Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 16 Feb 91 02:33:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 02:33:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #161 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 161 Today's Topics: Re: "Magnum" Electronic Intelligence Satellite Re: SPACE Digest V13 #099 Re: Solar Impact Mission. Salyut 7 Re: SPACE Digest V13 #139 Re: Controversy Galileo Update #2 - 02/14/91 Re: SPACE Digest V13 #124 Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 11 Feb 91 12:07:17 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma!nickw@uunet.uu.net (Nick Watkins) Organization: University of Sussex Subject: Re: "Magnum" Electronic Intelligence Satellite References: <1991Feb5.162419.10194@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu From article <1991Feb5.162419.10194@zoo.toronto.edu>, by henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): > In article <15325@celit.fps.com> dave@fps.com (Dave Smith) writes: >>antenna "the size of a baseball field." This sounds like a really large >>structure to be deploying automatically. Does anyone have any info > What you've just said -- it's called "Magnum", it's an eavesdropping > satellite, and it probably has a big deployable antenna -- is just about > the sum total of unclassified knowledge about it. And the best of the rest is in Des Ball's superb book, "Pine Gap" [ Allen and Unwin Australia]. One of 3 main ground stations is in Australia at eponymous Pine Gap. Includes a nice sketch of a Lockheed design for a deployable large antenna. Remember ATS 6 and imagine what you could do with another 10 years or so and a Shuttle payload bay (less IUS). Probably 2 in orbit, possibly even 3 if last military Shuttle was 28 degrees -> GEO not LEO (I don't know). Reportly it's follow on to the RHYOLITE/AQUACADE series of Atlas Agena D (sic) launches in the seventies. Nick -- ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 17:46:33 EST From: Tommy Mac <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #099 In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 1 Feb 91 05:28:38 EST from To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Re: Richard B. Augusts request about gas extraction from rocks. I don't know if this counts or not. I found a book, SPACE RESOURCES that talks about using gases to extract metals. It covers other resources as well, such as o2,h2,n2,and n2, but the focus is on metals and energy. CRC has a SPACE INDUSTRIALIZATION manual. Two volumes. The first covers mater ial and energy resources. The second covers vehicles. It also has an extensiv e bibliography in case it isn't what your looking for. Good Luck. Both are fascinating reading, if you can handle not-to-intensive technical jargon. Tommy Mac -For, lo, I will cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of 1804tm@msu. great nations from the North country: and they shall set them- bitnet selves in array against her; from thence she shall be taken: their arrows shall be as of a mighty expert man. -jeremiah 50,9 Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Feb 91 18:50:21 GMT From: udecc.engr.udayton.edu!blackbird.afit.af.mil!lonex.radc.af.mil!disprep@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Disaster Preparedness) Organization: Rome Laboratory (US Air Force), Griffiss AFB, NY Subject: Re: Solar Impact Mission. References: <1991Feb4.111437.9283@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>, <1991Feb4.172846.3706@zoo.toronto.edu>, <1991Feb5.154205.29266@engin.umich.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Feb5.154205.29266@engin.umich.edu> theslim@caen.engin.umich.edu writes: >In article <1991Feb4.172846.3706@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu >(Henry Spencer) writes: >> .... >> >> For really tight turns, what you want is a waverider design that can fly >> at high hypersonic speeds in an atmosphere. Then you can do a right-angle >> turn or even a 180 around any planet with a substantial atmosphere, e.g. >> Venus. Aerodynamic forces do a much better job of holding you down during >> the turn than gravity. This also lets you use Mars rather than Jupiter >> for outer-planets missions, which is nice because Jupiter's Van Allen belts >> are a major hassle for Jupiter gravity assists. >> -- > >I've heard about this kind of thing-- it sounds like a neat idea although >the aerodynamics of going that fast through an atmosphere would be rough, >not to mention the materials the waverider would have to be made out of. >Also, you'd better carry along big thrusters for correcting any errors >made in the manuever. Anyone in netland doing any research with high >velocity waveriders? > >One of the more interesting waverider missions I've heard of was using Mars for >a gravity assist to get out to Pluto. I don't have the velocities handy, >but I remember the time figure as being about 4 years to go from Earth to >Pluto using that kind of trajectory. > >--- These are very interesting ideas that, I agree, would allow a probe to change its direction in a hurry. The problem I see is that when the vehicle enters an atmosphere, it loses kinetic energy in favor of thermal energy. The idea of using this aero-assist method would seem to work okay for a solar impact mission, but I don't see how a probe could reach Pluto in four years after losing kinetic energy. Does it kind of bounce off of the Martian atmosphere and gain a whole bunch of kinetic energy somehow (not at all obvious to yours truly)? Or does the probe's proximity to the planet allow for a greater gravitational kick that more than overcomes the loss to heat? Whatever the reason, I'm certain Mr. Spencer can set my misgivings straight. - Andy ******************************************************************************* * Harold G. "Andy" Andrews II, 1Lt, USAF * "Many the