Message-ID: <8afxrOm00VcJ03bU4F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 1990 02:23:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #136

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
			Re: World Space Agency
			     Re: Freedom
		  Pioneer studies Lightning on Venus

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: 27 Jul 90 00:06:09 GMT
From: apple.com!heksterb@apple.com  (Ben Hekster)
Subject: Re: World Space Agency

Thanks for the reply--wow!

I said:
>>NASA still undeniably has the world's most technologically advanced 
space 
>>program.

and I still stand firmly behind this statement.  Naturally I was referring 
to the quality and not the quantity of the program.  Granted that the 
Soviets (because of the inferior quality of their space hardware) have 
found it necessary to expand their number of launches to such an extent as 
to overshadow that of any other space-fairing nation.  This merely 
underscores my point.

Henry Worth writes:
> [...] is your statement based on anything but political 
> rhetoric or an ethnocentric viewpoint?

I HOPE not!  I was born in Canada, of an American mother and Dutch father, 
and raised in Holland.  I've only been to the States occasionally.  
Concerning the politics, yes, my statement certainly was partly 
politically motivated.  How could it not be?

> While NASA does have much top-notch technology, it is currently acheiving 
> little with that technology, and doing little to extend it.

Here I think I must disagree a little!  I think it is the Soviets who are 
not extending their technological capabilities, but rather trying to make 
do with incredibly outdated technology.  Almost everything that NASA does 
is so wonderfully new and innovative, which is precisely the cause of many 
of their problems.  It is so easy to stick to things which everybody knows 
well, but those who dare to excel will lead the rest.

> Capt. Cook's ships were hardly technical tour de' forces for his
> day, yet he accomplished much. They were converted (Welsh?) colliers 
> (which he himself requested), a type he had served on much of his early 
> career and therefore knew quite well and could trust.

Interesting allegory.  You are absolutely correct in observing that the 
very latest in technology is not always required to do a given job.  
However, today's low-technology was, of course, once high-technology.  I 
believe it is NASA's mandate to be on the forefront of space technology, 
to 'push the envelope,' and do research in many promising fields.  
Ideally, the production tasks would be assumed by private industry, which 
seems to me much better suited to that sort of task than a Government 
agency.

The Soviets are currently doing little (as far as I can see) in innovative 
operations.  The Mir space station seems to me inferior in almost every 
respect to NASA's Skylab.  The Soviet shuttle is so obviously derived from 
the Space Shuttle that it hardly requires mentioning.  Much of Western 
technology, such as satellite telecommunications remain as yet 
underdeveloped by the Soviets.

> In many ways, the Soviet approach to space parallels the Japanese
> approach to the auto (and other) markets

I can see the analogy in that many Japanese products were also developed 
from once-American technological innovations.  However, the Japanese have 
a greatly skilled workforce which the Soviets lack.

> The only thing holding
> the Soviets back is their current fiscal problems.

Isn't that exactly what's holding back NASA too!

When I posted my original message, I was thinking of masterpieces like the 
Voyagers, which both performed beautifully, way beyond specifications, and 
were built with small budgets.  Both the two recently launched Phobos 
probes failed before ever reaching their targets.  Apparently they lacked 
even the most rudimentary fail-safing mechanisms.  Compare this to the 
elaborate systems in the Voyagers and Hubble.

> [...] the Soviet shuttle -- which, by the way, has a slightly higher
> payload then the shuttle -- was a political boondoggle, forced down the 
> throat of a very reluctant Soviet space agency.

This may or may not be true (it's an easy thing to state AFTER the fact, 
isn't it)--however, the same could be said of the Space Shuttle.  Although 
this was way before my time, I understand that the solid motor-powered 
Shuttle was the cheapest (in terms of development cost) of several 
proposed versions, and that NASA was more or less forced to this option 
due to severe budget constraints even though at the time launch costs were 
known to be higher.

> Institutions like the UN and World Bank have made Americans, justifiably,
> leary of international efforts

Not only Americans!  The only "common" thing that our European Community 
has so far been able to achieve is the disastrous Common Agricultural 
Policy which is costing us utter tens of billions of dollars yearly.  Most 
multinational initiatives are doomed to succeed because the member 
nations, although in agreement at first, each evolve in their own 
different directions and eventually bring cooperation in such commitments 
to a grinding and expensive halt.  It may be interesting to note that it 
is exactly these multinational cooperatives which grow into the massive 
bureaucracies which I, like you, abhor.  Again, witness the EC, UN, etc.

> can we afford to play it safe 
> and wait for [Gorbachev's] success?

I honestly think we have no choice.  The question may be, "can we really 
afford NOT to?"

