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 ; Fri, 22 Feb 91 02:03:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 02:03:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #188 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 188 Today's Topics: ET...Again (was Re: ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY) Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? NASA A socialist bureaucracy (was : ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY) Re: Space age learning tools available (Forwarded) Re: Martian mystery? Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes (was Re: Space Profits) SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - COMMENTS REQUESTED (PLEASE READ) Re: Mars Mystery? -clarification & dilemma Magellan Update - 02/20/91 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Feb 91 13:24:59 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!engine.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Sheppardson) Subject: ET...Again (was Re: ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY) In article CSER037@UABTUCC.BITNET (BARRY BOWDEN) writes: >In response of Allen Sherzer's article of "One Small Step for a >Space Activist ..." > >I also saw in my local paper a picture of the proposed new space >station. Proposed by whom ? For the moment I'll assume you're talking about the pictures of MTC with pre-integrated truss I've seen floating around in various local papers. >It seems like another company out of Denver (OSI??) >has been developing a similiar approach using external tanks (ETs) >as the living/work modules and an instrument package on one end. 'Similar'? Similar in what sense ? If you're refereing to the fact that both approaches have pressurized volumes and an 'instrument package', then I've yet to see _any_ approach that's not 'similar'. >It seems like NASA would be better off designing the truss/instrument/ >power part of the truss as a backbone, then let OSI?? use the ET and >sell a conversion package to convert the ET into whatever module >is needed. What NASA _is_ doing (in effect) is designing the truss/instrument/ power part of the truss as a backbone and letting Boing design the pressurized volume. >It would seem that this would take fewer shuttle flights >and less money to put a station into orbit. It seems what you're suggesting is that NASA drop the modules as currently designed and replace them with ET(s), outfitting them on orbit as necessary. Correct ? If so, I'll defer to others on the net, who have been debating the ET Conversion issue at length (ever since I started reading sci.space, in fact, which has been a little over two years as I recall) If there's some other aspect of your suggestion I'm missing, I hope you'll let me know. >Also, the whole space >station package could be sold to other nations/interests as an >'inexpensive' means of using a space staion. They could be sold or >leased by NASA and provide some money back into the space stations >to help pay for costs and expenses. It seems to me that if there were a market for such 'pre-fab' stations, the Soviets would be leading the way with their Salyut/ Mir 'line' of stations. I'm not aware of any (successful) efforts on the part of the Soviets to sell or lease entire modules/stations outright, although they do seem to lead the way when it comes to accomodating paying passengers and customers. I would think that until there's an established 'station market', NASA should stick to scientific Endeavors (pardon the pun) rather than trying to compete with the Soviets in the commercial market. In fact as I recall, the Augustine committee made just such a recommendation and may have gone so far as to say NASA should get out of the commercial space realm entirely. -- =============================================================================== Ken Sheppardson Email: kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office Phone: (804) 864-7544 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA FAX: (804) 864-1975 =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 91 08:33:49 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@uunet.uu.net (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? In article HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >What has been the fate of poor old Lunar Observer in the new FY92 budget >proposal? I am curious too. LO is a very good proposal, important for space science and space development. The Moon is the closest (in time) source of many native space materials, and likely still holds many important new clues to the origin of our home planet. Many implementations of SEI require the knowledge that would be provided by LO. I urge NASA to fund LO. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Think long-term, act now. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 91 15:05:05 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!aoab314@ucsd.