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 ; Sun, 24 Feb 91 01:38:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 01:38:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #196 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 196 Today's Topics: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions" Re: Magellan Update - 02/20/91 Re: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91 Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? Re: SPACE Digest V13 #193 Re: UN Moon Treaty (was Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes) Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91 Pioneer 11 Update - 02/22/91 Re: SPACE Digest V13 #187 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: 24 Feb 91 02:24:03 GMT From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!bryans@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (B. Charles Siegfried) Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >* Of U.S. patents granted in 1989, 79,088 (76%) were issued > to corporations, 23,624 (23%) to private individuals, and > 700 (1%) to government laboratories. While some of the > private individuals are government funded, clearly the bulk > of innovation comes from outside the government laboratory > sphere. Patent-developing technology is nice, but quite a bit of research will not result in patents for decades. Patents basically represent engineering research, but not "pure reasearch." Pure research will not result in immediate patents, and because of this, private firms are less likely to support research in these areas. In fact, few areas outside of universities do any pure research at all. A great deal of government research grants go to university-based research. My professor, Govindjee, is the nation's leader in the light reactions of photosynthesis. He will never produce a patent, but someday the research he is doing will result in chemical engineers making nearly 100% efficient photocells. Without that basic research, the engineering side could never be done. Although I don't support the government giving large grants to stimulate certain areas of research (such as the human genome fiasco), it should support the universities enough to provide the large amount of pure research that an growing economy needs. The supposedly "inefficient" government research is not so. __ Bryan Siegfried Biology and Economics at UIUC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 09:15:17 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions" Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <9363@hub.ucsb.edu> Charles Radley writes: + However, you focus at length on the problems of cutting +openings, not of putting airlocks in them. Anywhere you can +bolt a hatch you can bolt an airlock instead, without any +fundamental difficulties. > ?? Really.... Would not hold pressure very long ! Airlocks >involve complex redundant labyrinth seals. A bolted interface >is no good. With appropriate seals it should do. When I scuba dive my life always depends on the integrity of a bolted interface. Ditto for other undersea applications like subs and underwater dive platforms for oil drilling. They need to keep integrity for years at a time and at pressures far greater than in space. You need to pick your materials differently but I'm sure it is possible. > Interesting. Please tell us how they plan to install an airlock. I refer you to the External Tank Study published by the Space Studies Institute (subtle advertizement: these guys do great work; send them lots of your money). Martin has designed a structure called the Aft Cargo Carrier (ACC) which connects to the bottom of the ET. It is designed to add cargo space and one variant of it is an ET based space station. The ACC has an airlock built into it. The crew can transfer to it via EVA and have a shirt sleve environment in which to furnish the inside of the ET. >Windows would be nice too. But not a necessity. However, the ACC does have windows. >Which of them volunteered >to be the first one to go through the airlock without a suit on ? If it comes to that, I'll do it. > Sorry, you just failed the leak test. Start again. Assuming that is in fact what happens, no problem. This approach is so cheap that we just redo the airlock and use the next ET instead. > Nobody has ever installed a kluge fit airlock in orbit, not >even the Soviets want to be the first to take that risk. The Soviets have installed kluge airlocks on the ground. They also do kluge's in space. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 91 03:12:01 GMT From: europa.asd.contel.com!issm!wlbr!mahendo!jato!mars!baalke@uunet.uu.net (Ron Baalke) Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 02/20/91 In article <1991Feb22.155922.27029@lth.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes: >In article <1991Feb21.022020.1935@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >> >> MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT >> February 20, 1991 >[...] >> The M1051 mapping command sequence with its associated radar control >>parameter and mapping quaternion files was successfully sent to the spacecraft > ^^^^^^^^ > >Are these the quaternions of Hamilton (i^2=j^2=k^2=ijk=-1)? And, in that >case, what does quaternions have to do with the mappin of Venus? Here is what Peter Ford on the Magellan project has to say about the quaternion files: "Quaternions are a convenient way of describing the orientation of a body in inertial space as a set of 4 numbers q1 through q4. They are similar to Euler angles, but are mathematically easier to work with. To point the spacecraft, the Magellan attitude control computers are given a set of polynomial coefficients, called a quaternion file, that enables them to reconstruct the q's at any time during the orbit. The computers compare these quaternions with their best estimate of the current spacecraft orientation and issue commands to the momentum wheels to slew Magellan in the desired way." The attitude of the spacecraft and its position relative to Venus is important data needed to help process the raw radar data, as all of this is fed into the Synthetic Aperture Radar processor to produce the images.a ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| 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. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 91 23:51:40 GMT From: meteor!moonunit@speedy.wisc.edu (Chris Bovitz) Subject: Re: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91 In article <1991Feb23.042803.3404@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > > PIONEER 7 & 8 STATUS REPORT > February 22, 1991 > > The Pioneer 7 spacecraft was tracked for 4 hours on February 16. The >CRD (Cosmic Ray Detector) and the PA (Plasma Analyzer) instruments were turned >on for 1 1/2 hours each. > > The Pioneer 8 was tracked on February 17. Attempts to command the >spacecraft were unsuccessful. Three attempts were made at an uplink power of >18 kW. Telemetry received during the pass is being analyzed to evaluate the >communications subsystem. At the next tracking opportunity the uplink power >will be increased. Where are the members of the Pioneer family now? -- | Chris Bovitz | "You drive me insane now. | -------| moonunit@meteor.wisc.edu | There, I am insane." |------- | Univ of WI-Madison | --Dieter, _Sprockets_ | ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 91 03:05:26 GMT From: usc!wuarchive!