> "by failing to learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes"

You're so right!  So let's give NASA more money!!

I duly recognize that my technical knowledge is woefully inferior to that 
of the regular posters to this list--if my facts are wrong, I will stand 
humbly corrected.

I believe that NASA is capable of great excellence, if only given the 
proper resources.  Naturally, this is difficult in these times.  I forgot 
which of the NASA administrators suggested that Freedom be completely 
scrapped unless the necessary funds were allocated, but I tend to agree 
with this.  Otherwise, I can see the same mistakes made with the Shuttle 
happening all over again.

Again, thanks for the extensive response.  Good luck with your thesis.  
(Anything aerospace-related?)

Ben

P.S.: I don't think Apple makes the best computers--just the best personal 
computers.  But that discussion definitely belongs on a different list.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 90 09:44:50 GMT
From: THEP.LU.SE!magnus@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: Re: Freedom

In article <730@ksr.com> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes:
>In article <1990Jul24.164959.23850@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>It's even better than you think.  "Peace" does not have quite the same
>>connotations in Russian as it does in English, due to different cultural
>>background and historical influences.  The English connotation of harmony-
>>and-coexistence is replaced by a connotation of lack-of-dangerous-opposition.
>>"Mir" means "peace through overwhelming superiority".  How appropriate...
>
>I forwarded this article to a coworker who speaks excellent Russian (having
>grown up there) and he said:
>
>  He's probably pulling the sci.space's collective leg, unless something has
>  changed while my back was turned.  "Mir" is pretty much "peace", except that
>  in Russian it doubles as "world."
>
>So, I think this is one of those stories that the tellers believe because they
>want it to be true, not because it has evidence on its side.


Well, I think *both* Henry and your coworker are right.
'Mir' is the Russian word that corresponds to the English 'peace'.
But the word 'peace' has different meanings to different people,
even if they are both speaking English! To one person, it may mean 
'harmony and coexistence', to another 'lack of opposition'.

It's my impression (from the media, perhaps someone who's been
to the USSR can correct me) that when the Soviet *leadership*
used to talk about 'peace' they used the latter definition - just
as they by 'democracy' meant 'a communist one-party system'. This,
of course, doesn't mean that ordinary Soviet citizens had the
same view!

By the way, this 'newspeak' isn't limited to the Eastern bloc  - some
American leaders have been using 'freedom' as meaning 'freedom from
communism' - at least when discussing countries in Central America.
As long as a country's leaders were friendly to the USA, the country
was 'free' - even if said leaders were fascist oppressors...

[Note (before you start flaming me): I do *not* intend to make a political
point here - just to point out that it's important (epsecially in
politics) to keep in mind that different words mean different things
to different people.]


Magnus Olsson		     	| \e+ 	   /_	      
Dept. of Theoretical Physics 	|  \  Z	  / q	      
University of Lund, Sweden	|   >----<	      
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se	|  /	  \===== g    
Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52 		| /e-	   \q

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 90 03:23:47 GMT
From: linus!philabs!briar!rfc@think.com  (Robert Casey)
Subject: Pioneer studies Lightning on Venus

copied from amateur radio packet:
 Msg# TSF  Size #Rd  Date  Time From   MsgID        To
38054 BN   7245   0 23-Jul 2345 N3FYC  28040_WD4NUN ALL@USA (NONE)

  7/23/90: PIONEER STUDIES LIGHTNING ON VENUS

  RELEASE:  90-101

  New research indicates that Venus may have lightning similar 
  to that on Earth, according to NASA researcher Dr. Christopher 
  Russell, magnetic fields investigator for the Pioneer Venus 
  spacecraft and a geophysics professor at UCLA. 

  Dr. Russell said previous studies had indicated lightning on 
  Venus might be related to volcanic activity on the surface of the 
  planet.  But in a research report being published this summer in 
  a Dutch research journal, Space Science Reviews, he said new 
  studies now indicate the Venus lightning occurs in the afternoon, 
  just as it does on Earth, and probably is related to cloud 
  activity not volcanic activity on the surface.  Venus is 26 
  million miles closer to the sun than the Earth and completely 
  covered with clouds.

  Russell said an analysis of radio signal data shows there appears to
  be as much or even more lightning within the thick, high cloud layers
  of the cloud-shrouded planet as there is on Earth.  The physical
  properties of the solid and liquid particles in the Venusian clouds
  as well as temperatures and atmospheric pressure also appear
  similar.  Russell said most of the radio signal data he analyzed
  was obtained during the Pioneer orbiter spacecraft's 4,000 orbits of
  Venus from 1979 to 1990.  The spacecraft is about 90 million miles
  from Earth.  Additional visible light and radio data were obtained
  from Soviet spacecraft.