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur) Subject: NASA A socialist bureaucracy (was : ONE SMALL STEP - REPLY) In article <1991Feb20.174134.27665@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article CSER037@UABTUCC.BITNET (BARRY BOWDEN) writes: >>... Why can't NASA put more of its projects into the >>commercial procurement system? Is it afraid it will not have as much >subversive capitalist terms; you have to understand that spaceflight in >Western nations today is basically a socialist bureaucracy. If we are not simply talking about farming out the construction of satellites and rockets (which I believe is already done), or managing their launch etc. (not sure about this), here is my two cents worth. With regards to project development and management, I can see commercial contractors getting into telecom, into remote sensing of land resources, maybe even into weather monitoring. I wonder if a commercial company would take the risk of going into something as large in scope as the GPS system, which certainly has commercial applications. If they went in as a conglomerate, what is the difference between NASA doing it and contractors doing it ? Commercial developers surely are not going to pay any attention to the purely/mostly scientific (but important, nonetheless) missions like the Hubble, or the planetary probes that JPL periodically sends out, or a whole range of satellites with geophysical applications, etc. etc. There will always be projects that have no apparent commercial value, but are important. One will always need a NASA for these. By the same token, I agree that some others are so obviously suited for commercial exploitation that they should be left to private entrepreneurs. They might do it cheaper and better, but, in my opinion, will not push space science very much further. Srinivas Bettadpur -- Srinivas Bettadpur Internet : aoab314@emx.utexas.edu P.O. Box 8520, Austin, Tx. 78713-8520, U.S.A. Tel. (512) 471 4332 BITNET : aoab314@uthermes ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 91 15:22:59 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!convex!dodson@uunet.uu.net (Dave Dodson) Subject: Re: Space age learning tools available (Forwarded) In article <1991Feb19.212114.5427@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > Although NASA has been sending humans into space for more than 30 years Well, not quite. Alan Shepherd was launched on a suborbital flight in a Mercury capsule on a Redstone rocket on May 5, 1961. That makes "more than 29 years" or "about 30 years" true. Or are you counting something before Shepherd's flight? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Dodson dodson@convex.COM Convex Computer Corporation Richardson, Texas (214) 497-4234 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 91 01:37:00 GMT From: usc!samsung!caen!locust.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@ucsd.edu (Ken Sheppardson) Subject: Re: Martian mystery? In article <7470007@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> mll@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Luce) writes: > > About a year ago, the Weekly World News reported that Soviet scientists >had discovered identical (!) faces on the Moon, on Venus, and on Neptune (!). >According to WWN, ALL OF THE FACES ARE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH US!!! ...unfortunately they're all speaking Arabic, and all our translators are tied up at the moment. -- =============================================================================== Ken Sheppardson Email: kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office Phone: (804) 864-7544 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA FAX: (804) 864-1975 =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 91 01:44:38 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes (was Re: Space Profits) + The other part is the question of when space law will catch +up and establish guidelines for property rights in space. +There are enough asteroids and enough open territory on +planets and moons that I can't imagine too many fights over +the same resource deposit. On the other hand, we need a way +for a company to obtain rights to minerals on a world without +being able to claim the entire world (and prevent others from +mining it). Unfortunately you are too late. The United Nations Treaty on the Activities of States on the Moon and all Celestial Bodies, already prohibits the private property rites which you address. The resources of the solar system beyond earth are defined as Res Publica. This somewhat ill-defined term more or less translates as the common heritage of mankind. I believe this language is also used in the Law of the Seabed treaty. It calls for an international regime to regulate and TAX all revenues or extra-terrestrial mining operations of all member states. Member states are not permitted to authorize private mining operations. Sorry to disappoint you. I hope you do not plan to defy the United Nations.......these days that can become very unpleasant. ------------------------------ X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Thu, 21 Feb 91 12:06:09 MST From: oler%HG.ULeth.CA@vma.cc.cmu.edu (CARY OLER) Subject: SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - COMMENTS REQUESTED (PLEASE READ) X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN 21 February, 1991 More Administrivia /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ IMPORTANT REQUEST OF ALL USERS OF REPORTS - PLEASE READ Some structural changes in operation have been made recently with regards to Solar Terrestrial information distribution. Things have shifted from what originally was a temporary examination of the feasibility of distributing solar terrestrial information to a more permanent facility for providing these services. We have some vigorous and impressive new plans for providing public and research quality information and interpretation tools for users of the reports. The enhancements could significantly benefit users requiring radio propagation information (ie. ionospherically-related), solar activity information (whether it is sunspot, flare, coronal, proton, electron, or magnetically related, or whether it has to do with potential terrestrial impacts of one sort or another), and/or geophysical information (such as geomagnetic activity, auroral activity, magnetically induced currents, or other geophysical anomalies). However, before these plans can be initiated, we require comments from as many users of the information as possible in order to aid in securing funding for these