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john@ucsd.edu (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: Whither Lunar Observer in FY92? In article <9102192135.AA10760@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: > In article Bill Higgins writes: > > What has been the fate of poor old Lunar Observer in the new FY92 budget > > proposal? I haven't seen any mention of it in the press yet. > PS. I was just about to send this out when I had a thought. NASA is > donating a gama ray spectrometer to the Lunar Prospector. If they > also donated the backup mars Observer bus as well could a better > probe result? After all, it would look much better in lunar orbit > than rusting in the Air and Space Museaum! After all, we can put the spacecraft back in the museaum in a few (or many) years after the mission is completed. I would think that the Smithsonian would much rather display a spacecraft that actually flew. No smiley here--I think it really is feasible to return a moon orbitor back to Earth. The big trick would be getting the probe back to into Earth orbit so the shuttle can pict it up. Would it be possible to use two IUSs and some type of simple docking adapter? Perhaps there is some other hardware in the NASM that could be adapted.... -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 21:33:46 EST From: Tommy Mac <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #193 Re: Terraforming Venus: Lot's of replies, so I won't try to remember the original pieces-parts: 1) Earth did not tie up it's atmosphere in rocks, but in oceans, and, lately, plants and animals. Water is the limitation on hospitality. 2) How is terra-forming Venus NOT a focus of SPACE-Digest? It's in space. 3) ONE MORE IDEA: Since comets have something better to do than making a tan faster salon, and Venus needs water, and the limitation is energy for transportation, why not import hydrogen? By exploding it, you can blow off some atmosphere, create some water, provide a place for the rest of the atmphere to dissolve into, AND provide a heat sink. Tommy Mac "B-52" 18084tm@msu -How to Wreck Saddam's bingo game Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 91 16:42:25 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: UN Moon Treaty (was Re: Commercially-funded Space Probes) In article <9364@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >+ It all depends on who you are. If the U.S. authorizes 3M to >+conduct mining operations supported by a U.S. lunar base, I >+seriously doubt we are going to let a bureaucracy interfere >+in this. The U.N. is pretty much irrelevant, except when we >+can use it to our advantage. Whether or not this is a good >+thing is subject to some debate, but that's the way it is. > I disagree, The Soviet Union, China and third world members of >the security council will not permit the USA to collect vast >profits with impunity. They all will want their cut. Sure they will. The operative question here is, what can they do about it? Sanctions? I think the world economy would slide into a permanent recession if they tried to embargo the roughly $1.2 trillion of trade that we take part in. Military force? That would certainly cost more than any 'tax' we might pay if they succeeded. No, if we decide to get into interplanetary mining, there's not a thing in the world anyone is going to do about it. Besides, if they don't like us making so much money, they just have to go out there and get their own profits. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, Office of Information Technology for they are subtle, and quick to anger. Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 91 04:28:03 GMT From: europa.asd.contel.com!issm!wlbr!mahendo!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@uunet.uu.net (Ron Baalke) Subject: Pioneers 7 & 8 Update - 02/11/91 PIONEER 7 & 8 STATUS REPORT February 22, 1991 The Pioneer 7 spacecraft was tracked for 4 hours on February 16. The CRD (Cosmic Ray Detector) and the PA (Plasma Analyzer) instruments were turned on for 1 1/2 hours each. The Pioneer 8 was tracked on February 17. Attempts to command the spacecraft were unsuccessful. Three attempts were made at an uplink power of 18 kW. Telemetry received during the pass is being analyzed to evaluate the communications subsystem. At the next tracking opportunity the uplink power will be increased. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| 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. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 91 04:31:43 GMT From: europa.asd.contel.com!issm!wlbr!mahendo!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@uunet.uu.net (Ron Baalke) Subject: Pioneer 11 Update - 02/22/91 PIONEER 11 STATUS REPORT February 22, 1991 A second attempt to produce roll and cone angles of Canopus with the IPP (Imaging Photopolarimeter) instrument on the Pioneer 11 spacecraft on February 16 was largely unsuccessful. The instrument appeared to lock on numerous objects, probably due to noise from the high gain setting. The data are being applied, together with data from Sirius, to newly developed attitude software in an attempt to obtain a spacecraft attitude. Unsuccessful attempts to switch receivers were continued on February 14 and 19. All commands were successfully received by the spacecraft, employing the new Idle-2 sequence of all zeroes, implemented at the DSN (Deep Space Network). ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 20:19:47 EST From: Tommy Mac <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #187 RE: Terraforming Venus Clayton E. Kramer Suggested algae in dirigibles, rather than Shields, etc. I don't remember where, but I remember learning that you don't need dirigilbes and don't want dirigibles. The convection currents would keep the little guys aloft (where it's cool), and dispersed. I assume your speaking of the famous Blue-Green Algae (even though BGA refers to about 20 different organisms.) that feeds on sunlight and CO2. There are also the algae/bacteria family in the ocean that feed on water and Sulfur. I think it's called chemosynthesis. They live near fresh lava. Lot's of hot sulfur in Venus' atmosphere. Here's what's really cool: If we 'infected' Venus with life (Which some of the Neitzche-and-clove-cigarettes-at-3-am-in-the-coffe-house types will argue is immoral) we would be able to see the effects in a telescope in 5 years, and we could start transporting other forms of life in 50! This type of innoculation has been deemed illegal by some post-moon-treaty agreement, BTW. Naturally I have no references. And maybe the originall propenents of this idea had it all wrong. But, shoot, how much would it cost to carry a few teeny-tiny organisms on the next probe to Venus? How much return on your investment would it be? Tommy Mac 18084tm@msu Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #196 *******************