Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 05:00:19 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #168 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 5 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 168 Today's Topics: (Big) Bang in The Netherlands Eclipse '92-Who saw it? Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't Flying wing Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? (4 msgs) Laser distance record? Mars Observer Press Kit (long) Relativity soviet rovers on mars Space DIgest Archives SPS feasibility and other space development Teleoperation Upload Astronomy Lab for MS Win 3.x With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? (2 msgs) 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: 4 Sep 92 10:06:07 GMT From: Frank Teusink Subject: (Big) Bang in The Netherlands Newsgroups: sci.space Hello, There was a thread in this newsgroup on the `bang' that occured a few days (weeks?) ago down here in the Netherlands (Friesland). Although the official explanation they give now is that some super-secret plane went throuh the sound-wall (as suggested in this newsgroup), there was yesterday an item on television in which a geologist gave the following explanation: We're pumping up gas in this region, and this causes leakage of water to layers of chalk down below. Its starts a reaction with the chalk that transforms it into plaster (selenite?) (it would be much easier if you called it 'gips' just like we do :-). This plaster has a higher volume than chalk. Therefore, there is a build-up of tension in these layers, that sometimes causes shock-waves. It seems that there was another 'bang' a number (10?) of years ago. That one was explaned by a concorde going through the sound-wall (this explanation is disputed by the geologist). It seems that the explanation of this geologist is backed by the Geology department of the University of Utrecht. I don't know how these shock-waves explain the fact that the 'bang' was somewhere in the air (supersonic). I hope this interests you, Frank Teusink ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 15:26:42 GMT From: U57053@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: Eclipse '92-Who saw it? Newsgroups: sci.space Is there anyone out there who went to see the solar eclipse of June '92? I am looking primarily for a .GIF of it, but any description would be helpful. Thank You, Dan Kwiatkowski u57053@uicvm.cc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 14:16:04 EST From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't From "New Scientist", 29 August 1992: METEORITE SHAKES DUTCH PROVINCE Govert Schilling, Utrecht Two-and-a-half years after a meteorite crashed through the roof of a house near the Dutch town of Enschede, another much bigger meteorite has exploded over the Netherlands. Last Wednesday evening, people in the northern province of Friesland heard a loud bang and felt tremors, which set doors and windows rattling. With the recent earthquake in the southern part of the Netherlands fresh in their minds, more than a hundred people called the police. Others called the Dutch Air Force base in Leeuwarden, thinking its planes might be taking part in some exercise. According to Henk Haak, head of the seismological department of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, seismic stations near the town of Assen, to the east of Friesland, registered the passing of an acoustic shock wave, which ruled out an earthquake. And nor were any jets flying at the time of the explosion. Although the sky was almost entirely obscured by cloud, at least 10 people reported seeing a huge flash or fireball, strengthening the case for a meteorite. Niek de Kort of the Dutch Meteorite Documentation Center says the best explanation is the explosion of a large, rather porous stony meteorite, measuring about a meter across, which exploded at a height of about 10 kilometers, less than a second before it would have hit the ground near the town of Joure. "This was probably a scaled-down version of the large Tunguska explosion in Siberia, back in 1908", says de Kort. Most astronomers think that the Tunguska event was caused by the impact of a chunk of cometary material. De Kort is pessimistic about retrieving any material from the Dutch meteorite, which would probably have vaporised during the explosion. (end of article) ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. According to Harm Munk (Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:42:08 GMT), experts in the Netherlands don't believe any longer in a meteorite, but think it was a supersonic bang, though no known jet was in the area. This doesn't explain the "huge flash or fireball". I suggest two other explanations: 1) Somebody (hoaxer or amateur scientist) launched a rather big home-made rocket, which exploded at rather high altitude (over or inside the clouds). 2) An air-air or air-ground missile escaped accidentally from a military jet, and had to be destroyed on flight. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: 04 Sep 1992 16:14:19 -0300 (BST) From: TYNTYN Subject: Flying wing Dear sir, I'm currently studying for a degree in Aerospace Engineering at KingstonUniversity. For my second year project, I have been requested to write a report on the evolution of the flying wing. Could you please send me some information regarding projects such as HOTOL and next generation space transport Vehicles. Your help will be much appreicated . Thank you Aymen Mussad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:38:43 GMT From: Andreas Michael Weder Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space Hi Barry, two days ago I read an article on the topic of Mars in the german magazine 'GEO'; they talked about some of the planned missions to our neighbour planet and mentioned that there were still some dreamers at NASA that actually intended to transform Mars. I'd say, forget about that. Even a manned mission to Mars would cost *at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher). Terraforming is a nice SF idea and sounds like an easy thing to do, but IMHO we don't know enough about the involved systems to even think about changing a planet. It's stupid, will cost too much (NASA will not be given the money for 'Big Tickets' in the next years) and belongs to SF. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 15:18:51 GMT From: "John F. Woods" Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort) writes: >A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters >tells me: > A fairly large team , is planning the terraforming > of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it. > Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C. And with minimal study of > that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur. > After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based > micro-organisms and rugged plant life. >Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise >elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars? Your collegue has almost certainly read far too much science fiction. It is fairly likely that someone at NASA is studying how one might terraform Mars. It is certain that neither NASA nor the human race as a whole has the either engineering know-how nor the *budget* to accomplish this any time soon. And if your friend is concerned about the pristine environment of Mars being destroyed, well I certainly share that concern, but there's a much more important ecological disaster to be solved here on the Earth -- the loss of the Earth's pristine reducing atmosphere due to the ecological irresponsibility of photosynthetic organisms. Clearly mankind has an obligation to fix this disaster as soon as possible. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 1992 16:06:21 GMT From: Edmund Hack Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space In article barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort) writes: >A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters Well, he's not. >tells me: > > A fairly large team , is planning the terraforming > of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it. We hardly "know" Mars. > Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C. And with minimal study of > that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur. Huh? > After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based > micro-organisms and rugged plant life. > >Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise >elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars? As far as I know, NASA only has two funded Mars spacecraft projects. Mars Observer is to be launched in the next 6 weeks to orbit Mars, take pictures, watch the weather, etc. No landing will take place. NASA is also involved with the joint XSSR/Russian/French missions to land on Mars in 1994/96 timeframe. This includes use of Mars Observer to relay data from the landers. There is a study on Goldin's desk that proposes to land a number of small weather stations on Mars to get a better picture of the global weather and climate, called MESUR. There have been studies for a sample return mission that would include a rover or two. This is as far along as some prototype/technology testbeds being built at JPL and Carnegie-Mellon U. This may lead to a project start. The probable origin of this rumor is a book by a contractor at JSC (Jim Oberg) on how to terraform Mars. There have also been a few what-if type papers done by the NASA and planetary science community following up on this. I know of no "fairly large team" working on this with NASA money. In fact, a big chunk of the SEI support staff at JSC (19 contactors) get pink slips in the next week, due to lack of FY 93 money. This sounds like more wild rumors started by ecofreaks to show how evil NASA and the Government are. -- | Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX | hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL | "No the game never ends when your whole | world depends on the turn of a friendly card" ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 92 01:16:41 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort) writes: >A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters >tells me: > A fairly large team , is planning the terraforming > of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it. > Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C. And with minimal study of > that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur. > After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based > micro-organisms and rugged plant life. >Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise >elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars? There are no plans by NASA to terraform Mars. You might see an occasional discussion of what if scenarios on to how to terraform Mars, but there is definitely nothing concrete in the workings. NASA follows its own planetary protection requirements that complies with international planetary quarantine agreements not to contaminate Mars with terrestrial organisms. For example, Mars Observer is required to survive in orbit until the year 2009 with a 99.9% probability and to survive thereafter until the year 2039 with a 95% probablity. Mariner 9 was placed in an orbit that will remain stable for at least 50 years. The Viking landers were sterlized and placed into hermetically sealed biocaps before they were launched, and the Viking orbiters were placed in a long-term stable orbit. The spacecraft landers used in the upcoming MESUR mission will also be sterilized and stored in bioshields. