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, 28 Jul 1990 02:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 28 Jul 1990 02:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #141 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 141 Today's Topics: NASA and Japan agree on new areas of space cooperation (Forwarded) Re: slowing the earth Re: What if? Re: Pioneer studies Lightning on Venus Re: World Space Agency 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 18:13:38 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA and Japan agree on new areas of space cooperation (Forwarded) Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 27, 1990 (Phone: 202/453-8455) RELEASE: 90-106 NASA AND JAPAN AGREE ON NEW AREAS OF SPACE COOPERATION NASA and Japan's Ministry of State for Science and Technology agreed to new areas of space cooperation during a Senior Standing Liaison Group (SSLG) meeting held in Tokyo, July 26. NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly and Minister Tomoji Oshima, Ministry of State for Science and Technology, co-chaired the meeting. The following are the new NASA/Japan projects: o Observation of the Ozone Layer -- NASA will fly a Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument and the Environment Agency of Japan will fly the Improved Limb Atmospheric Spectrometer and the Retroreflector in Space on Japan's ADEOS spacecraft to measure atmospheric constituents. ADEOS, the Advanced Earth Observation Satellite, is scheduled for launch in 1995. NASA and the Environment Agency of Japan will exchange data between the two agencies' instruments and continue research on a comparison of ground-based and satellite data. o Space Environment Monitoring -- Data will be exchanged between NASA, NOAA and the Communications Research Laboratory (CRL) of Japan using NASA's Space Physics Analysis Network (SPAN). CRL was connected to SPAN in 1989 and plans to receive real-time solar wind data from future NASA missions. o Space Station Solar Terrestrial Physics -- NASA and Japan's Institute of Space and Astronautical Science will continue discussions on use of the Neutral Environment with Plasma Interactions Monitoring System and other systems to measure the solar-terrestrial environment from Space Station Freedom. o Space Microgravity Experiments -- NASA and the National Space Development Agency of Japan will continue cooperation in microgravity science on Space Shuttle Spacelab missions. The first Japanese payload specialist, Dr. Mamoru Mohri, will fly onboard Spacelab-J in 1991. During the meeting, Administrator Truly and Minister Oshima also discussed the ongoing cooperation between the two countries on the construction and utilization of Space Station Freedom. They emphasized the importance of adequate funding for the project in both countries and agreed on the importance of Japan's gaining manned spaceflight experience in preparation for it. Additional areas of discussion included joint projects in X- ray and infrared astronomy, cosmic ray research, the study of ocean dynamics, measurement of cloud height by satellite stereography, reception of Japan's first Marine Observation Satellite data and satellite measurements of tropical rainfall. The SSLG was established in 1979 by NASA and Japanese government space agencies. Senior-level NASA and Japanese space officials have met in the SSLG on a periodic basis to review cooperative projects. The next meeting of the SSLG will take place in the United States. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 19:38:44 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: slowing the earth >From: usc!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@ucsd.edu (Perry G Ramsey) >The problem is that, sometime, we have to stop and get back to work, >and then we will give all the momentum back to the earth. >To really accomplish what you want, you would have to send the angular >momentum somewhere else. Example: >A big linear accelerator facing west. Pick up some rocks and shoot them >into space. Chuck enough rocks out fast enough and you could make a dent. >The energy required is .5*m*v^2, or about 3e29 Joules. A good nuke plant >will put out about 3e15 Joules per year. So you need about 1e14 years >to do it if you only get one plant. Good point, but you're going to have a lot of trouble slowing the earth's rotation by throwing rocks to the *west* ! :-) :-) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 22:44:28 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!nuchat!steve@ucsd.edu (Steve Nuchia) Subject: Re: What if? In <5186@mace.cc.purdue.edu> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: >to do it if you only get one plant. You can do it in 1e13 years (about >the age of the universe) if you can get 10 dedicated nukes. .... >Incidentally, I hate to think what that would do to weather forecasting. >It would mess up the circulation patterns is unpredictable ways. So will the wandering-about of the tectonic plates. Doesn't 10^13 years exceed the estimated age of the universe? It certainly exceeds the age of life on Earth. I think the state of the meteriological art will be able to keep pace with the changing circulation patterns. