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, 10 Mar 91 01:37:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4bqREB-00WBw0Q2040@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 01:37:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #251 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 251 Today's Topics: Re: NOVA and Horizon; Soviet Lunar stuff. Re: Terraforming, sun shield Re: Voyager Update - 02/13/91 Re: meteor Re: Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...? Re: Thrust Re: Space Profits Re: Wednesday NOVA on PBS: Russian Right Stuff Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans Galileo Update - 03/05/91 Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans 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: 8 Mar 91 15:02:09 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!freedom!xanth!mcdowell@uunet.uu.net (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: NOVA and Horizon; Soviet Lunar stuff. brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody) writes: >ksh@ely.cl.cam.ac.uk (Kish Shen) writes: >>>Russian Right Stuff >>I think this is the "Horizon" (a BBC TV science program) shown here in the UK >>a few months back. >The program was definitely Nova put out by WGBH Boston (PBS). Not quite: actually Nova is often a joint production between WGBH and the BBC in England; the same programs are broadcast in the UK under the Horizon name. So WGBH gets the credit in the US but if you look at the fine print a lot of it is actually made by the Beeb in England. The Russian Right Stuff had two technical advisers - Jim Oberg from Houston and Phil Clark from London. Phillip never wears stetsons and so is probably not considered photogenic enough to appear on camera. I wish they had spent a little longer showing us round Vasiliy Mishin's attic with all the left over hardware in! On a related note, a recent article in the Soviet magazine Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika with Aleksey Leonov, who will be familiar to viewers of the Horizon/Nova, he states that the first unpiloted launch of the L-1/Zond spaceship failed when the escape stage burn went in the wrong direction and the craft zoomed back in to the atmosphere. I suspect this refers to the Kosmos-146 mission, which has long attracted interest as an Earth orbital mission included on Soviet lists of flights that attained escape velocity. It had been speculated that this was a deliberate reentry test of the L-1. Guess not! (Although there is some evidence K146 stayed in orbit for 3 days, which would contradict this; in which case he may be referring to Zond 4.) .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. | Jonathan McDowell | phone : (205)544-7724 | | Space Science Lab ES65 | uucp: | | NASA Marshall Space Flight Center | bitnet : | | Huntsville AL 35812 | inter : mcdowell@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov | | USA | span : ssl::mcdowell | '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 91 22:38:17 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!think.com!linus!linus!cyclone!sokay@handies.ucar.edu (S. J. Okay) Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield In article <1991Feb28.180648.19480@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1991Feb28.001811.13990@athena.mit.edu> hbh@athena.mit.edu (Heidi Hammel) writes: >If we're going to be mere humble servants to Nature, *you* can write the >Environmental Impact Statement for the next Ice Age. I'd rather simply >prevent it. :-) > >Nature is blind. We are merely shortsighted. That's an improvement. You forgot to mention, Henry, that we are also capable of creating optics to improve our vision....Ever see a lichen run a lensgrinder?? :) :) >-- >"But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ---Steve ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 91 12:35:04 GMT From: rti!n5pph007!jaw@mcnc.org (Jeffrey Alan Williams) Subject: Re: Voyager Update - 02/13/91 In article <1991Feb13.180905.22141@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > Spacecraft (Gm) (Kg) Watts Watts > Voyager 1 5 36.2 + 2.0 366 41 > Voyager 2 6 39.1 + 2.0 370 46 This may be a stupid question but where are Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 and what are their goals or mission ?? Thanks in advance !! - Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 91 17:40:25 GMT From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!know!tegra!vail@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Johnathan Vail) Subject: Re: meteor In article <1991Mar6.175703.2076@unhd.unh.edu> dwk720@unhd.unh.edu (David W Kimball) writes: Last night (March 6, 1991) at about 2:55 AM EST I observed an unusual meteor just as I left the main library here at the University of New Hampshire. It was moving southwest to northeast, and was moving much too quickly to be an aircraft. It was in view for two or three seconds, disappeared behind Thompson Hall, and was then in my view again for about five more seconds before it was lost over the