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 92 14:25:00 GMT From: Shawn McCarthy Subject: Laser distance record? Newsgroups: sci.space > To date, what is the farthest that a laser has been seen from? > I recall a successful experiment sending a laser beam from the > Earth to a Surveyor lander on the Moon in the sixties. That > would make the current record approx. 384,400 km? if i remember, a laser was bounced off mirrors on the moon and seen on earth.. so probably twice that. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 15:27:41 GMT From: Martin Connors Subject: Mars Observer Press Kit (long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep3.220324.941@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > MARS OBSERVER > PRESS KIT > Mars Observer Laser Altimeter (MOLA) > > The Mars Observer Laser Altimeter uses a very short > pulse of laser light to measure the distance from the > spacecraft to the surface with a precision of several meters. > These measurements of the topography of Mars will provide a > better understanding of the relationship among the Martian > gravity field, the surface topography and the forces > responsible for shaping the large-scale features of the > planet's crust. This is great - comparable resolution in altimetry for Venus (from Magellan) and Mars. If only something as good existed for Earth! I think there is an 'etopo5' database for Earth but the precision is likely not as great especially for ocean floor which is 70% of Earth. Comments? Martin Connors University of Alberta ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 11:21:50 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: Relativity Newsgroups: sci.space -From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) -Subject: Re: What is the speed of light measured from? -Date: 3 Sep 92 12:44:00 GMT -Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny -stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes... ->vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes: ->>Neglecting the engineering problems of high speed travel through an ->>imperfect vacuum, you can travel light centuries in subjective ->>hours if you accelerate long enough. If you arrive at the Andromeda ->>galaxy 2 weeks after leaving earth, you could be justified in ->>thinking you travelled faster than c. It's just that the rest of ->>the universe will have aged 2x10^8 years. -> ->No. You would not feel you are going faaster, but the universe got smaller ->and slower. These are stardard result of Special Relativity. -*sigh* ...I should just learn to keep my mouth shut. -OK consider: you've accelerated to .99999 c relative to your -original frame. Tangential to your world line at that instant -is an inertial frame, in which your speed is instantaneously 0. -Now consider this new frame to be the rest frame, and your -velocity relative to it is small, but steadily increasing as -you continue your constant acceleration. Clearly, a newtonian -approximation of your situation considered from this frame -will conclude that you continue to experience the full force -of your acceleration, just as you did when you first started -from your initial rest frame. That is, just because you are -traveling at nearly c relative to your initial frame doesn't -mean that in your frame you sense your acceleration decreasing. -And you have absolutely no reason to model the universe outside -as getting smaller. That's just silly. But length of objects in other frames of reference *does* decrease by the factor of the Lorenz contraction, same as passage of time. (And effective mass increases by one over this factor.) If you're in a fast spaceship, and you use a Doppler radar to determine your velocity relative to the objects around you, you will always get a value less than c. If it's going to take an hour of subjective time (at constant velocity) to reach the Andromeda galaxy then any measurement of the distance to the galaxy will put it at less than one light-hour. There are several factors which have to be considered, and which are often left out of popular accounts of relativity: - There is often considerable confusion between what can be observed within a particular frame of reference and what a person in that frame of reference would see. For the single observer, the lightspeed delay of information on its way to the observer has to be taken into account. Contrary to popular opinion, it's possible to set up a coordinated time system throughout a frame of reference, and it's valid to say that two events within a given frame of reference that took place a great distance apart were simultaneous. Simultaneity between two different frames of reference has no meaning. (A "frame of reference" includes all the objects in the universe that are motionless with respect to one another.) - Special relativity only applies directly to objects that are not undergoing acceleration. For something that's accelerating, you need general relativity, which has much harder math. People often throw in acceleration when it's not needed as part of a thought experiment on special relativity. Even with acceleration, you will never observe anything that will lead you to believe that you're moving faster than the speed of light with respect to anything else. A single observer may still see some interesting effects due to the previously-mentioned lightspeed delay in receiving information. For instance, if a spacecraft is moving toward Earth at nearly the speed of light, its position as you observe it will appear to translate toward the Earth at a much greater rate than the speed of light. However, blueshift measurement will show that it's actually traveling slower than light, and if you set up a network of observers through your frame of reference with synchronized clocks, they will show that the spacecraft is moving slower than light. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 08:11:04 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: soviet rovers on mars Newsgroups: sci.space In article <118@newave.mn.org>, john@newave (John A. Weeks III) writes: >I have also heard a rumor that Gagarin's flight did not complete an entire >orbit, and the Soviets supposedly airlifted his capsule a few hundred miles >to the east to make it appear that they completed a full orbit. Has anyone >else heard this? I hadn't heard this, though it wouldn't surprise me that someone made the claim. Maybe it even happened, though that wouldn't, in my eyes, detract from the accomplishment of the flight. (I have read that his capsule was substantially damaged on landing.) The basis for the claim that Gagarin didn't complete a full revolution could also be that Vostok 1 was in orbit for less than one full revolution. I don't think there's any question that Gagarin was put into orbit, and only firing the retrorocket brought Vostok down when it did. The first two Mercury flights, in contrast, were suborbital all the way--although their retrorockets were fired, the capsules were going to come right down without the retrofire. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 12:52:32 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Space DIgest Archives At long last, an archive of Space Digest is available for anonymous ftp on julius.cs.qub.ac.uk in pub/SpaceDigestArchives. Each volume of space digest going back to V1 in 1981 is available as a single tar.Z file. Early volumes are quite reasonable in size. Recent ones are a bit out of hand due to people reposting large bodies of usually unnecessary text. For those who have Digital Librarian, each volume is pre-indexed. The index makes it an extremely valuable research tool. The file sizes run from 1-9 MB. As movies ads would say 5 YEARS IN THE MAKING. I believe Gene Miya and Henry Spencer and I first started discussing the need for this in 1986 or 87. And I wish to thank the help and encouragement in this project over the years (most of which were spent in procrastination, but that's beside the point): Ted Anderson Eugene Miya Todd Masco Mark Maimone Bill Higgins Henry Spencer There is a README file that describes where the issues came from and lists what is currently missing/truncated, etc. I will try to fill in the gaps over the next 5 years :-) I will update from time to time as the holes are filled in. The current volume will always be available from isu.isunet.edu. I may or may not have it on line here until it "closes". PS: This might as well be added to the FAQ resource list. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 15:19:50 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development Newsgroups: sci.space szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: >>There are times when you follow hunches and gut feel on engineering >>issues because you simply don't have solid fact to go on. >This is quite different than persisting with a narrow set of hunches, >turned into religiously held beliefs, even if they have failed over >and over, at great cost, while ignoring the many superior alternatives. >>I think both Dennis and I and Allan would all agree that the fastest >>way to drive a technology (rather than science) into the the future >>capabilities we want is to build lots of quick and dirty prototypes >>that we can crash, blow up and otherwise mangle as a means of >>collecting EMPIRICAL data. >This is not at all what Dennis and Allen have been promoting. They >have been advocating huge, expensive projects like HLVs, space stations, >astronauts to Mars, and SPS that, when they fail, bring big chunks of >the space program down with them. They say we lack "vision" >or "guts" unless unless we are willing to bet the house on such singular >spectaculars. If you'll notice, Allen is advocating that NASA say they'll buy commercial HLV launches from suppliers who get stuck with the bill if it blows up, while Dennis seems to want NASA to build the HLV's itself, or at least dictate the size, shape, and even the engines used to the "commercial" contractor... A lot of what Allen seems to be saying is that "If you really want an HLV, say you'll buy an HLV and maybe some dolt out there will bolt one together out of Deltas and save you from building an assembly line and factory for a vehicle you'll launch once every two years..." >Let's make NASA support the commercial space industry, by buying their >launchers and leasing their communcations networks, instead of NASA >dictating their narrow, obsolete plans for the shape, size, and orbit of >space infrastructure to all the other space users. Amen lord! [...] >In short, you have expressed a great strategy for the space program, >a visions of diverse and quick experiments, nearly 180 degrees opposed >to the way things have been promoted in the space advocacy community >and done at NASA. Let's turn the keel and get on course. Lots of space advocates talk about and hope for such things. It just doesn't get covered _that_ much by the folks at _Ad Astra_ who seem to deviate from mega-projects just long enough to clone Greenpeace's newsletter every April for FROMATE (*) Day. >-- >szabo@techbook.