initiatives. We are therefore requesting all individuals and organizations who find the solar terrestrial information useful and/or beneficial to send comments regarding the usefulness of the information posted over the nets. We would also appreciate comments from those who are aiding in redistributing the information to other sources. Comments regarding the extent of distribution, positive feedback received from distribution, etc would all be appreciated. Descriptions of the worth of these services are also encouraged. We are hoping the response to this request will be sufficient to be a convincing tool in our attempts to secure the funding necessary to enhance and expand our operations this summer. Please send all comments to: "oler@hg.uleth.ca" Thanks very much. ** End of Bulletin ** ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 91 21:28:00 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!apollo!rehrauer@decwrl.dec.com (Steve Rehrauer) Subject: Re: Mars Mystery? -clarification & dilemma In article <9102202113.AA02424@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> TPM4017@PANAM.BITNET writes: > As a space activist, however, I think these types of hype jobs raise >an interesting dilemma. With funding for space development so tight, and given >the power of such psuedo-issues to capture the public imagination, is >it really in our best interest to off-handedly discard such claims? As merely a space-interested citizen, I say, "Yes, it really is." Do you really want NASA reporting that Mars Observer has snapped photos of what probably are just granite outcroppings, but which might really be crystalline phloog-fungus forests if only you wished hard enough? > Don't get me wrong here, I am not advocating lying in order >to get funding. In fact, I think we should let people know that the >best guesses are that the face is just a creation of lighting and >natural processes, but, at the same time, we should also foster the >idea that we don't have all the answers yet, and that the only way >to get them is by further exploration of the planet. And after having spent $billions to do that exploration, with no phloog forests or talking sandstone monoliths to show for it, what sustains the funding then? Fake up some photos which just might happen to show phloogs, but unfortunately they're just around that bend over there, which will cost more $billions to explore in sufficient detail? (Recall that The Masses aren't supporting you out of pure scientific interest, but to find squidgy purple phloogs, dammit! Your "success" will be judged on that basis.) Or do we move the sideshow on to the next (Possibly) Wonder of the Solar System? Clearly outlining the limits of your knowledge is one thing; if you would have NASA say, "In our experience, erosion can create geographic oddities like this. However, we don't yet fully understand all the processes on Mars that could create such an oddity, because we know so little about the place," fine. But deceitfully leading people to draw false conclusions to further a pet cause is another fish, and smells badly. You might just as well say, "We believe petrochemical deposits were formed when plant matter was buried under the right conditions and compressed over the eons, but we can't rule out the possibility that dwarves put it there. And by the way, we're mounting a massive search for dwarves, wouldn't you like to help?" Boo, hiss. -- "The goons are riding motorcycles, but WE'VE | (Steve) rehrauer@apollo.hp.com got a whole big metal car! This will be like | The Apollo Systems Division of stepping on ants..." -- Freelance Police | Hewlett-Packard ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 91 02:20:20 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@decwrl.dec.com (Ron Baalke) Subject: Magellan Update - 02/20/91 MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT February 20, 1991 The Magellan spacecraft is performing nominally. Five of the STARCALS (star calibrations) during the past 24 hours were successful, two partial. The partially successful attitude updates which had both foreground and background rejects did not impact performance. The M1051 mapping command sequence with its associated radar control parameter and mapping quaternion files was successfully sent to the spacecraft and began execution about 4:00 AM (PST) this morning. This sequence continues the delayed mapping swaths that are 10 minutes shorter. This strategy permits flight controllers to turn the spacecraft away from the direct sunlight so it can cool to some extent. Currently, and for about the next two weeks, the spacecraft is in sunlight at all times in its orbit and flight controllers are taking steps to assure it doesn't reach high temperature alarm limits. Orbit #1539, which started at 7:12 AM, was the first orbit to include the offpoint of the solar panels by 90 degrees at the beginning and end of each mapping pass. Spacecraft controllers have verified that the offpoint was correctly executed and are monitoring the temperatures closely to see if the offpoint reduces the thermal effects of sunlight reflecting off the solar panels onto to the spacecraft bus. It will take several hours to assess the results of this strategy. It is also noted that Venus is now very bright in the sky for about an hour after sunset close to the horizon. The evening star, as the planet has been called for centuries, has two NASA spacecraft in orbit around it, Magellan and Pioneer Venus Orbiter. Radio communication between Magellan and Earth is constant and the Pioneer orbiter is still very active. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| 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. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #188 *******************