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 ; Fri, 25 May 90 03:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8aLBVCC00VcJ80xE5E@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 25 May 90 03:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #448 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 448 Today's Topics: Re: German MIR astronaut Re: Splitting sci.space Re: wooden ships Reduction of HST CCD images Re: Splitting sci.space Re: DOD/NASA announce National Aero-Space Plane contractor team (Forwarded) Re: COMPARISON OF PROBE TECHNOLOGY Re: NASA Headline News for 05/18/90 (Forwarded) Re: Manned mission to Venus Re: NASA Select TV Re: terraforming Venus DOD/NASA announce National Aero-Space Plane contractor team (Forwarded) Re: wooden ships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 May 90 05:38:07 GMT From: usc!samsung!umich!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: German MIR astronaut In article <1990May23.135620.6442@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> spgreg@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes: >A german astronaut is scheduled to make a trip to the Soviet Space >Station, MIR. I would like to know if the primary and backup >candidates have been selected yet... The mission has only just received political approval from both sides. I doubt that they are actively looking for candidates yet, much less finished deciding on a pair. -- 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: 24 May 90 05:24:40 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Splitting sci.space In article <15525@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0%UUNET.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >Looking at the subject lists, I'd say one split that could profitably be >done is to put the "updates" in their own group, sci.space.announce... >This could even be moderated (although the mail leg might cost in >timeliness), and followups consistently directed to sci.space. > >If we did this I think we could zorch .shuttle. Historically, the original purpose of .shuttle was in fact for news updates, not for specifically shuttle-related discussion. Sci.space.announce, or something like that -- awkward name, but it's hard to find a better one that doesn't invite more general chit-chat -- sounds like a reasonable idea. I don't think it is necessary to moderate it. All that is really required is to convince the handful of people who regularly post news reports to put a suitable Followup-To header in their articles. I can certainly do that; how do the others feel? -- 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: 24 May 90 18:26:21 GMT From: spies!zorch!phil@apple.com (Phil Gustafson) Subject: Re: wooden ships In article <1990May22.131441.1701@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James) writes: [British are inept explorers.] Se Roland Huntford's _Scott_and_Amundsen_ for a well-documented exposition of this. phil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions outside attributed quotations are mine alone. Satirical material may not be specifically labeled as such. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | | 408/286-1749 ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 90 23:25:04 GMT From: bradford@boulder.colorado.edu (Mark Bradford) Subject: Reduction of HST CCD images Here's a slightly technical question about Hubble's Wide Field/Planetary Camera. (Quick background for people unfamiliar with the details of CCDs: being silicon chips, they aren't perfect, and so their systematic flaws must be removed from each image in a process known as 'reduction.') I know that they went to great lengths to put the best possible CCD into HST -- we got one of the rejects for our 24-inch here -- but is the WF/PC chip so perfect that they don't need to reduce the images? Or will they spend X amount of time taking sky flats? Do they plan to find the average DC bias level on a regular time schedule? My guess is that they'll use a method similar to that which Tony Tyson uses for his ultra-deep CCD imaging, and simply use a large number of slightly-offset images to produce a 'super sky flat,' but I'd like to hear if anybody knows for sure... thanks! -- Mark (bradford@tramp.colorado.edu) <> To err is human, to moo bovine. ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 90 06:11:16 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Splitting sci.space In article <6914@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> conor@inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill) writes: >While I hate arguments which tend to occur concerning newsgroup splitting, >yet again I arrive to find hundreds of articles in sci.space. >We run a seven day expire here, and we have 272 articles spooled, >in 150 subjects. I guess the question is whether forty articles a day is too much. I don't think it is. (I see 309 articles on a 10 day expire, by the way, for only 30/day, but Conor may be adding sci.space.shuttle.) >Could we perhaps have a discussion on splitting sci.space into a few >smaller groups. Looking at the subject lists, I'd say one split that could profitably be done is to put the "updates" in their own group, sci.space.announce. This could even be moderated (although the mail leg might cost in timeliness), and followups consistently directed