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks >Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) (*) You know, the Fromates? The Friends of Man and the Earth? The guys who have been trying to blow up Todos Santos for the longest time... ;-) -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560 If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year, do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear? I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear. --------- "NOAH!" \ \ Lewis Carrol "Yes lord?" > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah "HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 14:04:28 GMT From: "Kieran A. Carroll" Subject: Teleoperation Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9209031254.AA19829@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > > ...I believe one of the cost-cutting measures for SSF was >to have the external robots operated largely from the ground rather than >exclusively by the astronauts on the station. > Well, you're correct that ground control of the ``external robots'' has now become an issue. And yes, the changes that were made to the SSF design and its operations plan that made this an issue were made to cut overall SSF costs. However, there is a problem... The Mobile Servicing System (MSS) is Canada's contribution to SSF. It includes the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), and the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM), the main external robots on SSF. The program cost to develop these is CDN$1.4 Billion, according to the ``pre-scrub'' baseline. That baseline >does not< include the capability to control these robots from the ground. Indeed, at $1.4B the program is somewhat under-funded, and so even the hooks and scars for ground control have been deleted. If ground control is to be added in, new money is going to have to be found. Question: is this going to have to be Canadian money? Or American money? In other words, in redesigning the space station to reduce NASA's costs, NASA made the existing MSS design inadequate for its role in the new operations plan; in order to upgrade MSS to meet its new role, Canada may have to shell out a significant amount of extra money---by decreasing the NASA program costs, NASA has increased Canada's program costs. Sounds great for NASA...IF the Canadian federal cabinet decides to approve the extra money. It seems that NASA didn't consult our cabinet during the redesign. The Canadian Space Agency is at this moment evaluating the costs, benefits and technical options for adding ground control to MSS. they are quite interested in expanding the system's capabilities, partly because it would increase the profile of their program, but mainly because they want SSF to work as planned, and ground control looks like one of the best ways to address some technical issues that have been coming up lately (e.g. the availability fo crew for maintenance during SSF assembly is somewhat less than the amount required). Let's hope that the Canadian government decides to come up with the extra money to make this happen... -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 07:18:32 GMT From: John Haddy Subject: Upload Astronomy Lab for MS Win 3.x Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.windows.ms.misc,comp.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.apps,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.edu In article <1992Sep2.020928.23856@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, ebergman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Bergman-Terrell) writes: |> In article <1992Sep1.162413.871@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes: |> >This file is available at ftp.cica.indiana.edu in the windows area. |> > Fuzzy |> > |> |> Anyone know if it the most current version (1.13)? |> |> The current version will become available soon from laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (137.111.3.11 - also known as ftp.ocs.mq.edu.au). Give me till the middle of next week before trying tho'! John Haddy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ |_ _ |_| _ _| _| Electronics Department |_| (_) | | | | | | (_| (_| (_| \/ School of MPCE ---------------------------------/- Macquarie University Sydney, AUSTRALIA 2109 Email: johnh@mpce.mq.edu.au, Ph: +61 2 805 8959, Fax: +61 2 805 8983 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 14:09:02 GMT From: "Kieran A. Carroll" Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep3.142820.19532@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >...Telepresence, automated extraction and processing tech, >and the like are quite important for future space development, as well >as being the most ripe for spin-offs in Earthside industries. > >While space activists and NASA neglect these critical fields, >the most important such work is still going on down here on Earth, >in areas from medicine to oil to cable-laying. Actually, as far as I can tell (and I work in this field), most of the research money spent in these areas in the last 5 years or so has come from NASA, leading to a true renaissance in these fields. -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 92 15:29:17 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? Newsgroups: sci.space szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >The problem is, projects like TSS and SSF are designed around a launcher >that doesn't give frequent and simple access to orbit. TSS, for example, >could easily have been a quarter the size, a tenth the cost, teleoperated, >launched commercially, and provided 90% of the needed data. [...] Just commenting... Anyone notice that despite being designed for the Shuttle, TSS was _not_ apparently designed for astronaut servicing? Aster all the trouble the program has experienced from being tied to the Shuttle, they should have at least taken advantage of some of the advantages they could have gotten, and put someone outside in a spacesuit to shove on it or kick it or wave a dead chicken over it or whatever needed to be done... Moral of the story: If you insist on having the people there, at least use them... the way the mission was run, it might as well have been teleoperated, apparently. -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560 If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year, do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear? I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear. --------- "NOAH!" \ \ Lewis Carrol "Yes lord?" > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah "HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 168 ------------------------------