man whose punctuality * * andrewsh@lonex.radc.af.mil * serves only to warm his chair." * * Rome Laboratory/IRRE (USAF/AFSC/ESD) * * * Griffiss AFB, NY USA 13441-5700 * -- Leonard somebody or other * * (315) 330-7788 (AVN prfx 587) * (Not an official USAF viewpoint) * ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 6 Feb 91 21:11:26 GMT From: att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Subject: Salyut 7 Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu The latest word about Salyut 7 from the U.S. Space Command is that it will re-enter the atmosphere over the Mediterranean Sea today (February 6) at about 8:15 PM (PST). This prediction has an uncertainty of plus or minus two hours. If the prediction holds true, then Salyut 7 will be over northern Italy as it make its entry, and any debris reaching Earth would fall over Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. It is also unlikely that the troops in the Persian Gulf would be able to see the expected fireball. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | It's 10PM, do you know /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is? |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | We do! ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 91 02:17:40 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!uceng!minerva!dmocsny@ucsd.edu (Daniel Mocsny) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #139 In article <9102142304.AA29072@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+@andrew.cmu.edu writes: >At current launch prices, with current safety considerations, and current lack >of experience, 17% just isn't good enough. Maybe if Galileo discovers some >marketable material....or maybe, unbeknownst to anyone, magellan has dropped >a starting colony of Blue-green algae, which will begin converting Venus' >atmosphere to O2.... The key is probably to package the starting "seed" for your space infrastructure into something smaller. Like one completely self-replicating robot. Drop it on a large rock, then come back in twenty years when it has exponentiated itself into whatever infrastructure you want. Or perhaps evolved into someone who doesn't remember you... :-) >Fun to dream, but meanwhile, we'll have to depend on the Gov. That's just how >air travel got started. People didn't believe that planes were safe. So, the >feds awarded (name forgotten) a mail contract. Thus was born the industry that >eventually became Federal Express. This analogy overlooks a serious difference of scale. How large was the federal mail contract as a fraction of USA GNP at the time? Was the government taking a risk then that would be comparable to a $400,000,000,000 investment today? I.e., if the airplane had failed disastrously as a mail carrier, would the national economy have collapsed? Also, how much of a hit were the feds taking with the airmail contract compared to their rail, etc. contracts? And how long did the venture require to become profitable? Can you name ANY government that has ever risked that kind of investment (proportional to its resources) on an unproven venture with a similar payoff time? Also, using the airplane as a mail carrier was a trivial application of existing technology. Airplanes had long been proven capable of transporting similar loads similar distances with similar schedules. (If someone had handed out the contract in 1905, that would have been a different story.) Space development on the O'Neill scale is not a trivial application of existing technology. While all the individual pieces appear workable and not too dramatic, let us not forget the lesson of Hubble. You just never know what's going to happen to a big, complex system when you plug it all together. Big systems don't come from little systems solely by multiplying everything by 1.0e+5. You are quite correct that the government has played a central role in the development of essentially ALL modern transportation infrastructure, most power-generation infrastructure, etc. (Either in administration, subsidies, guaranteed monopolies, underwriting research, etc.) We can reasonably conclude that space development of any kind without government involvement is unlikely, at least in the near term. -- Dan Mocsny Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 14 Feb 91 22:22:19 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!tplrd!martinb@ucsd.edu (Martin Brown) Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems Subject: Re: Controversy References: <1991Feb9.064442.6737@ee.ualberta.ca>, <6116@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, <1991Feb13.005851.1140@cimage.com> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu On the issue of how they produced live TV transmission of Armstrong taking the first step on the moon: > I'm thinking of the black and white, very low-fidelity, real-time video > that was broadcast from the LEM as Armstrong descended the ladder for the > first time. It was shot from a B/W tv camera in an equipment bay on the > side of the LEM. ...gregc@cimage.com As I understand it, this camera's main aim was to give a visual indication of how far into the lunar surface the LEM's feet had sunk. The ability of the lunar surface to support the LEM (or human beings) was unknown at the time. It turned out that the LEM feet didn't sink into the dust as much as expected hence the jump of a couple of feet from the bottom of the ladder onto the lunar surface. ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 15 Feb 91 01:50:44 GMT From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Subject: Galileo Update #2 - 02/14/91 Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu GALILEO STATUS REPORT February 14, 1991 As of noon (PST) Thursday, February 14, 1991, the Galileo spacecraft is 30,440,670 miles from the Earth and traveling at a heliocentric speed of 78,590 miles per hour; distance to the Sun is 91,968,810 miles (0.99 AU). Round trip light time is 5 minutes, 24 seconds. A command was successfully sent on February 11 to reset the Command Loss Timer to 240 hours, its planned value for this mission phase. Four more sun acquisition activities were successfully completed on February 8, 10, 12 and 14. To date, sixteen sun acquisitions out of the 17 planned in VE-12 (Venus-Earth 12 sequence) have been completed. Two USO (Ultra Stable Oscillator) calibration tests were successfully completed on February 8 and 12. These tests provide trend information to characterize this ultra-stable downlink frequency source. A Cruise Science Memory Readout (MRO) was successfully completed on February 13 for the DDS (Dust Detector) and MAG (Magnetometer) science instruments. The VE-14 sequence memory load was successfully transmitted and received by the spacecraft on February 14. The VE-14 sequence controls spacecraft activities from February 18 to April 29, 1991. In addition to normal routine operations such as sun acquisitions, SITURNS, RPM (Retro Propulsion Module) flushing, telecommunications tests and science MRO activities, this sequence contains the HGA (High Gain Antenna)_ deployment and LGA-2 (Low Gain Antenna-2) retraction activities as well as windows for the TCM-9B (Trajectory Correction Maneuver 9B) planned for March 19 and 20. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some activity. The AC measurement fluctuated 2 DN and now reads 45.4 volts. The DC measurement dropped 24 DN and now reads near 8.4 volts. The large drop occurred while the spacecraft was quiescent and not being tracked. All other power-related telemetry and spacecraft telemetry are normal. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter, ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ M/S 301-355 | or matter over mind? /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | It doesn't matter. ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: Thu, 14 Feb 91 18:12:39 EST From: Tommy Mac <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #124 In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 7 Feb 91 02:39:40 EST from To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU in space Digest #124, Nick szabo finally made a distinction between space STATIONS and Space SETTLEMENTS. Nicks defintion is rouhgly: Station Settlement crew 1-20 100's % of supplies from Earth 90% + 10% or less self-supporting ($) absolutly not makes money Well, Nick, based on these definition, I agree, we should move on to making space settlements, or what I think of as a space station. To bad the feds don't agree. Nick also pointed out that DeGama, during the days of Magellan and Columbus, was pulling down some decent money running spices. In other words, Nick, you missed my point. I was asking you to compare the cost of moving into a new environment then, to the cost now, Not how much money they made then. So I have my names wrong. Maybe you could use your better knowledge of that time to make a valid comparison. Also, why don't you direct me to a history of that time. I haven't found a good history of the age of exploration. Re; fish-to-amphibian, tree-to-savanna. Nick says that these comparisons wouldn't be valid, seeing as they didn't do it voluntarily. Too bad we don't have much choice either. Without space resources, our world degenerates into a zero-sum game. (See malthus). and we have the power of nuclear weapons now. I'll let you imagine the alternative. Maybe the amphibians did have a choice, as well as all those extinct species that didn't make the choice. Before you judge this comparison invalid, remember: Our bodies are mostly water. Amphibians developed a new kind of skin to keep the cells in their body in the same environment that they had left. Evidence of this is our moist eyes, lungs, etc. If we move into space, we will have to develop a new kind of skin to keep us in the same environment that we had left (i.e. air) To a fish in the water, air would seem a total vacuum, but it isn't. To a person in the air, space would seem a total vacuum, but it isn't. The first cells (it is hypothesized) were heterotrophs. That is, they ate complex organics for their energy and materials. If some cell had not evolved photosynthesis, eventually all the "soup" would have been eaten, and then the cells would die. The first intellignet civilization uses complex organics for their energy (oil, coal, gas) if we don't develop photosynthesis (SPS-like system), we'll use all our energy, and, at the least, make getting into space impossible. The long- term bad news is that the Sun will die. The short term bad news would be our own actions on the biosphere and ourselves. I stand by the benefits of the things learned on MIR. For example: did you know that someone talking to you from zero-gee is not being sarcastic, but is simply experiencing a puffy face? This kind of thing is important for the efficiency that you continue to espouse. Communication can cut efficiecy to ZERO with no trouble at all, when it fails. Nicks assumptions that Tom doesn't accept : We will do the efficient stuff right away because it makes the most sense. I wish we would. But the guys with the cash don't like the risks. Things like succesful space stations will convince them the risk is less. And things like valuable materials or efficient energy-conversion will help convince them that the benefits are more. Till they cough it up, were stuck with paltry stuff that can barely demonstrate what we need to do. About the Japanese: I was kidding, though I may actually take it up when it comes time to start looking for employment. I'm still two years from gradimica ting. So what did you say, anyway? Tommy Mac- Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #161 *******************