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 ; Sat, 9 Jun 1990 01:29:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8aQ8YLu00VcJI7h04a@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 9 Jun 1990 01:28:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #509 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 509 Today's Topics: Re: Missing mass NASA Headline News for 06/08/90 (Forwarded) Re: Lichens on Mars? Re: Voyager Mission Summary (forwarded) Re: Lichens on Mars? Re: US/Soviet Planetary Activity (was Re: Manned mission to Venus) Re: Termination of Lunar/Mars intiative Re: Termination of Lunar/Mars intiative Re: HAWAII/ROCKET very long - 61k Re: Tides Re: DSN Reliability and Resources Question Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jun 90 18:19:37 GMT From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!physics.utoronto.ca!neufeld@uunet.uu.net (Christopher Neufeld) Subject: Re: Missing mass In article FORTMENU@tudsv1.tudelft.NL ("Nick A. van Goor") writes: > >The mising matter all exists of disappeared socks..... > That's right, they collect in the hozone layer. Sorry, but somebody had to say it. >+ Nick A. van Goor + Bitnet : fortmenu@hdetud52.bitnet + >+ Slonet:Delft University of Technology + DECnet : fortmenu::tudsv1 + >+ Department of Chem.Engineering + Internet: fortmenu@tudsv1.tudelft.nl+ >+ Julianalaan 136 + YELLnet : + (3115)784348 + >+ 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands + FAXnet : + (3115)784452 + -- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | He's the kind of person neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca | who'd follow you into a cneufeld@pro-generic.cts.com Ad astra! | revolving door and come "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | out first. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 90 01:35:55 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 06/08/90 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Friday, June 8, 1990 Audio Service: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Friday, June 8........ Kennedy Space Center managers have decided to roll the Columbia off the launch pad to fix a leaking hydrogen line. The repair of the 17-inch-wide fuel line appears to be located at the disconnect area. This would require removing the orbiter from the external tank. During yesterday's news conference, the Deputy Associate Administrator for the Space Shuttle, Robert L. Crippen, announced that this will delay the Astro-1 mission until at least mid- August. Meanwhile, the Space Shuttle Atlantis is being prepared to move to the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC. After mating the external tank and the solid rocket boosters, the orbiter will be rolled out to launch pad 39-A next Friday, June 15. ******** Astronaut Steve Hawley has been named the Associate Director of NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California. Hawley was mission specialist aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery that successfully deployed the Hubble Space Telescope. He will assume duties on July 29 as the center's 3rd-ranking executive. Hawley is from Salina, Kansas, and has a PhD in Astronomy and Astrophysics from the University of Santa Cruz in California. ******** The Galileo spacecraft will receive a new Venus-to-Earth cruise sequence command today. It is now traveling toward Earth at over 58,000 miles per hour. The Galileo is scheduled to arrive this December. ******** Six Earth stations are now fully operational in Burma, increasing television coverage to areas that had not previously received service. The $8.8 million national satellite TV program retransmitting system has been contracted by the Chinese government. ******** A commercial Titan 3 is scheduled to carry another Intelsat communications satellite into orbit on June 21. The company ran into problems with a launch last March. A decision will be made by Intelsat this August whether to retrieve the rocket's cargo that was placed in a low orbit. --------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Tuesday, June 12........ 12:00 - 2:00 P.M. NASA programming: Voyager I science summary replay of June 6 news conference video. Thursday, June 14....... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. ----------------------------------------------------------------- All events and times are subject to change without notice. These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12:00 P.M. EDT. This is a service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA HQ. Contact: JSTANHOPE or CREDMOND on NASAmail or at 202/453-8425. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NASA Select TV: Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band 72 Degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 90 01:52:26 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: Lichens on Mars? In article <4ae22b5c.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: >In article <1990Jun5.150950.29328@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@banana.cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >>In article <3520@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca> msdos@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes: >>>Of course! Mars is far easier to terraform because some lichens can >>>live under simulated martian conditions here on Earth, which means we >>>can send this stuff over there and watch the show. >> >>Ah, no. Lichens might grow under the conditions that astronomers used >>to (wishfully) think existed on Mars, but that was back before various >>space probes showed how hostile the planet actually is. > >Ah, no. Lichens would not grow under the conditions that various space >probes have shown us to (actually) exist on Mars, but that was back before >Dan Quayle revealed how habitable the planet wishfully is. > >(Insert smileys for the humor-impaired and/or chronically right-winged.) 