Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 04:59:58 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #145 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 27 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 145 Today's Topics: Chase planes (was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whate Chase planes (was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing) Martian Chronology Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing (3 msgs) Opinions on NLS Photos of spacecra(was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing) Private space ventures Robots or Automatons? (was telepresence..) Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space (7 msgs) Space Digest V15 #141 space news from July 20 AW&ST (2 msgs) Trip to KSC With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 92 20:30:04 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: Chase planes (was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whate Newsgroups: sci.space In article 15567@cs.wisc.edu, harlan@oberon.cs.wisc.edu (Harlan Harris) writes: >In article <26AUG199212415150@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> afwendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK) writes: >> >>wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some >>sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots >I seem to remember that in the first few flights they did have some sort of >chase planes. I don't recall if they had them during the actual launch, The video Seven Days in Space (excellent) has shots of the launch from a chase plane -- spectacular! The video is a composite of several pre-Challenger launches. --- Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu 919-962-7169 Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 18:12:56 GMT From: Harlan Harris Subject: Chase planes (was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26AUG199212415150@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> afwendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK) writes: > >wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some >sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots. Yeah, I know >there is no feasable reason for this, but I am mighty tired of artists' >renditions. Also, that way we could watch the shuttle go all of the way up > Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)? > > just a random thought' > > wendy I seem to remember that in the first few flights they did have some sort of chase planes. I don't recall if they had them during the actual launch, but I'm fairly sure they had several jets fly down to Edwards with the shuttle during the landing. I would imagine that it's too expensive to do normally, and not real safe during a launch. Goldin would call that "waste"... As for satellites, the only people that might have one with decent resolution and the ability to track an object going Mach 20 or so are the DoD, and there's no chance they'd release an actual photograph from a spysat. However, I've heard that amateur astronomers with telescopes get enough resolution to figure out what kind of military satellites are being released from the shuttle, on the ground. I know what you mean though. After a minute or two, the launch gets boring. Take a look at the footage out the window during a launch from one of the IMAX films, though. It shows the earth start to curve and the atmosphere disappear, which is just as neat. -Harlan ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 92 17:36:25 GMT From: Bruce Watson Subject: Martian Chronology Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug24.163033.21556@pixel.kodak.com+ dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes: +In article Subject: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing Newsgroups: sci.space In article 92Aug25161756@neep.engr.wisc.edu, bruggink@neep.engr.wisc.edu (Dennis Bruggink) writes: >Maybe someone can save me some hunting: I've checked a number of sites >w/ GIFs for an image of the shuttle landing; I've found one in the Hubble >series (hubble24.gif) which is exactly the view I'm after, but it's not >very sharp. Basically the shuttle has just touched down, and is seen >as from a side view. > I went through the contents of ames.arc.nasa.gov pub/SPACE/GIF. You will find a file called CONTENTS in that directory which is a one line summery of all the images I looked at and could figure out what they were. Here is a summery for a couple of the images you are looking for: Image Name Bytes Size Colors Object ec89-0100-001.gif 442587 940x716 234 Shuttle Space shuttle Atlantis, just as it is lowering its landing gear ec89-0100-012.gif 382036 944x656 248 Shuttle Space Shuttle Atlantis, just before touchdown at Edwards AFB. --- David Bishop INTERNET: avlsidwb@sn370.utica.ge.com | The opinions voiced are mine and US MAIL: RR2 Box 183A, Rome NY 13440 | not my company's. PHYSICAL: 43.150N 75.414E 650' | ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 17:41:00 GMT From: WENDY WARTNICK Subject: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing Newsgroups: sci.space In article , bruggink@neep.engr.wisc.edu (Dennis Bruggink) writes... >Maybe someone can save me some hunting: I've checked a number of sites >w/ GIFs for an image of the shuttle landing; I've found one in the Hubble >series (hubble24.gif) which is exactly the view I'm after, but it's not >very sharp. Basically the shuttle has just touched down, and is seen >as from a side view. and on this subject... wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots. Yeah, I know there is no feasable reason for this, but I am mighty tired of artists' renditions. Also, that way we could watch the shuttle