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services (713) 964-2462 "To learn which questions are unanswerable, and _not_to_answer_them; this skill is most needful in times of stress and darkness." Ursula LeGuin, _The_Left_Hand_of_Darkness_ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 90 15:57:27 GMT From: brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!sane@apple.com (Aamod Sane) Subject: Re: Pioneer studies Lightning on Venus rfc@briar.Philips.Com (Robert Casey) writes: >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. > 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 > 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 > .. Pioneer measured local disturbances in Venus's ionosphere instead of > lightning. > The most significant accomplishment, they say, do they is tying > lightning events to the local time of day on Venus and to > variations in atmospheric conditions. > 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. Is there anything particularly significant about the presence of lightning? What further conclusions can be drawn from this fact? (Life as a corollary perhaps :-) :-P :-|> ) Aamod Sane -- sane@cs.uiuc.edu == / \ ----- == * \_/ -|||- == ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 90 02:55:03 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!milton!unicorn!n8035388@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Worth Henry A) Subject: Re: World Space Agency In article <9453@goofy.Apple.COM> heksterb@apple.com (Ben Hekster) writes: > Opps! deleted your comment about large number of Soviet launches... Are the Soviet's large number of launches really due to a vast technical inferiority? Or, perhaps, because they are doing so much more in space than anyone else, and also due to different priorities in how they approach their space activities? I'm inclined to believe the later. >...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. But, where you should push the envelope should depend upon the mission goals, and not whim. Pushing the envelope is what X-planes are for (of which we definitely need more). But, when building a space truck, as NASA represented the shuttle to the Congress & American people, you should avoid pushing the envelope except where absolutely necessary. Perhaps, if NASA had given the shuttle an X-designation the American people and Congress wouldn't be so upset when it has problems, of course it would have been very difficult to convince Congress to shell-out so much for an X-plane. This is what appears to be happening with the X-30, an experimental aircraft with operational ambitions, hopefully the one won't get in the way of the other. >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. Definetly!!! See the July issue of Sci. Amer. for an article on current launch systems. Except for com-sats, there is little business for launch providers. Unfortunatley, the US launch providers were actively discouraged from entering the com-sat market by NASA's early shuttle ambitions and subsidies, as a result Ariane is now the leading contender in a oversaturated launch market, and would-be American launch providers are depending on advance government contracts (a form of subsidy) to rebuild capability previously scrapped. Then, to top it all off, some of these subsidized companies are already making noise that they will have to once again withdraw from the market. Of course, only after they have cleaned up on, ah... that is fulfilled, their choice government contracts. So, contracts that where intended to help build a commercial launch industry and ensure alternatives to the shuttle, do neither, and providers committed for the long haul are left fighting for whatever bits of the sat-com business they can find. THIS IS NO WAY TO BUILD A SPACE INDUSTRY!!!! >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 Which is flying, the operational aspects may seem mundane, but, what experiments are they doing? And, look at all that they are learning about on-orbit operations. They are also regularly upgrading MIR and their other spacecraft systems. The Soviets tend to perfer incremental improvements, over flashy, and risky, trailblazing. If the shuttle ever suffers major tile damage or other damage, preventing reentry, would the crew have time to fix the damage, or have alternatives if their airlock failed (I understand the shuttle does/did carry a tile repair kit, but what if that was still not enough)? What should be noted, is not that the Soviets had problems (we both do) but, that they had many options, including staying indefinetly at MIR, resupplied by Pioneers, and waiting for another Soyuz or further repairs. (See this week's "Av-Leek", for some interesting details/speculation of just how close that repair effort itself came to disaster, and the options they had and used) The Soviets have developed a useful way to resupply MIR using the low-risk, unmanned, high-availability Pioneers, a capability not well addressed by the rather unreliable shuttle for the Freedom space station (ah..., Houston, have you fixed that H2 leak yet? We're running out of orange juice up here, and I just can't stomach this vodka -- courtesy of the Mir II crew -- straight!...beep). Instead, Freedom gets a emergency escape capsule that will, all too likely, have to be used due to yet another extended shuttle grounding, and not because of any on-orbit emergencies. A case where the Soviet's high launch rate is an advantage. >respect to NASA's Skylab. Which is not flying.... :-( "the proof is in the pudding" Once again, the high launch rate, and varied fleet is an advantage. >The Soviet shuttle is so obviously derived from >the Space Shuttle that it hardly requires mentioning. Take a closer look, there are some significant differences. Also, some arguments can be made about "form follows function", and, once again, its similarity is also the result of POLITICAL decisions to duplicate the shuttle. Don't judge the entire Soviet space program based on this one, rather severe, aberration. >Much of Western >technology, such as satellite telecommunications remain as yet >underdeveloped by the Soviets. Part of this is due to their high latitiudes, which present difficulties for geo-sync comm-sats. Also, non-government telecommunications were hardly a priority with past governments, with priority given, instead, to "secure" and easily replaced systems. As a result they tended to prefer polar-orbiting comm-sats that were more difficult to "shadow", and, given their shorter life, had to be frequently replaced (which further complicated efforts to "shadow" the sats., provided the opportunity for