'Course, I can imagine a 'terraformed' Mars that could support lichen, but not us. This brings up the question of what qualifies as terraforming and what doesn't. There're lots of terran environments that support life that won't support animals like *me*. I can also imagine people who would consider creating a life supporting environment that didn't include a niche for us as worthwhile anyway. Better *some* life than none at all, and all that. JDN ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 90 13:46:09 GMT From: mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p515dfi@uunet.uu.net (Daniel Fischer) Subject: Re: Voyager Mission Summary (forwarded) In article <1990Jun6.174641.22830@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> stevo@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Steve Groom) writes: >This fact sheet was posted to an internal NASA newsgroup in support >of today's press conference covering the Voyager missions to the outer >planets. I thought it was a very good summary and worth reposting here. It was a brilliant idea! About 12 hours after the fact sheet arrived, a colleague gave a talk about the Voyager project - I made some 23 printouts of the fact sheet, and people were really wild about it... After the lecture an interesting question arose: where are the Voyagers heading in the frame of the Galaxy? We often hear which nearby star they'll visit when, but what happens in the coming millions of years? Surely their orbital energy won't carry them out of the Galaxy, and they'll go around the galactic center in a comet-like ellipse(?) - is there someone out there who has them, the Orbital Elements of the Voyagers in respect to the galactic center, quantities like eccentricity, major semiaxis and period? When will we see them again, and from which distance? Anybody having thought about this? Dan Fischer Bonn FRG p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 90 19:37:00 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!apollo!rehrauer@ucsd.edu (Steve Rehrauer) Subject: Re: Lichens on Mars? In article <1990Jun5.150950.29328@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@banana.cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <3520@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca> msdos@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) writes: >>Of course! Mars is far easier to terraform because some lichens can >>live under simulated martian conditions here on Earth, which means we >>can send this stuff over there and watch the show. > >Ah, no. Lichens might grow under the conditions that astronomers used >to (wishfully) think existed on Mars, but that was back before various >space probes showed how hostile the planet actually is. Ah, no. Lichens would not grow under the conditions that various space probes have shown us to (actually) exist on Mars, but that was back before Dan Quayle revealed how habitable the planet wishfully is. (Insert smileys for the humor-impaired and/or chronically right-winged.) -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | (Steve) rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Spontaneous human combustion - what luck!"| Apollo Computer (Hewlett-Packard) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 90 21:22:40 GMT From: mcgill-vision!quiche!calvin!msdos@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU (Mark SOKOLOWSKI) Subject: Re: US/Soviet Planetary Activity (was Re: Manned mission to Venus) Everybody seems to criticize me because of my lack of respect for a (boring) Moon mission. The fact is simply that for the taxpayers that will fund such programs, these will rapidly become so boring (remember Apollo 17?) that the whole project will simply die all by itself. Why the need to resort to exotic means to find the resources that we already have here on Earth. Don't forget that Earth is the largest solid body of the solar system, its Oceans are covered with polymetallic nodules... Remember too that emotions in the general public are not that much tuned to scientific perception. I recall having seen a few weeks ago a talk show with a guy looking like Eddie Murphy litterally laughing at the first photo that came from the HST, especially at the moment when he compared the old picture with the new one, the one made by the "1.5 billion $ toy". The audience applauded, laughed, and I felt ridiculized. I wouldn't be surprised that this could be a show watched by a congressman, or one of his relatives... If we have to spend 100 billion on a "Industrial" Moon base that will finally be 1/10th as big as predicted, will accomodate 10 people after killing 20 more in various accidents (in the same manner as Challenger), and will run on a disastrous year round deficit, then I prefer to fight with all my forces to get 400 billion for a one shot Venus mission, in which everybody will know that there will be one and only (no stupid and irrealistic expectations...) launch. I simply think that we are in a position equivalent to that of the roman empire: Romans didn't send a big fleet to the americas, they simply didn't needed to, and when the Vikings tried, they failed miserably. Only progressively and with much more advanced technology (fusion engines making the interplanetary trips as easy as on airplanes now) is it reasonable to settle for more than exploration. Mark S. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 90 04:05:34 GMT From: thorin!homer!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Termination of Lunar/Mars intiative In article <4ae233fc.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: >At a time when so much cries out to be done in the U.S. (socially, >economically, technologically), and as we sink deeper in debt... > >Am I being terribly naive to hope that we could find ways to encourage >more private-sector efforts in space, e.g.: Pegasus, instead? Not as naive as you would be if you hoped we could find ways to encourage the govt. to cause fewer social, economic, and technological problems. Followups to talk.politics.misc. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "The imaging team is moving from its ``instant science'' mode to a more leisurely ``fast science'' mode." - Dr. Bradford Smith, Voyager Imaging Team ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 90 19:47:00 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!apollo!rehrauer@ucsd.edu (Steve Rehrauer) Subject: Re: Termination of Lunar/Mars intiative In article <5929@bayes.ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> fineman@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (Charles Fineman) writes: >Congress is ready to terminate the Lunar/Mars (aka Space Exploration) >initiative. > >*** ZERO FUNDING *** [emphasis added by poster] >Termination would be catastrophic. No program is of more importance to >[the US (both government AND comercial) space program]. >Without this program there will be ... *NO* manned activity in space beyond >low earth orbit for the foreseeable future. At a time when so much cries out to be done in the U.S. (socially, economically, technologically), and as we sink deeper in debt, I admit to having misgivings about funding Yet Another Expensive, Gigantic, Government-Fostered Space Effort. We've already spent billions on the Space Station, with apparently not nearly as much to show for it as had been hoped and promised. Am I being terribly naive to hope that we could find ways to encourage more private-sector efforts in space, e.g.: Pegasus, instead? -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | (Steve) rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Spontaneous human combustion - what luck!"| Apollo Computer (Hewlett-Packard) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 90 16:52:00 GMT From: sgi!cdp!jhanson@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: HAWAII/ROCKET very long - 61k The reason for posting this message here is that there are many scientists who are unaware of the enormous environmental and social costs associated with their activities. Many of you are currently working on projects that will indirectly kill plants, animals and humans. Hopefully at least one more scientist will start thinking of our planet as a complete system instead of a bunch of discrete parts. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 90 23:05:03 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Tides In article <1990Jun8.163052.19763@oracle.com> fmcwilli@oracle.com (Floyd McWilliams) writes: > The Sun has 27,000,000 times the Moon's mass (the Sun is 333,000 >times more massive than the Earth, which has 81 times the Moon's mass). > > The Sun is 391 times more distant than the Moon (93,000,000 / >238,000). > > Therefore, the Sun's gravitational pull on the Earth is 177 times >that of the Moon (divide mass ration by square of distance ratio). > > This is what we would expect -- we revolve around the Sun every >year, not the Moon. But it seems to me that tides caused by the Sun >should be 177 times stronger than those caused by the Moon! What's wrong >with my reasoning? The Sun is certainly pulling more strongly than the Moon. Due to the inverse square law, the Sun (or Moon) pulls more strongly on the near side of the Earth than on the far side. This tends to stretch the Earth out, but the oceans "give" more easily than the rest. The near ocean gets pulled away from the Earth, which gets pulled away from the far ocean. This is not caused by the overall gravitational pull, but by its gradient across the diameter of the Earth. At the existing masses and distances, the gradient of the Moon's field is greater than the Sun's. The gradient (derivative) of the inverse-square law is inverse-cube. So you have to divide 27,000,000 by the cube of 391, showing that the tides due to the Sun are 45% of those due to the Moon. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 90 13:21:37 GMT From: mcsun!unido!rwthinf!dieter@uunet.uu.net (Dieter Kreuer) Subject: Re: DSN Reliability and Resources Question In article , dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (9240 Fraering Philip) writes: > About JPL providing navigation aid to ESA, Ariane, and Japan,: > > How much do we get paid for it? After all, they charge someone > for the launch... > How much did ESA get for delivering the first SPACELAB module to NASA? I'll never understand why they gave it away for free (it was worth $1 billion, as far as I remember). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Real programmers write programs, | Dieter Kreuer, Lehrstuhl Informatik IV not documentation." | RWTH Aachen, Ahornstr. 55, D-5100 Aachen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #509 *******************