go all of the way up Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)? just a random thought' wendy ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 18:44:05 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26AUG199212415150@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> afwendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK) writes: >wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some >sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots... I've seen a photo of a shuttle launch seen from the air, from the Shuttle training aircraft I think. > Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)? They do, when they happen to be looking in the right direction. I've seen a weather-satellite image with a shuttle launch trail. But there isn't really anybody up there in the real-time moving-imagery business, barring possibly some of the spysats. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 16:52:14 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Opinions on NLS Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug25.165425.24094@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1992Aug25.114514.29920@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>NASA's primary mission is air and space flight R&D. > >Since NLS is not R&D but rather operations this is another excellent >reason for dropping NLS. NLS is not in operation. Or have I missed something, when did they start service? Last I heard they were still doing *research* on the design that they intend to *develop*. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 18:35:55 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Photos of spacecra(was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26AUG199212415150@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, afwendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK) writes: > wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some > sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots. Yeah, I know > there is no feasable reason for this, but I am mighty tired of artists' > renditions. Also, that way we could watch the shuttle go all of the way up > Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)? The video that Artsebarski and Krikalev brought to the Chicago area has lots of neat shots of the whole Mir station taken from Soyuz, and lots of neat shots of Soyuz and Progress operations taken from Mir. The SPAS pallet deployed and retrieved again from the Shuttle in the early Eighties took photos of the Shuttle from a distance. More! More! During the first and second stage Bill Higgins flights of the vehicle, if a serious Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory irretrievable fault should occur and HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET the deviation of the flight attitude of HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV the vehicle exceeds a predetermined SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS value, the attitude self-destruction system will make the vehicle self-destroyed. --Long March 3 User's Manual Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:16:41 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Private space ventures > As an aside, I will point out that most of those starving in Africa > are doing so because their family and countrymen think it more > important to kill each other than feed each other. Against a climate > such as this, it is difficult to see how diverting finance from space > into Africa is going to be of any lasting benefit. > ... not to mention farmers in the "West" who profit by screaming loud enough (or are sufficiently violent, like the french farmers) to get paid for keeping food prices high and production down... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:04:34 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Robots or Automatons? (was telepresence..) In article <1992Aug24.043114.23137@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > Not the same thing at all. Except for the Viking landers, *none* of the > spacecraft that ventured beyond the Moon have been able to manipulate > their environment. They have been mere sensor platforms. The common > usage of robot is more specialized than automation. It requires the > ability to manipulate the environment. The term robot also ordinarily > means autonomous to a large degree, capable of on the spot decisions. > This is in contrast to teleoperated devices that require distant super- > vision at the detail level in near real time. [long elucidation on descriptions of past vehicles, etc., with Gary's position above fleshed out, but pretty much the same] Gee, Gary, I think your definition of 'robot' is a little too constrained. Especially as you refer to the 'common usage', which I would say is more like "A machine that has some behavior similar to the human form, or mind." I think the reason that Voyager et.al., didn't manipulate their environement was because there was no point. Not only did we have no clue (well, little clue :-) what was there to be manipulated, their job was just looking around. Note that 'just looking around' is a behavior similar to the human form, which I think is why many people consider it a robot. Or, if you prefer Heisenberg, you cannot help but manipulate the environment by looking at it, therefore sensing platforms are robots by your definition. Or, the term 'robot', which refers to special machines built for constructing cars are not robots by your definition. No matter how hard they all work, they will never change the fact that in front of each of them is a pile of parts, and behind each is an assembly, leading to a built car. They don't manipulate their environment, since it never changes! Sure, they assemble stuff, but a picture of their environement taken at any random time would not appear different than any other. And, finally, to be just a little more nit-picky, a paraphrase from websters: Robot: 1. A machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being;... 