). I.e. they goofed. The press release gives the impression that a new "naughty" star somehow popped up -- which would indeed be a significant discovery. Am I missing something? Dick Jackson filler filler ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 May 90 17:35:22 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Endangered squirrels >From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucsd.edu (Brian or James) > Much as I like astronomy, I would want to err on the side of caution. >If the pro-transport group is wrong, a species vanishes *forever* >[Yeah, in theory, samples of the squirrels cells could stored and used >to reboot the species went the technology becomes available, but in >reality, no-one will bother to save the cell samples]. I think there's already somebody collecting and freezing tissue samples from endangered species. >If the anti-transport group is wrong, we lose one of many possible telescope >sites, but astronomy will hardly be extinguished as a result. I suspect that the issue is too complex to give it fair treatment in newspapers or on this list. Among the factors that should be considered: - Are there other suitable habitats, which are not already full of squirrels? - What is the current population, and what are the trends? - How distinct is the species from its relatives? (The Baltimore oriole, for instance, has been declared merely a subtype of another variety.) - What is the likelihood that the planned astronomical activity would hurt the squirrels? (Around here, the presence of a moderate number of people seems to help the grey squirrel population.) - How valuable and unique is the mountain as an observing site? - What is the cost of construction delays? John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 90 20:22:03 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The Vatican Connection In article <2579@mrsvr.UUCP> brown@mrsvr.UUCP (Russ Brown) writes: >> This seems to show a marked change in the Church's attitude toward as >> astronomy. Centuries ago it persecuted Galileo... > Actually, the Catholic church has always been a great supporter of >astonomy... In fact, the Copernican theory was originally received with considerable interest by the Church. It offered a considerable simplification of the cosmos -- the number of epicycles was just getting ridiculous -- and the revision of Church dogma involved was not an impossible problem. The Church had revised dogma before, e.g. on the flatness of the Earth, when the weight of evidence demanded it. Some people have made a good case for the notion that Galileo got into hot water not because of his theories, but because: 1. He insisted on presenting them as facts, not theories, at a time when there was really very little hard evidence. 2. He included theological arguments to support his ideas, something even a trained theologian -- which he wasn't -- would have hesitated to do, because astronomical theology was a sensitive area at the time and even experts could get into trouble over it. 3. He blatantly portrayed holders of the older views -- e.g. the Church! -- as obvious fools. Some have argued that Galileo would probably have gotten along fine with the Church if he'd just been a bit more diplomatic. As it was, he basically got a slap on the wrist -- the things he was charged with normally carried the death penalty. -- Life is too short to spend | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology debugging Intel parts. -Van J.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 90 17:02:04 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Deep Space Relay Satellite What's the feasability of getting a mid-point "relay" station put into place to support transmissions of deep space probes such as Voyager and future missions? Seems a waste for them to collect all that data and not be able to get access to it because either A) the 70 meter Deep Space Tracking network here on Mother Earth wasn't available or B) The wattage coming out of 'em in future years will be too low to be heard by anything sitting on the ground. Said relay would be composed of a decent-sized dish antenna to receive incoming data, a set of astronomical navigation aids to know where "it" is in relation to the earth, a couple of different BIG on-board storage devices (maybe a 600MB floptical and a tape), and a smaller antenna with enough power to ship back stuff back to earth this century. Alternately, we'll end up designing probes which drop off three or four football-sized relays (like a high-tech trail of bread crumbs :-) which can pass back clear data from way-way out. Of course, most of you skeptics are going to moan about the cost in terms of payload capability and design, but I'm worried about the cost of what we might be losing. Doug ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #410 *******************