to sci.space. If we did this I think we could zorch .shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 90 23:00:47 GMT From: sam.cs.cmu.edu!vac@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Subject: Re: DOD/NASA announce National Aero-Space Plane contractor team (Forwarded) Peter E. Yee: > As a presidentially directed joint DOD/NASA program, the >NASP program objective is to develop technologies for a new >generation of aero-space vehicles. This includes single-stage- >to-orbit space launch vehicles capable of horizontal takeoff and >landing and long range, hypersonic flight within the atmosphere. I like the idea building very high speed jets to cut the cost to orbit. It should save money to use oxygen from air as long as you can, thus not having to carry your own as in a rocket. However, the idea of a "single-stage-to-orbit" does not make sense to me. It seems like you will be paying to take jet engines, wings, jet fuel tanks, and a large frame, all the way to orbit where they do you no good at all. It seems like at least 2 stages makes sense. Are there sound economic reasons for building a single-stage-to-orbit launcher or was this just a political decision? Can you use the same engine as both a jet and a rocket by just adding your own oxygen when you want it to be a rocket? Can a "plane" get going so fast on jets that it is really almost into space? (I find this hard to believe) Thanks for any info, -- Vince ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 90 05:33:12 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: COMPARISON OF PROBE TECHNOLOGY In article <13045@wpi.wpi.edu> horshac@wpi.wpi.edu (Matthew J Rosenwasser) writes: >Does anyone know how the technology of the Pioneers, Voyager and Vikings >compare with that of Magellan, Ulyesses, Galileo and the HST? Can it be >considered next generation? ... There were no sharp generation boundaries, but rather gradual evolution. Mariner 10 was much more sophisticated than Mariner 2. And as that example indicates, you need to be more specific, because some of those programs spanned a number of years and a number of missions. Voyager started out to be Mariners 11 through 13; the first Pioneers pre-dated all other US planetary missions, but the Pioneer-Venus pair was a relatively recent mission and the P-V orbiter is still operating. Actually, there *is* a major generation gap visible, but it's after all the missions you mention. Remember that most of the hardware for Magellan, Ulysses, Galileo, and HST is ten years old. The gap is between them and Mars Observer. -- 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: 23 May 90 17:05:18 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip@ucsd.edu (Chip Salzenberg) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 05/18/90 (Forwarded) According to yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee): >This is NASA Headline News for Friday, May 18.... > >As current propulsion systems are unable to lift [Ulysses] >directly from Earth over the sun's poles, a sling-shot trajectory >around Jupiter will send the probe across the sun's equator in >February, 1995. The launch aboard the space shuttle Discovery is >scheduled for October 5. I wonder how Ulysses can go directly to Jupiter for its ally-oop out-of-the-ecliptic assist, while Galileo must fly by Venus once and Earth twice just to get to Jupiter and stay there. Is orbital insertion more exacting than a gravity-assist flyby? On a related note, would any of the Soviet boosters be powerful enough to send Ulysses up out of the ecliptic without help from Jupiter? -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT , ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 90 19:05:47 GMT From: clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!quiche!calvin!msdos@uunet.uu.net (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus It is true that the movies are a good area of interest to me (and it's true that I first only accepted the sci-fi ones as the only valid type, for what is the use of showing real life situations when we already have them around us???), but in any case I don't think that they should be associated with a manned expedition on Venus. What I am thinking when I imagine such an entreprise is the thrill of being there, the thrill of doing something nobody else has ever done, like entering the athmosphere of this planet at incredible speeds, then plunging to the surface through the pure sulfuric acid clouds, and then landing, going outside, taking photos, in short, living in surrealistic conditions in comparison to which those on Mars and the Moon look like a beach party. And there even more when you realise that this is a place just like the Earth, with a horizon, mountains, valleys, (Ocean beds???) etc... just like on our planet. Being there will simply make me feel better, and to satisfy the desire to be there, I have all my adaptability and my technology. When I read most of the postings in this group, I sometimes feel that technology ends-up being pursued in itself, and not as a mean to realize anything we want. Being on Venus is a realistic goal within the possibilities of the techniques we have right now. It won't matter for me that Mars or the Moon are more "realistic" targets, it will take tens of years to go there anyway so why bother, I WANT TO GO TO VENUS!!!! PERIOD!!!!! Mark S. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 90 05:39:57 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: NASA Select TV In article DYOUNG@TRINITY.BITNET (David Young) writes: > I have seen quite a few articles lately that mention NASA Select TV. >Is that available to general cable subscribers or only via satalite? ... It is primarily distributed by satellite. However, many cable companies carry it, at least at times when something interesting is happening. Ask your local cable people about it. -- 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: 24 May 90 18:00:59 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!hepuxa.hep.uiuc.edu!rls@ucsd.edu (Ray Swartz) Subject: Re: terraforming Venus In article <1830@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >[time to let my ignorance show]... > >Doesn't our large moon account for the Earth not having an atmosphere like >Venus? Or at least partially account for it? > > >I think what Venus needs is a large moon like Earth has, to reduce the >atmosphere. Or several smaller ones in a closer orbit should do the trick. >Or several large asteroids in orbit. I have seen this belief in a science fiction story. The way it works is like this. The earth's atmosphere has a density that is basically a negative exponential from the surface on up . Thus, there is a part of the atmosphere even as high as the moon, it is just very thin. The moon, since the beginning of the system, has been sweeping up some of this air and flinging it out into space by it's gravity. Over the past 4.5 billion years, this has reduced the earth's atmosphere so it is no longer as thick as it once was (it started out like Venus). So, the idea states, the earth needed the moon to become as hospitable is it currently is (at least as far as the atmosphere goes). I think that this is a good example that one should not confuse science with science fiction :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ray Swartz Jr. | | Gradual Student | This space intentionally left blank | When I get U of Illinois |---------------------------------------| a really in the middle of | Hell, even _I_ don't want to claim | good quote a cornfield | these opinions as my own! | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 90 18:23:18 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: DOD/NASA announce National Aero-Space Plane contractor team (Forwarded) Mary L. Sandy Headquarters, Washington, D.C May 24, 1990 (Phone: 202/453-2754) Noon Maj. Robert Perry Pentagon, Washington, D.C. (Phone: 202/697-8123) RELEASE: 90-71 DOD/NASA ANNOUNCE NATIONAL AERO-SPACE PLANE CONTRACTOR TEAM The Department of Defense and NASA announced today the immediate establishment of a national team of contractors to continue the challenging research and development of the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP). With the engineering and technology bases available from Rockwell International, McDonnell Douglas, Pratt and Whitney, General Dynamics and Rocketdyne, the federal government expects to benefit from the synergism of ideas from these five organizations. As a presidentially directed joint DOD/NASA program, the NASP program objective is to develop technologies for a new generation of aero-space vehicles. This includes single-stage- to-orbit space launch vehicles capable of horizontal takeoff and landing and long range, hypersonic flight within the atmosphere. With the national contractor team, DOD and NASA take a unique first step in formulating a single team of contractors working together to develop technologies for future hypersonic aircraft. The team will conduct the design and development activities for the X-30 research aircraft and develop a competitive technology base for future systems. Instead of just one contractor coming forward with concepts in materials, propulsion and structures, this new approach will allow the government and the contractors alike to capitalize on five industry bases of technological development. The government anticipates that with breakthroughs in technology from efforts such as NASP, the United States will continue to maintain its world leadership position in aerospace technology. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 90 18:22:28 GMT From: spies!zorch!phil@apple.com (Phil Gustafson) Subject: Re: wooden ships In article <1990May22.041549.6888@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >It wasn't uncommon for wooden ships to last only one major voyage, or for >that matter for an expedition to come back with fewer ships than it started >with, because of things like shipworm. In fact, in Magellan's case only one ship of a small fleet made it home. The saying among those who maintain historic wooden vessels [_Constitution_, Victory_, etc.] is "After a hundred years you have either a replica or a wreck." I can sorta justify this comment in this group because so many shuttles are named after historic exploration vessels. I hope we eventually have a _Fram_. phil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions outside attributed quotations are mine alone. Satirical material may not be specifically labeled as such. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | | 408/286-1749 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #448 *******************