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, 21 Jun 1990 01:47:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Jun 1990 01:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #548 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 548 Today's Topics: Re: cosmosphere Re: Investing is our space future. Japan's Planetary Plans Retraction: Smileys Re: SPACE Digest V11 #545 Soviet Mars Mini-Rover Re: Space incentives (was Re: NASA 91 Appropriation (long)) Re: Model Rocket Contest Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest 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: 18 Jun 90 12:20:20 GMT From: ksr!clj@uunet.uu.net (Chris Jones) Subject: Re: cosmosphere In article <662@enprt.Wichita.NCR.COM>, hburford@enprt (Harry Burford) writes: >C476721@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ("Bill Ball") writes: > >The Cosmosphere is located in Hutchinson Kansas just north west of >Wichita 316-622-2305. There you will find a large collection of >space artifacts as well as an OmniMAX theater. > For example, I think the Cosmosphere is the only >place in the western world where you can view an actual Russian >space suit. The Boston Museum of Science currently (through September 23) has an exhibit called "Soviet Space". Among the approximately 50 artifacts on display (which include some impressively large pieces of hardware) are several actual flight suits and two EVA suits. Though nothing has been finalized, the Soviets are interested in taking the collection to other North American sites. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 18:45:02 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!unicorn!n8035388@ucsd.edu (Worth Henry A) Subject: Re: Investing is our space future. In article <14762@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: > If you want an investment in the future instead of an investment >in your portfolio, you would do well to send some money in the >direction of the Space Studies Institute, which is doing the basic R&D >to build space industries - and building a private lunar probe as >well. You won't make a monetary profit out of it, but you'll help >leverage the Breakout onto the High Frontier(1). > > More SSI info by email request to me. Anyone who is serious about >going into space should be giving to them until it hurts. > Hey, I'm just a broke grad-student, but I'd find the money to join an organization that was making a REAL effort to MAKE A DIFFERENCE. What other organizations exist to promote future space initiatives? (NSS, Lunar Society, British Interplanetary Society...???) If knowledgeable netters would care to email the following information on such organizations, I'll summarize and post: 1) Organization's title and a summary of its charter and goals 2) Major projects and accomplishments 3) Summary of its current budget, number of members, notable members, countries in which it is active... 4) Opinions on how well it meets its stated goals; include opinions only if you are willing to have them attributed to YOU. (ie. does it actually exist merely to support its own lobbying apparatus and/or directors?) 5) Membership information and contact address 6) Other information that might help netters to decide where to BEST invest their money. ---------------------- P.S. The WWU net was just upgraded to class B IP addresses, therefore, your email may bounce. The new IP address for @unicorn.wwu.edu is : 140.160.240.10 ------------------------------- 6/20/90 ------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 15:19:35 GMT From: mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p515dfi@uunet.uu.net (Daniel Fischer) Subject: Japan's Planetary Plans The SPACE NEWS have reported recently that Japan's space agency ISAS has decided to send a complicated mission to the moon, including penetrators etc. Last year ISAS was talking of three different options for their next great step: a lunar mission, a Venus orbiter and a Comet Coma Sample Return(!). Does the announcement of the lunar S/C mean that the other two ideas have been abandoned? A decision was due this year, so I wonder whether that's it. Anyone knowing the details? [I asked Japan's embassy in Bonn: they hadn't even heard about the new lunar plans.] Daniel Fischer --- p515dfi@mpirbn.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 10:27:55 CDT From: John Nordlie Subject: Retraction: Smileys I recently posted a guide concerning smileys on this digest. I meant to send this humorous article to the network humor magazine "Nutworks", but mistyped the destination. To those of you who I have offended by wasting space in this digest: I apologize. ================================================================= John Nordlie ------------------------------ From: AZM@CU.NIH.GOV Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 13:09:06 EDT Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V11 #545 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: 19 Jun 90 16:31:48 GMT > From: > swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!maven!games@uc > sd.edu > Subject: Rockets to the moon > > Rocket to the moon. > > I think that this is a good idea. However are there not some really > terrible beaurocratic paperwork things that need to be done in order for > a launch like this to take place? > > (Having only launched D birds to a height of about 1000 feet myself, I am > unsure.) > > John. > > ------------------------------ The mention of paperwork related to moon shots reminded me of something I heard about and would like to investigate. A very long time ago in the 1950s, somebody advertised in the science fiction magazines of the day, that people could buy 1 inch square sec- tions of the moon for $1.00. I don't know the numbers, but I have heard that quite a large number were sold. This raises several interesting questions. 1. Does anyone on the list know anything about this? 2. Does anyone on the list own any of the 1 in. sq. "lots." 3. If the answer to (2) is yes, would you be willing to sell, and if so for how much? 4. If someone were to acquire say, 5,000 of these "lots" in a 50 X 100 grid, and then secure passage to the moon on a future moon flight, could that individual then lay claim to that "land," and do something with it, say declare it a sovereign nation? 