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 ; Thu, 18 Apr 91 02:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 18 Apr 91 02:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #422 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 422 Today's Topics: Re: SSF Micro-g (Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits Re: NASA & Executive Branch Re: The first VOSTOK in space Re: NASA & Executive Branch Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits Re: lawsuits etc. Re: Mylar, not Teflon Re: Voyager CD-ROMs On-Line Re: Questions about pioneer/Voyager Credit for use of the Magellan images Re: NASA & Executive Branch Re: "Bussard Ramjets" AKA duct space drives Cape York launch facility 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: 17 Apr 91 14:52:41 GMT From: widener!hela!aws@g.ms.uky.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: SSF Micro-g (Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits In article <1991Apr16.144617.29793@engin.umich.edu> kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov (Ken Sheppardson) writes: >>Actually, this was a pretty gutsy move by NASA... > For what 'politically unpopular design changes' did the micro-g > community ask? You need to ask Nick that but I would guess he means the life science centrifuge. The micro-g people didn't like it and Congress cut funds for it last year. > In what way did NASA tell the people who sign the checks to go to hell? The Appropriations Subcommittee which signs the checks for the station has said several times they wanted Freedom as a microgravity facility first and formost. The current restructuring says it will be a microgravity platform for a few years until PMC and then it becomes life sciences. It therefore is now life science first and formost with microgravity as available. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back | | aws@iti.org | to you, hunt it down and kill it. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 17:26:56 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: NASA & Executive Branch In article <1991Apr17.094438.12385@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >> ... The President can >> order NASA to do it, but only Congress can authorize spending money on it. > >Then should Congress be included in this lawsuit from Hughes? It is. Hughes can't sue part of the US government any more than they can sue your left arm. Naming NASA specifically may be convenient but has no legal significance. >One of the >things you have mentioned several times that NASA did not do, was to place an >order for expendable launch vehicles to be made available to its displaced >shuttle customers. How could it get a hold of the founds for this without >Congressional intervention to authorize it? It couldn't. But it could have asked Congress for the money, in exactly the same way it does when one of its normal projects runs into unexpected expenses. That is exactly what happened this time: its launch contracts could not be fulfilled using the originally-planned method, and extra money would be needed to fulfill them. >... So how can it be held accountable for not >doing something it did not have the money to do? When a company signs a contract to do something and then finds out it can't afford to follow through on that promise, the situation is known as "impending bankruptcy". You don't get to just cancel the contract for your own convenience. You keep your promises, renegotiate them, or go under. If the problem is that your boss won't let you have the money needed to keep the promise you made on his behalf, he gets sued. Which is precisely what's happening. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 11:59:36 GMT From: world!ksr!clj%ksr.com@decwrl.dec.com (Chris Jones) Subject: Re: The first VOSTOK in space In article <1991Apr17.121648.14304@kcbbs.gen.nz>, George_Muzyka@kcbbs (George Muzyka) writes: >We all call the first Soviet Vostok manned spacecraft, piloted by Yuri >Gagarin in April 1961, VOSTOK 1. When Radio Moscow announced the launch, they referred to it simply as Vostok, with no number. It wasn't until Vostok 2 that Gagarin's craft was called Vostok 1. Similarly, Voskhod 1 didn't acquire its number until Voskhod 2 had been launched. Soyuz 1, however, was called Soyuz 1 from the start, fuelling speculation that there was supposed ot have been a Soyuz 2 launched to rendezvous with it. >Well on Radio Moscow World Service last week an item on this 30th anniversary >mentioned that the technicians back then called Gagarin's Vostok by >the name of VOSTOK 3A. > >So could it be that the name VOSTOK 3A refers to the third major phase >in the first V8Aec!$JJ.*P3)aft? Any light on this, anyone? I've heard that there were three variants of early Vostoks. The first was an "electrical analogue" and had no heat shield. Korabl Sputnik 1 was the only known launch of this type. The second and third variants had heat shields and were capable of returning their payload and passengers to earth. The differences between the two were minor; I recall that there was some improvement in the orientation system. Korabl Sputniks 2 through 5 were all Vostok spacecraft under a different name, and all carried a dog or two as well as other biological cargo (rats, seeds, etc.). All except KS 3 were successes; KS 3 burned up due to an incorrect reentry angle. I believe it was the first test of the new, improved Vostok (!), but by the time Gagarin flew, KS 4 and 5 had already validated the design and flown successful one orbit missions, so the go-ahead was given for Gagarin's launch. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 13:44:38 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs.org!pstinson@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: NASA & Executive Branch In article <1991Apr15.224632.4668@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <1991Apr15.121146.12354@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >>Would it be possible then for the President to declare by Executive Order that >>NASA is returning to the moon and skip all the haggling with nearsighted >>Conressmen? > > Apart from the difficulty of getting such a forthright order out of any > recent president :-(, alas, no. Checks and balances. The President can > order NASA to do it, but only Congress can authorize spending money on it. > -- Then should Congress be included in this lawsuit from Hughes? One of the things you have mentioned several times that NASA did not do, was to place an order for expendable launch vehicles to be made available to its displaced shuttle customers. How could it get a hold of the founds for this without Congressional intervention to authorize it? If NASA were really a business, as Hughes seems to think it is, then NASA would have control of it own purse strings, but it evidently does not. So how can it be held accountable for not doing something it did not have the money to do? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 91 15:26:20 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits In article , shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >No, they're official, not diplomatic. Maroon instead of navy blue. I >don't know what color diplomats have. I have two passports, in two >names, and both are current and correct. Two passports in two names? Hmmm, subcontracting out to three-letter agencies these days, eh? Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 21:46:56 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: lawsuits etc. In article <1991Apr16.121725.12374@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >1) Unless the Scout, originally a sounding rocket launched from Wallops >Island, has been considerably upgraded, it does not have the lifting power to >get a Hughes comsat to the desired orbit. I never said it did. The mention of Scout was an incidental aside on the matter of NASA owning expendables. >2) NASA at the time did not have funds available to place the type of "launch >order" you are suggesting... And it did have funds to put the same payloads up on shuttle launches? One can argue about relative costs, but the shuttle certainly isn't any cheaper than expendables. >Beside, were not Martin Marrietta and General >Dynamics trying to get into the launch business on their own? They could have >dealt directly with Hughes, bypassing NASA entirely... MM and GD were interested in the idea but not, at the time, actively pursuing it. And Hughes couldn't have dealt directly with them without breaking its contract with NASA. Contracts are binding on both parties. In fact, taking NASA "out of the loop" is a Good Thing in general. But in this case, it could have been done quite nicely by saying "NASA will take no more orders for launches, but will buy expendable launch services to fulfill the contracts already signed". This would have gotten at least one commercial launch provider going with a bulk order, something whose rarity in the launch business shows in the prices. > the hold up was and >still is one of the Gov't Depts (Commerce and/or Transportation) requiring >regulations and paperwork that stiffle this effort. Details, please? While I'm not happy with all aspects of OCST (Office of Commercial Space Transportation, part of DoT), so far they have mostly done a commendable job of simplifying regulations and paperwork for commercial launches. In particular, they have *not* "stifled" it, and a small number of commercial orders have indeed gone to US launch firms. The reason there weren't more is that the US firms weren't prepared to provide immediate launches after Challenger, and Arianespace was. (Note that in my proposed approach, existing NASA launch contracts would have remained in effect, so the satellite owners would go up on NASA's choice of launcher, which wouldn't be Ariane!) -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 91 00:24:04 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!bobmon%iuvax.cs.indiana.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (RAMontante) Subject: Re: Mylar, not Teflon | You do remember Echo, don't you? Sitting out on the lawn just after | dark, watching it flash by? Not in Chicago --- we just stole the hubcaps off anything with flashing lights, and then we ran away :-) :-) "lawn" ??? ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 18:15:24 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!convex!ewright@ucsd.edu (Edward V. Wright) Subject: Re: Voyager CD-ROMs On-Line In article <1991Apr7.225729.10607@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (baalke, ron) writes: > > Peter Yee and I are pleased to announce a major addition to the SPACE >archive at NASA Ames Research Center. > > There are eight CD-ROMs that contain about 16,000 images taken by >Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 on their encounters with Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. >Images from these Voyager CD-ROMs are now available on-line at the Ames SPACE >archives.. A new Magellan CD-ROM and three new >Neptune CD-ROMs are also available, and will be quickly be placed on-line when >Peter receives them. Are the Magellan and Neptune CDs available for purchase? I just got the eight Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus CDs from the University of Colorado, but the order forms I got with them didn't mention any new additions. If they are available, can somebody tell me how to order them? ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 17:28:09 GMT From: sgeels@athena.mit.edu (Scott A Geels) Subject: Re: Questions about pioneer/Voyager In article <757@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >am aware of. There is also an RTG (radioactive thermonic generator) from Actually, RTG = Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator >John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org >NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john Scott Geels sgeels%fred.den.mmc.com@everest.den.mmc.com ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 17:27:20 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Credit for use of the Magellan images Just a quick reminder to users of the CD-ROM data I am supplying: if you incorporate any of the images or data into a formal presentation, paper, or other similar work, please acknowledge Magellan Team Leader, Dr. Gordon Pettengill, the Planetary Data System, and the National Space Science Data Center. Thanks for your understanding. -Peter Yee yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov ames!yee ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 16:18:21 GMT From: orca!bambam!bpendlet@uunet.uu.net (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: NASA & Executive Branch In article <1020@epiwrl.UUCP>, parker@wrl.epi.com (Alan Parker) writes: > Does it bother others that so many don't seem to understand how our > government works? We shouldn't expect everyone around the world to > understand the limits of a President and the role of Congress; but > certainly every American kid in school is taught about these things. Thinking back I realize I learned about it by reading about it in an encyclopedia. An encylopedia I had at home. I wasn't allowed to read the same encyclopedia in the library of the US public school I attended because it was "above my grade level." Can't let the little buggers learning something they're not supposed to learn now, can we? Oh sure they talked about checks and balances, but never about the mechanisms for enforcing the checks and balances. I doubt I ever had a teacher who understood how it worked. > If Henry has to start telling posters how our government works, then we are > in big trouble. I'm sure few of us can tell him how his works! We are already in big trouble. US public grade and secondary schools don't teach. Few of the teacher can teach and the ones that can teach aren't allowed to. How does this relate to sci.space? If you want the US to be a presence in space, we'd better fix our %#@&ing schools. -- Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. bpendlet@dsd.es.com or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet Tools, not rules. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 91 20:07:07 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!csrd.uiuc.edu!s28.csrd.uiuc.edu!beckmann@ucsd.edu (Carl J. Beckmann) Subject: Re: "Bussard Ramjets" AKA duct space drives >Questions: >1) How big would the scoop have to be? ... >2) ... Is it possible to make a scoop out of an E-M field to >gather the fuel so as to avoid this obstacle? I can't give you any "real" answers, but if I remember my Niven correctly, he was saying the scoops were on the order of hundreds of kilometers. Also, I'm pretty sure his spaceships used electromagnetic scoops, or more precisely, lage static magnetic fields. I presume this implies the hydrogen being scooped up is in ionized form... -Carl Beckmann |early to rise, early to bed beckmann@csrd.uiuc.edu |makes a man healthy, wealthy and dead ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 91 15:34:47 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!metro!cs.uow.edu.au!bhpcpd!stvl@THEORY.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Steve Lechowicz) Subject: Cape York launch facility Does anyone know what the current situation is with the launch facility proposed for the Cape York peninsula? If so I would appreciate any information. Thanks in advance. Steve. -- Steve Lechowicz, Research Officer (stvl@bhpcpd.kembla.oz.au) BHP Coated Products Division, Research and Technology Centre Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #422 *******************