frequent upgrades, and created a pipeline that could quickly replace lost com-sats in time of war -- yet another area where a high launch rate was an advantage). From the late 70's until recently, America would have been hard pressed to replace communcations if a little dispute broke out and the Soviets had destroyed our com-sats (no star-wars required, though they had it, just a few simple EM pulses). A different era, with different priorities. In any case, the Soviets have recently introduced a series of geo-sync com-sats, and will quickly catch-up. >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. Don't underestimate the Soviet workforce, their problems with production are mostly due to an oppressive bureaucracy and the lack of positive incentives. There are plenty of examples of Soviet innovations, that then get mucked-up by the SYSTEM (a system which is changing). And, the Soviets are quite capable in such space-related areas such as metallurgy, ceramics, high-energy physics and lasers. There has been a recent flurry of Soviet institutions licensing technology in America (there was an example in the Sun. S.J. Mercury several weeks ago -- using RF? to clean silicon wafers, suppose to be quite a breakthru for IC prod.!) Don't confuse the technology, or quality, seen in Soviet consumer products for that present in military and space hardware, the priorities have historically been quite different than ours. > >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. Yes, one of the ironies is that NASA is able to accomplish more on anemic budgets then on the big budget projects -- small projects being less conductive to bureaucratic empire building ( Lisa -vs- Mac :-) ). The 60's-70's era projects also had less tendency to be clean sheet designs, and instead, used previously proven subsystems with incremental improvements and changes dictated by the mission. Also, Voyager was produced by a very different NASA then exists today. Besides, Cal. Tech's JPL deserves much of the credit for the success of many of these projects. Unfortunately, these smaller science projects may be threatened in the current political climate. Smaller projects tend to offer little political gain when they are quietly successful, but, threaten major political damage when they noisily have problems. The result, EOS, another gigantic, all our eggs in one basket, project that pushes technology unrelated to the mission goals, and as a result threatens the overall success of the mission. But, if successful, NASA can push the PR aspects of its being the biggest, most advanced,... And, to prevent any embarrassing failures, NASA will just have to exercise even more management vigilence (the bureaucracy grows, yet again!). Perhaps JPL and/or the various PI's should start trying to fund more of the space science projects directly through the NSF, DARPA,... (and even the UN). Whenever possible use existing, standardized satellite sub-systems, use commercial launchers, and cut NASA's bureaucracy completely out of the loop (and also create a little constructive, and theraputic, competition for NASA as well!). >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 The Soviets haven't given up on Mars yet, and with high launch availability and heavy lift boosters they have the flexibility to quickly recover (this may have even allowed them to intentally save on fail-safe modes and redunancy -- if it fails, build another and send it up). NASA is not blessed with such flexibility -- politically or operationally -- it can not afford mistakes. Of course, the political situation in the USSR is also changing, such that the Soviet space agancy will also have to be more concern about first time success. >is exactly these multinational cooperatives which grow into the massive >bureaucracies which I, like you, abhor. Again, witness the EC, UN, etc. Yes, but government agencies also grow into massive bureaucracies. A new agency would at least have a chance to be structured to avoid problems, or at least put them off, in any case there would be a period of vitallity and success before bureaucratic calcification sets in. One of the factors in favor of an international agency is that it would not be bound by government civil-service, contracting and other self-defeating regulations. One of the main reasons international agencies have problems, is that they usually are, or develop into, some form of "Robin Hood" agency which benefits the lesser members more than the major contributors, the WSA would, hopefully, be quite the opposite. >> "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 believe that NASA is capable of great excellence, if only given the >proper resources. Naturally, this is difficult in these times. That's an understatement, America has some major economic problems. Yes, I know -- can we afford not to invest in such research? But, the problem is convincing Capital Hill (not very likely), not me. Besides, without major reforms in the way NASA operates and does business (possibly even less likely than the creation a well structured WSA), much of the money would be wasted on supporting an even larger NASA bureaucracy. >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. > Unfortunetly, Truly(?) made that statement in an attempt to coerce action out of Congress, and not from any real desire to avoid wasting funds. Congress does not respond favorably to such sophomoric political tactics, and NASA's cause was further damaged. >Again, thanks for the extensive response. Good luck with your thesis. And, thanks for your response. The WSA is not sacred to me, I'm just trying to get some brainstroming going, inorder to find ways out of NASA's current morass. >(Anything aerospace-related?) > No, comp. sci. (Although, anymore, computers and aerospace are hardly inseparable. No more seat-of-the-pants...sigh) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #141 *******************