horizon. It was completely silent. I have never seen a meteor like it - though moving very rapidly, it was slow for a meteor. It was blue-white in color, much like Sirius, and did not leave any appreciable trail. In fact, it was rather like watching a -5 or -6 magnitude blue-white star move quickly across the sky. Did any one else see the thing? It was so odd for a meteor, I've wondered if it may not have been something else. Were any satellites or anything falling out of orbit last night? (or would that just look the same as a meteor?) Well, its hard to say but I would think it was around for too long to be a meteor. Since you are so close to a SAC base I might focus my suspicions there. jv ``There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.'' -- J. S. Bach _____ | | Johnathan Vail | n1dxg@tegra.com |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@448.625-(WorldNet) ----- jv@n1dxg.ampr.org {...sun!sunne ..uunet}!tegra!vail ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 91 18:32:59 GMT From: mintaka!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!samsung!rex!rouge!dlbres10@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...? In article <2690.27D51A9B@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes: WL>...the solid-fuel submarine-launched ICBMs. The "discussion" between WL>the different parties is whether Lockheed's use of such motors is WL>essentially government subsidization of a single competitor in this WL>highly competitive market, or just disposal of surplus government WL>assets. OSC, for one, is very strongly against this...) I suppose the B-52 flight was just something OSC got at a swap meet? And wasn't the DAPRA purchace of a flight before the booster was even fully designed somewhat of the nature of government support? I'm not in a rabidly anti-government mode right now, I'm just pointing out that this situation looks like the pot calling the kettle black. Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 91 19:44:30 GMT From: arc!arc!steve@apple.com (Steve Savitzky) Subject: Re: Thrust In article <2243@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: Not a high Isp drive, but an interesting concept is the solar-electric steam rocket. AMSAT did a design study on this for launches from the shuttle. Basically, solar panels charge a battery that drives a heating element in a water tank that generates steam which is released out a nozzle. The design was sufficient to get from LEO to GEO and met the safety requirements for the shuttle. The design offers unlimited fuel, sunlight, an easily stored and intrinsically safe reaction mass, water, and easy restartability. I don't remember what the Isp was, it should be in one of the Proceedings of the AMSAT Space Symposiums. How inefficient! Why not use solar energy to heat the water directly? This bypasses the losses in the solar panels, the batteries, etc. and is much lighter besides (mirrors can be very light, whereas solar cells are heavy, not to mention the batteries). You could get very high Isp with this kind of rig, just by adding more heat. Am I missing something obvious, or why isn't anyone doing this? -- \ --Steve Savitzky-- \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \ \ steve@advansoft.COM \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include \ \ arc!steve@apple.COM \ Santa Clara, CA 95954 \ 408-727-3357 \ \__ steve@arc.UUCP _________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 10:17:09 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Space Profits Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <1991Mar8.121751.29921@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>: >>*OR* we do what we did with railroads, interstate highways, ports, airlines, >>and other infrastructure. The government builds the infrastructure and then >>leases it to users over a long period of time. > Railways in much of the US were constructed and owned by private >companies, financed by one-time land grants. In other words, the government subsidized the construction of the railroad infrastructure. Because of this initial investment the markets out west grew enough that the industry could sustain itself. > Most US ports are owned by private companies (individual terminals >and wharves) and/or local port authority districts. Built with money from governments and financed with tax free bonds. > US airlines are private companies. But they wouldn't exist if the government hadn't provided the market (at a loss) under the Kelly Act. I think you are missing my point. All large infrastrucutre in this country was encouraged in a large way by government. This is because of the old chicken and egg problem. People won't build ariliners without airports and people won't build airports without airliners. Space should be the same way. The best way would be using mechanisms like the Kelly Act. The government provides market gurantees for space transport and space based infrastructure. Eventually because of the market gurantee the infrastructure becomes self supporting. As in the past, this breaks the cycle and gets things moving. 