Message-ID: <AaIXMzO00VcJ4T=05Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
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 <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
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
*******************