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 ; Tue, 7 May 91 01:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4c9Xoo600WBw81rU4M@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 7 May 91 01:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #497 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 497 Today's Topics: Re: Galileo Update On CNN atmosphere probe question Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? Re: Why the space station? Re: mars orbiter Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster) Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket. Re: GREAT IDEA SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - ADMINISTRIVIA Re: Incentives Library of Science (book club) UK exploder for sci.space Incentives Re: Mars media alert 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: 4 May 91 01:03:39 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: Galileo Update On CNN atmosphere probe question In article <1991May3.203721.6889@cbfsb.att.com> wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes: Well, I worked on the Probe when I was with Hughes There is no TV camera, the only optical device is a lightning flash detector. The interesting thing to me about the atmosphere Probe is its ability to perform the first direct in situ chemical; composition and isotope comp[osition measurments of a gas giant planet. This little probe descending on a parachute through the fierce violent storms of Jupiter will descend through the atmospheric layers, and for an hour or two will send back these direct atmospheric measurments. This data will help discriminate between the different theories of the origin of Jupiter, which in turn will give strong pointers on the origin of the solar system. Certain measurmenets can ONLY be done directly, such as measurmenets of the abundance of different helium isotopes which is one of the more ciritical measurements. >I saw part of this news report, too. There was mention that if they can't >get the antenna fixed, there will be no nice pictures. But they can still >do the atmosphere probe. Are there cameras on this probe (didn't think so)? >Data rate on the probe must be fairly low, then, if the antenna problem >won't get in the way. Will NASA "hear" the atmosphere probe directly from >Jupiter without being relayed thru Galileo? >=========================================================================== >Question: Do you have to be a rocket scientist to design a rocket? :-) ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 91 15:36:25 GMT From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? In article <9551@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes: >It is safer for man to live on a planet, at the bottom of the gravity >well, than it is for man to live in space... Actually, not so. The space environment is much more controllable. It's the variations that kill you, not the constant and predictable part of the environment. This was Gerry O'Neill's first and foremost contribution: the observation that open space is a *better* location than the surface of a planet for human civilization. You want gravity? Make as much of it as you want using centrifugal force. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 22:56:04 GMT From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john@lll-winken.llnl.gov (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: Why the space station? >In article gh1r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gaurang Hirpara) writes: > I think the point is that a space station is the first step to returning > to the moon to set up a more permanent base. I really do not understand this argument. How can Fred help us get to the moon? The only help that I think Fred might be is as a rest stop on the way. You are not going to be building moon ships in orbit (Fred is not going to be an assembly hanger), and I doubt that you are going to see Fred used as a gas station. As far as testing the crew modules, you can do that in the desert or at the south pole just as well as in low earth orbit. -john- -- ============================================================================= John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 91 12:18:55 GMT From: dev8a.mdcbbs.com!rivero@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: mars orbiter In article <9518@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes: > > What is the schedual for revisiting Mars? > Before the Challenger disaster there were plans for another Mars mission. As the original Viking Missions to Mars were winding down, there were already plans and a launch date to send the next set. Vikings 3 and 4 were to be similar to the first 2, with the addition of a detachable remote vehicle mounted between the cameras of each laner. Once on Mars, these rovers would deploy down a ramp to the surface, and increase the range for direct interaction/experimentation with the surface. The project was placed on indefinate hold after the Challenger Incident. Michael ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 91 19:38:48 GMT From: pasteur!agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster) In article <1991May2.184931.28367@en.ecn.purdue.edu> irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) writes: >> The driving force in launcher safety is NOT the lives of the crew. >> Payload replacement cost IS the driving factor. The average payload >> today is worth far more than the crews who launch it. >What is your cost estimate of a crew member? :) I guess I would say $2 to $5 million per crewmember. I see the smiley but the point needs to be made: human life DOES have a value. It is an important parameter in the cost of many things we use like cars and aircraft. There are lots of things which could be done to reduce loss of life in aircraft crashes which aren't done because the money spent on them isn't worth the lives saved. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with | | aws@iti.org | -- Harel Barzilai | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 19:07:30 GMT From: att!linac!midway!iitmax!thssdwv@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David William Vrona) Subject: Re: Japanese satellite destroyed on NASA rocket. In article <21631@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >This was not a NASA rocket, but a General Dynamics commercial rocket. >NASA, contrary to popular opinion, is not even close to being "the >space program" in the United States. Most U.S. rockets are launched by >somebody other than NASA. > >Atlas has a rather unreliable history and I would guess General Dynamics > This is a ridiculous statement. The Atlas has been a workhorse since the 60's. Name another platform that has put more payloads into space. -- ############################################################################## # I was gonna run up on ya and do a # David W. Vrona # # Rambo.... O.J. Jones # Illinois Institute of Technology # ############################################################################## # Internet: thssdwv@iitmax.iit.edu # UUCP: # ############################################################################## ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 91 07:38:00 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: GREAT IDEA In article <91123.103206GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: >Not if the critical info is patented. HOw long did it take kodak to >break into the instant photo market monopoly held by polaroid (sp?) >I don't think the major launch companies, or even everybody's darling >OSC, can stay in business that long without a launch, at least not the >launch business. The cheap launch vehicle being discussed was, I believe, a no-frills use-existing-technology, but designed from the ground up with costs in mind, type of launcher. I don't see too many ways this could be done that require patentable "critical info." Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 20:13:03 GMT From: ubc-cs!alberta!cpsc.ucalgary.ca!yogi.fhhosp.ab.ca!honte.uleth.ca!olerc@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Cary Oler) Subject: SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN - ADMINISTRIVIA /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ SOLAR TERRESTRIAL BULLETIN 03 May, 1991 Administrivia /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ PLEASE NOTE: Solar Terrestrial Dispatch now has access to the Usenet community. Previously, the solar geophysical reports, alerts, warnings and other messages were posted through gateways into several Usenet newsgroups. Unfortunately, this prevented us from reaching some of the other relevant newsgroups (ex. sci.astro). Over the next week or so, we will be attempting to determine whether the reports propagate through the newsgroups faster by posting through the gateways or directly to Usenet by bypassing the gateways. We will choose whichever method yields the fastest general propagation time. It would be appreciated if some of you could respond to this message, confirming its arrival through Usenet and noting the time of arrival. If any of you are familiar with the previous delay which accompanied the Solar Terrestrial Forecast and Review (STFR) reports, please send a note comparing the time required to receive this message with those of previous STFR reports. This will help us determine which method and path will yield the quickest delivery times. On another vein, please note that a mailing list does exist for those of you who are aiding in the redistribution of the solar terrestrial information, reports and/or warnings to the packet-radio networks and/or other networks or sources. Those organizations or individuals who require the information quickly for research or dispersal purposes, or who redistribute the information to other sources may request that their e-mail addresses be added to the distribution list. Please send replies, requests or questions to the following address: INTERNET: oler@hg.uleth.ca A public announcement of the Usenet address will be made after the final adjustments and tests are complete. Thanks to all of you who send confirmation notes. ** End of Bulletin ** ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 91 07:13:33 GMT From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) Subject: Re: Incentives In article <21646@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >non-commercial. A more interesting proposal I have heard is to >pay a $500/lb. anti-fee for any payload, even if it is sand, delivered >into low earth orbit -- on top of whatever other revenue that payload might >give the launch company. This encourages the development of inexpensive An even better idea was suggested by the Special Projects group at Lawrence Livermore National Labs: To reduce launch costs for a manned Mars mission, have the government agree to pay $1000 per pound of Hydrogen/Oxygen mix, or water, delivered to Low Earth Orbit. The deal would be valid for the first 1000 tons delivered. This would provide a certain market, give a fair return to NASA (needed fuel in orbit) and insure that the launchers were cheap (if they cost over $1000/lb no profit could be made.) The trouble with the $500/lb anti-fee suggested above is that it provides no incentive to lower cost. If a company is launching communications salilites, they already have launch costs, however much they are, covered. They would just pocket all the $500/lb, regardless of launch costs. Frank Crary UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 00:14:51 GMT From: pasteur!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cc.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!slp9m@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Library of Science (book club) I am considering getting into the Library of Science book club. But, before I do, I would like to hear comments (+ and -) from current or former members. I am especially interested in just how broad the selection of their wares is. Please respond by e-mail as I do not read all the groups I am cross posting to. ############################################################################ # Scott E. Parker WA7VYJ # INTERNET: SLP9M@cc.usu.edu # # Center for Atmospheric & Space Sciences # Twisted pair: (801) 750-2975 # # Utah State University # Home: (801) 753-3924 # # Logan, UT 84322-4405 # # ############################################################################ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 15:17:15 BST From: Craig Southeren Subject: UK exploder for sci.space As an avid space-o-phile who has recently moved to the UK from Australia (hi Robert and Graeme!!), I am currently suffering from a lack of sci.space as we don't have usenet (or the prospect of it) at my new site. We do have UUCP mail though, but my employer is not going to let me import the sci.space digest through the UKC gateway due to the cost. This wouldn't be a nice thing to do anyway, as it just adds to the traffic. I have been told that there is probably a "UK exploder" for the sci.space digest in the UK. Is there anyone who knows of such a thing? I'd really like a listserver or something like that that will just mail me a copy of the digest whenever it hits the country. Thanks in advance. Craig name: Craig Southeren Internet: craig@cintel.uucp phone: +44 920 463939 x373 UUCP: cintel!craig@relay.EU.net fax: +44 920 460803 snail: Rank Cintel Ltd Watton Rd, Ware Herts SG12 0AE U.K. ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 91 14:45:16 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!irvine@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (/dev/null) Subject: Incentives I suggested having a one time $100,000,000 prize for the first private person/organization, accomplish a space feat (120 orbits, Moon, whatever). I dod not specify rules because it was an idea that I felt could be fleshed out by the newsgroup. There was one person who seemed violently opposed to it. Another felt it had the potential to do great good for the same reasons I felt it was a good idea. My reason for the post is to ask one last time: "Does any one have any ideas about how to make this work?" -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Society of Philosophers, Luminaries, | Brent L. Irvine | | and Other Professional Thinking People..... | Only my own ramblings | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 91 16:07:34 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!axion!cam-cl!news@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Steve Linton) Subject: Re: Mars media alert IIn article <1991Apr22.221303.10643@cs.umn.edu>, vergis@cs.umn.edu (Anastasios Vergis) writes: |> In article <1991Apr19.124944.12413@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: |> >In the May issue of Life magazine, the cover story outlines a six stage |> >approach to changing Mars into an Earth-like planet by the middle of the 22nd |> >Century. Perhaps recent remarks by the Vice-President were about this future |> >Mars. If you want to know what he knows, read the May issue of Life. :-) |> |> I am wondering how they solve the problem of atmoshere density, i.e. to |> get a breathable atmosphere we need to have enough planetary mass so that |> it doesn't escape into space. |> |> A. Vergis I think the solution is to ignore the problem. It takes a LONG time for an atmosphere to leak away. If we can create an atmosphere (bombard Mars with comets, perhaps) then it will last a million years or so, easily, and can be maintained by simply dropping in another comet every millenium or so. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #497 *******************