2. An automatic apparatus or device that performs functions ordinarily ascribed to human beings or operates with what appears to be almost human intelligence. 3. A mechanism guided by automatic controls. -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 13:05:48 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for >>HLVs this decade. >How do you figure? See the Soyuz thread. We can use Atlas/Soyuz for crew rotation and one of the Zenith Star launchers for supply. Don't worry, I'm not going to mutate the Soyuz thread here. If you didn't see the details, I am going to do a writeup on them for my next column and I will post it here in addition to talk.politics.space. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 15:10:58 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug25.210314.14787@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: > >>I think Nick is right >>in saying that HLVs have no commercial relevance in this decade. > >SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for >HLVs this decade. It is NOT commercial. It is not a market. It is a monopoly subject to the whims of the Federal Government. Support U.N. military force against Serbia -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 16:52:12 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug26.151058.2650@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for >>HLVs this decade. >It is NOT commercial. Not now, no. However, there is absolutely no reason it cannot become commercial. Until it does, we aren't going anywhere. >It is not a market. A market is nothing more than a demand for goods and services which can be met. If we have a space station, then there will be a demand to transport people and supplies. It is therefore a market. >It is a monopoly subject to the whims of the Federal Government. It need not be. If you lack the imagination to see that, say so and I'll just drop it. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:58:57 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug26.165212.21512@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1992Aug26.151058.2650@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: > >>>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for >>>HLVs this decade. > >>It is NOT commercial. > >Not now, no. However, there is absolutely no reason it cannot become >commercial. Until it does, we aren't going anywhere. >>It is not a market. > >A market is nothing more than a demand for goods and services which can >be met. If we have a space station, then there will be a demand to >transport people and supplies. >It is therefore a market. Fine. Come up with PRIVATE money, not public funds to build and launch the station. According to you and Mr. Szabo, it's a goldmine of opportunites out there. Please, demonstrate your financial wizardry and marketing skills here. If it's so hot, you can lease space to the Federal Goverment. And since it IS a market (implying multiple buyers of goods and services), if the Feds don't show up, you can find enough other customers to cover your bills. >>It is a monopoly subject to the whims of the Federal Government. > >It need not be. If you lack the imagination to see that, say so >and I'll just drop it. No, I think you lack the common sense to realize that if it was a commercial venture, it would be built with private monies, and have multiple customers, rather than have a (fatal) sole-source dependency on the (United States) goverment. They don't operate McMurdo Base in Antarticia as a "market." How much do you want to stretch reality? Support U.N. military force against Serbia -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 17:00:06 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug25.210314.14787@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: > >>I think Nick is right >>in saying that HLVs have no commercial relevance in this decade. > >SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for >HLVs this decade. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Really? And I thought Fred was a *government* project. Wonders will never cease. A market requires buyers and sellers. I don't see either in this case. NASA is going to use it's in house Shuttle that it already owns and has already paid for to build and supply Fred. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 20:14:19 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug26.175857.5940@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >No, I think you lack the common sense to realize that if it was a commercial >venture, it would be built with private monies, We are talking about having it built with private money. No, not the station but the resuply vehicles. Note the difference. The US Air Force is not a commercial venture yet it is supplied by commercial ventures. Do you think the govenrment owns the refineries that supply the jet fuel? Everything from F-15s to toilet paper is bought from the private sector. Launches whether used to send satellites or resuply a government space station can be commercial. >They don't operate McMurdo Base in Antarticia as a "market." I'll bet they do. Not the research conducted but the resuply. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:46:59 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space Allen said... >>>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for >>>HLVs this decade. I said ... >>How do you figure? Allen said ... >See the Soyuz thread. We can use Atlas/Soyuz for crew rotation and >one of the Zenith Star launchers for supply. >Don't worry, I'm not going to mutate the Soyuz thread here. If you didn't >see the details, I am going to do a writeup on them for my next column I did indeed miss most of the Soyuz thread as I was incommunicado all summer, so I apologise if I'm the questions I ask have already been covered. 1) Accepting Soyuz (so we don't restart the thread), Freedom still requires either a return of thrusters to Earth for refueling, or a decision not to reuse them, or a redesign. Which did you have in mind? 2) Accepting that industry is the best choice for resupply (which I think it is), how do you plan to use an HLV? The baseline plans I've seen put Ariane 5 at about the right size, and if you increase the payload, you decrease the number of flights to the point where I begin to wonder if it's commercially viable. Maybe we need to agree on a definition of Heavy Lift. -- Josh Hopkins Friends don't let friends derive drunk j-hopkins@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 05:03:54 LCL From: Space Digest maintainer Subject: Space Digest V15 #141 >NASA is not some evil entity trying to keep humanity from developing space; >they're trying to help in their own way, but they have their own problems. NASA is not TRYING to keep humanity from developing space, they are simply SUCCEEDING (in some cases) at keeping humanity from developing space. Evil (or at least bad) acts often come from good intentions. >Without the promise of near-term profit, you won't get industry to do what's >necessary, so the government does things like SSF, and perhaps more >importantly, SSTO and NASP. IMHO, you have the motivations reversed. It is not that NASA is picking up on a very real and important need that private investment has simply ignored; it is that NASA, being an arm of the gov., has a literal monopoly on what happens in space, and like all monolpolies, the only benefits are to the holders of the monopoly. Consider the phrase 'what's necessary' above. Only someone who has completely accepted a monopoly situation would think in terms of 'necessary' instead of 'desired, useful, marketable', etc. Necessary for what? To whom? By whose standards? The holders of the monopoly, of course! -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:25:20 GMT From: Doug Davey Subject: space news from July 20 AW&ST Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: [Much deleted] > Big article on the Tethered Satellite project. This actually isn't the > first test of tethers in space -- that was done on Gemini -- but it's > the first test of long ones. [I'll skip most of the technical details [Much deleted] > There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Are you speaking of Ed White, Mike Collins, & friends floating around at the end of their umbilical cords? Or, was there an actual deployment of a tethered satellite that I've forgotten? If you are speaking of Ed White & company, wouldn't Alexi Leonov get the credit for the first tethered satellite experiment? -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Doug Davey ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com bcr!iscp!ddavey ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 18:47:12 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: space news from July 20 AW&ST Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug26.172520.28932@walter.bellcore.com> ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com writes: >> Big article on the Tethered Satellite project. This actually isn't the >> first test of tethers in space -- that was done on Gemini... > >Are you speaking of Ed White, Mike Collins, & friends floating around at >the end of their umbilical cords? Or, was there an actual deployment of a >tethered satellite that I've forgotten? ... Neither one exactly. On some of the later missions, they connected a tether between the Agena docking target and the Gemini while docked, and then separated and flew them as a tethered system for a while. It sort of worked; the tethers weren't too long and there was difficulty keeping them taut. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 04:37:54 GMT From: Miroslaw Kuc Subject: Trip to KSC Newsgroups: sci.space sci.space, Next week I am planning to go to Orlando, Florida and while there take an excursion to KSC, go on the tour and perhaps see the Sept 11 launch. Is there anything I should look at in advance, like reservations for the tour of KSC? If I were to go see the space launch, where should I go? Does anyone have any other suggestions? Please reply by e-mail. If there is enough interest I'll summarize and post or is there already something out there I can refer to? Thanks to all! Miro -- wizard@r-node.gts.org ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 92 16:39:36 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? Newsgroups: sci.space In article ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt (Rui Sousa) writes: >In article <1992Aug24.043114.23137@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > > Not the same thing at all. Except for the Viking landers, *none* of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > spacecraft that ventured beyond the Moon have been able to manipulate ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > their environment. They have been mere sensor platforms. The common > >You are forgetting the Luna series and the Viking landers. Though not >autonomous they certainly could turn rocks over... Try again. Gary ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 145 ------------------------------