  Other scientists working on the Venus data are Dr. Robert 
  Strangeway, UCLA; and  William Borucki and John Dyer, both of 
  NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., which manages 
  the spacecraft for NASA's Office of Space Science and 
  Applications.

  There has been disagreement scientists believe it is possible that
  Pioneer measured local disturbances in Venus's ionosphere instead of
  lightning.

  "The predominance of the data," Strangeway said, "suggests 
  that what we're seeing on the planet is lightning, though there 
  are events which may not be lightning," he added.

  Studies of lightning on Earth also have been made using 
  radio data like that received by Pioneer.  Lightning flashes on 
  Earth produce radio waves that circle our planet.  Lightning has 
  been reported on planets Earth, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus.

  "It's as if you are driving in the Midwest and you hear loud 
  static on your car radio," Russell said.  "Even if you could not 
  see a thunderstorm, you'd know it was there from the heavy 
  static.  The Pioneer data showed static regardless of what 
  frequency we checked."

  Russell and others made a detailed analysis that took into 
  account Pioneer's continuing changes in orbital altitude, the 
  complex geometry of Venus's ionosphere and local time factors.

  The most significant accomplishment, they say, is tying 
  lightning events to the local time of day on Venus and to 
  variations in atmospheric conditions.

  Though the planet has very little rotation (one Venusian day equals
  243 Earth dayplanet once every four Earth days.  Hence, cloud
  particles pass through the planet's day and night sides in time
  periods roughly comparable to times for clouds on Earth.

  Russell's analysis shows that Venus's thunderstorms have a 
  strong pattern of occurrence in the Venusian afternoon and dusk 
  periods.  A similar pattern of afternoon heat build-up and 
  resulting thunderstorm activity exists on Earth.

  Russell acknowledges that some unknown electromagnetic instability in
  Venus's ionosphere might produce radio signals.  "However," he said,
  "we know of no possible phenomenon with regular occurrence in lowe
  see.  No other known property of the ionosphere varies in this way.
  All the evidence points to a source in the Venus clouds."

  In addition to Pioneer data, the researchers also used a 
  visible-light observation of multiple lightning flashes by the 
  Soviet Venera 9 Orbiter.  They also employed electromagnetic 
  radio data, similar to Pioneer's, from the four Venera craft 
  which landed on Venus's surface.

  Unlike Earth's atmosphere, Venus' thick cloud deck is many miles
  above the planet (about 35 miles).  There, temperatures are close to
  freezing, and atmospheric pressurare similar to those in Earth's
  cloud regions.

  As the clouds rapidly circle the planet, lightning is 
  thought to be produced by build-up of opposite charges in the 
  clouds, followed by discharges between clouds (lightning 
  flashes).  As on Earth, different-sized particles (often ice 
  crystals) are believed to pick up opposite electric charges 
  during updrafts.  Cosmic ray ionization also electrifies the 
  atmosphere.  This is more likely on Venus, which is not shielded 
  by an internally generated magnetic field as is the Earth.

  The thousands of Pioneer-measured radio signals exhibit certain
  properties foundradio signals are of short duration.  They occur a
  multitude of times on some days and then seldom on others, much like
  weather- related storms on Earth.

  Researchers currently are trying to convert the observed 
  number of flashes per minute to a planet-wide rate, but the 
  uncertainty as to how far the Pioneer instrument can "see" limits 
  the accuracy of this conversion.  It is clear, however, that the 
  rate is high, probably much higher than the rate of lightning 
  flashes on Earth.

  Venusian lightning appears to be in the clouds because, at 
  35 miles up, the clouds are too high for electrical discharges 
  between clouds and surface, Russell said.  Even on Earth, two-
  thirds of lightning strokes are cloud-to-cloud, not cloud-to-
  surface.

  Since the initial orbits of Pioneer Venus, a number of 
  researchers, including the late Fred Scarf of TRW Inc. and UCLA, 
  believed Pioneer was measuring lightning.  Dr. Scarf, a principle 
  investigator on numerous NASA missions, reported lightning bolts 
  appeared to come primarily from the region of the planet's 
  enormous volcanos.  

  At the time of Pioneer's arrival at Venus, there were indications in
  Venus' atmosphere gases of a huge volcanic eruption, or series of
  eruptions.  Earth volcanos are well known to produce ligh
  Russell's current analyses show no correlation between suspected
  Venus volcanos or between any other Venus terrain and lightning
  discharges.

  - end -
  -------------------
  de NASA es N3FYC <Jim>

   ***  1 messages found
   2130z, 678 msgs @KB1BD MailBox>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V12 #136
*******************