5. Could the individual in the above question lay claim to the "land" while still Earthside, and then say, charge the Soviet Union rent for one of their left-behind vehicles that just happened to be on that piece of "land." Incidentally, as I understand it, actual Deeds of Title and Owner- ship were sent to the people who bought "moon inches." The questions could go on for quite a while but these should suffice for starters. Derd Valpar AZM@NIHCU ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 16:39:54 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Soviet Mars Mini-Rover Soviet Mars Mini-Rover June 20, 1990 The Soviet Union has announced a shift of strategy in the Soviet Union's Mars '94 mission, a change that could mean addition of a mini-rover on the robotic project. A decision by the Soviet Space Research Institute would decide this September whether or not to include a mini-rover on the mission. The current Mars '94 mission plan is to launch two spacecraft aboard a Proton launcher in October 1994, with each spacecraft carrying an orbiter and a balloon-borne science platform, portions of which would be provided by the French. The mini-rover could be added to one of the balloon stages. The mini-rover is still unofficial and expected to cost nearly $14 million, the major impediment is to be funding. _ _____ _ | | | __ \ | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | |__) | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | ___/ | |___ M/S 301-355 | |_____/ |_| |_____| Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 20:41:09 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!unicorn!n8035388@ucsd.edu (Worth Henry A) Subject: Re: Space incentives (was Re: NASA 91 Appropriation (long)) In article <5782@hplabsb.HP.COM> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: > >All this talk about prizes is (for the sake of this argument) nonsense. >What we really should do is hire a launch of a light sail. Sail it out >to an asteroid, link up with it, and sail the asteroid over into an orbit >which will cause it to collide with Washington, Moscow, Paris, Tokyo, >or Canberra. Disconnect sail. Point out fact to world. That ought to get >some kind of action on some sort of space development. > > :-) <-- Is the smiley really necessary? > Unfortunately ( or perhaps fortunately :-) ), space enthusiasts don't have the funds to hire such a mission, or any other major mission (sigh). My original posting suggested a private prize fund which enthusiasts could initiate (using insurance to leverage contributions), but, which had incentives that would make it in the best interests of industry, and even governments, to get involved (major contributors would have a "guaranteed" opportunity to be subcontractors in any project attempting to claim the prize). Unfortunately, the above, although rather amusing, reply has been the only response, ... so far(?). It is unlikely that enthusiasts would ever be able to directly fund a major mission -- however, there must be SOME method -- thus my original, although much too long, posting. Such a scheme would have to have INCENTIVES for the general public, industry, and government -- and not just be a simple plea for contributions. Any ideas out there in net-land? Anyone interested in refining the prize concept? Or, how about some good arguments as to why something like my original posting, <1143@unicorn.WWU.EDU>, would never work? HW 6/20/90 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 90 17:24:29 CDT From: John Nordlie Subject: Re: Model Rocket Contest I like Vincent's idea of spinning the rocket to stabalize it, but I think that using fins on the first stage to spin it up would create unnessessary drag. I read in a book that years ago (I think around WWII or so) the army was testing a system to launch unguided, finless rockets. They basically placed the rocket in a tube, spun up the tube using a small gasoline engine, then ignited the rocket. The rocket would keep spinning after launch due to intertia. The advantages to not having fins on the rocket included, less drag, easier storage, less weight, greater resistance to "weather vaning" (turning into the wind after launch), easier to make the rockets, etc. The army abandoned the project after determining that the rotating launch tube was not portable enough for field use. This system might be ideally suited to launch the moon rockets in the contest. I know that I said before that I didn't think it was possible to launch model rockets to the moon, but the numbers presented by those in the know have cast serious doubt. The performance of these "model" rocket engines is very impressive. I wish Vincent luck on the project. ========================================================================= John Nordlie : "Flamest me not, less I strike thee down!" : ( Or get really pissed off, at least ) ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 90 19:34:37 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!mdivax1!moss@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest In article <9662@pt.cs.cmu.edu> vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) writes: >I think us little >guys could really make rockets to send things into space!!!!!!!!!!! > Hmmm.... Let's see. Escape velocity is about 7 miles/sec = 25,000 m.p.h. Now while this space rocket wouldn't reach top velocity until the final stage burned, it seams to me that the friction associated with Mach 10+ in the upper atmosphere would turn this rocket into a crispy critter. Not to mention the structural stresses of super-sonic speeds on a balsa and paper model. Of course the rocket could be made from light weight metals but then its no longer a *model* rocket. At this point we're starting to enter amatuer rocketry (no flames please - I have nothing against properly supervised amatuer rocketry). Still, the idea of a non-governmental, non-commercial hobbyist space launch is quite interesting. This could probably catch the attention of some media types and provide some positive press for model rocketry, esp. if the launch were combined with another rocketry event. Barry Moss ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #548 *******************