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: 8 Mar 91 18:08:15 GMT From: lib!mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu!drg@tmc.edu (David Gutierrez) Subject: Re: Wednesday NOVA on PBS: Russian Right Stuff In article <1991Mar8.144756.2371@menudo.uh.edu> phys46@menudo.uh.edu (Bhaswar Sen) writes: > >>I think this is the "Horizon" (a BBC TV science program) shown here in the UK > >>a few months back. If I remember correctly, the commentator was one of the > >>regular person used by Horizon, and was British. Does anybody know how this was > > > >The program was definitely Nova put out by WGBH Boston (PBS). > > The programme was originally produced by a television company in U.K.and only > recently shown here over PBS as a NOVA series. A friend told me recently that (almost) all episodes of "Nova" *are* the BBC's "Horizon" series, re-narrated for American broadcast. David Gutierrez drg@mdaali.cancer.utexas.edu "Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 91 18:21:43 GMT From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans In article <21303@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <1991Mar7.172412.17631@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Experience so far says very strongly that if you plan to do in-space repairs, >>you had better plan to have humans (or the imaginary just-as-flexible >>teleoperated robots which will be available almost right away now for sure, >>really, trust us) on hand. >Or, if you prefer not to pay the $1,000,000++/hour cost of an EVA, you >could make sure it works before you launch it. Of course, nothing *ever* breaks down after launch, and orbiting debris has *never* punched holes in things... -- 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: 8 Mar 91 19:11:14 GMT From: mintaka!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 03/05/91 GALILEO STATUS REPORT March 5, 1991 [Note: I was working at the Goddard Space Flight Center this week, and because of this the status reports are coming out a little late..............................................Ron Baalke] The Galileo spacecraft's health continues to be excellent. Today, the planned USO (Ultra Stable Oscillator) calibration test was successfully completed. Tomorrow, spacecraft activities will consist of: o Cruise science memory readout for the MAG (Magnetometer), DDS (Dust Detector) and EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer) instruments o Radio frequency receiver and command detector performance characterization tests ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| 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: 8 Mar 91 21:55:44 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!bovic.Eng.Sun.COM!agn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Andreas G. Nowatzyk) Subject: Re: German conference highlights doubts about ESA's manned space plans In article <1991Mar8.183653.16059@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>>Experience so far says very strongly that if you plan to do in-space repairs, >>>you had better plan to have humans ... on hand. >> >>Or, if you prefer not to pay the $1,000,000++/hour cost of an EVA, you >>could make sure it works before you launch it. > >The Solar Max, Palapa/Westar, Syncom, Hubble, Intelsat, etc. people all >thought they had. Not to mention Apollo 13 and Gemini 8. There is this >peculiar myth within NASA that all possible problems can be anticipated, >and you really can be certain that the thing will work before you launch it. >The universe keeps trying to tell NASA that this is wrong, and NASA keeps >not listening. True, but I read the original argument slightly differently: It is possible to design Solar Max, etc. for in-orbit repair by robots, which was not done. ("it works" refering to the ability to repair/replace a system remotely) If in-orbit repair is cost effective (= cheaper than launching a replacement, which is a big IF in the context of small, specialized micro-sats), it may still pay of to do this via robotics. Hardware that isn't designed for this, will require a very elaborate robot. However if the design takes robotic service into account, things change dramatically. For example, a lot of consumer equipment (VCRs & such) and some computer gear (Mac's, printers, etc.) are now routinely designed for robotic assembly. Lots of tiny details reqire attention: aviod screws, avoid round screw-in connectors, provide guide-paths for modules, snap-into-place things are king, locking mechanisms that require tools to push in several places are fine, but ones that require rotary action are not, avoid ill shaped objects like cable harnesses, ... nothing really fancy, but it is quite a departure from the way current space probes are designed. Furthermore, in-orbit repairs are limited to module swaps. It's hard to imagine someone replacing a 300+ pin surface mounted chip during EVA. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #251 *******************