Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 05:00:02 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #182 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 15 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 182 Today's Topics: "Late 'L5' Society A response from Anonymous Biosphere. Design/Needed? More! Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth Discovery Missions Selected for Further Study Divide NASA/People here groups. Getting people into Space Program! (2 msgs) HST repair mission leading-edge anonymity (2 msgs) Mars "Space Station"/Cut a Iceburg for Mars! Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?) Money Talks, and clinton listens. Old Tech, why do we need new tech? parachutes on Challenger? Shorter Posts/Subject Changes! SSTO news Suggest a Solution, Not just problems. 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: 13 Feb 93 22:18:06 +1700 From: lumensa@lub001.lamar.edu Subject: "Late 'L5' Society Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb13.173344.27488@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > > The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US. > Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies Institute. We're still kicking. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dale Parish - Orange, Texas | My opinions are mine and free Lamar's Token Perpetual Student | and may be used by anyone. My (409)745-(vox)3899;(rec)1581;dat(2507) | time is for sale. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 21:01:55 GMT From: David Sternlight Subject: A response from Anonymous Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro Has anyone noticed how violators of the rights of others wrap themselves in their own rights when challenged? For a start, Anonymous' signature is a joke once, but when repeated is a clear violation of netiquette, which calls for 3 or so signature lines but not many more than 5, both out of respect for the rights of others and out of consideration for the costs of message traffic and storage, which posters usually don't pay. "Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins." David -- David Sternlight RIPEM Public Key on server -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 08:00:25 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Biosphere. Design/Needed? More! Newsgroups: sci.space What would be needed for a biosphere and its effect on the space race/space development.. Curious what people think about biospheres and what do they know? One benefit of this dicussion, not only for the direct benefit, but also for the thinking on how difficult it can be to maintain a ecological system.. Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:01:42 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb12.050851.4484@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu wrote: > > : I had an idea that is in the future.. Maybe give astronauts a book > : computer, have an internal modem where it sends info to the main > : shuttle/Station computer so that all info that the astronaut wants or > : can give is put into the computer..Make the book/hand held a writable > : one where the astronauts can take notes. It might have to be able to > : handle space walks(?).. Make the Shuttle Computer a AI or a node for a > : earth bound AI.. > > We looked into "book computers" three years ago as an electronic > replacement for the Flight Data File (the books the astronauts use > in the Space Shuttle). At that time, image display technology was > not up to the task, and it hasn't progressed in a major way since > then. "Pen computers" are nifty toys, but they rely on forces and > motions which are difficult to control in microgravity. Remember, > each time you push on a key, it pushes back just as hard. The same > applies to pens. > > Making a display which can handle EVA is no mean feat. It has to deal > with vacuum, some serious temperature extremes, and the biggest glare > problem you've ever seen -- the naked Sun. (And you thought > fluorescent lights reflecting off your PC screen caused problems!) And > the controls would have to be accessible by gloved hands, and those > gloves really restrict fine finger motions. When you add up power > supply (the Suit people get really upset if you try to run off of their > power connectors), disk drive (which has its own gyroscopic motion > problems), keyboard and display, you get a package which is awkward to > hold and control, and you don't have anyplace to "set it down" while > you work. (We even thought about strapping it to the arm of the suit.) > An "internal modem" would have to have an extra communication > connection back to the Orbiter or Station, and we don't have the radio > equipment to handle that. > > We'd also have to build a book computer which could withstand the > rigors of EVA training, especially the "swimming pool" -- the > Weightless Environment Training Facility (WETF). It's not just 25 feet > of water; it's also the jolts and dings equipment takes when it's used > there. And the WETF is kept at 94 degrees F, so cooling your > electronics becomes a problem. > > For the EVA computer, instead of having a device external to the > suit, there was a scheme for making an "heads-up display" for the > Extravehicular Mobility Unit (suit), but I believe they ran out > of funds after building their Mac-based prototype. (I tried it > out once in the lab in building 7.) > > There are some efforts to use AI for a few Shuttle and Station tasks, > but basically AI is either more trouble than it's worth or too risky to > use in space-based applications. Real AI is absolutely nothing like > the AI you see in books or movies. (There's a non-politically correct > saying, that Artificial Intelligence is like artificial limbs: it's for > people who don't have enough of their own.) > > In the long run, we absolutely have to solve these problems. We simply > can't cart tons of paper and a portable print shop to the moon and > Mars. (Laser printers won't work in space, by the way, since the > carbon particles they use are a safety hazard.) I presented a paper on > Paperless Spacecraft at the AIAA a few years ago. If there's a lot of > interest, I could dust it off and post it. > > -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office > kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 > > "Good ideas are common -- what's uncommon are people who'll > work hard enough to bring them about." -- Ashleigh Brilliant Hum. Power why not have the Boo Computer when it was out of the Shuttle have a small solar power cell (properly protected). Glare. Hum. Mayeb have a display unit inthe helmet of the suit, that the book can plug into it.. Maybe have a place to attached the book computer into on the suit back pack. Make the book able to understand the voice (I know in the future). Disk Drive? Why have a drive at all.. maybe a RAM Drive or have a set channel that the book sends its info to and fro the shuttle.. Why have a disk drive as long as you are close the the shuttle. Have a RAM driver and have a auto dump feature (where the RAM Drive would dump its memory to the Shuttle, to clear out the memory and to save what needs to be saved). Why radio? maybe a laser (lower power) when the down load happens.. The main CPU might be in the backpack, but the "screen" and "I/O device" would be inthe helmet.. And the downloading device would be on top of the helmet(?). HEads up display might be voice controlled or on ?? Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked Any comments or ideas, post them here or send them to me.. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 00:59:17 GMT From: 8 February 1993 Subject: David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro Need I say more? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. *IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to update@anon.penet.fi for details. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 1993 02:13:22 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Discovery Missions Selected for Further Study Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <12FEB199316485027@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > > The mission candidates were selected from 73 concepts >discussed at the Discovery Mission Workshop held at the San Juan >Capistrano Research Institute in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gee not everyone in NASA is suffering :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:36:26 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Divide NASA/People here groups. Newsgroups: sci.space I know it sounds like that NASA needs to seperate into two different areas.. One the R&D and the other operational areas.. Im not sure of the internal structure of NASA, so I might cover something already done. The R&D would handle the areas of NASA that deal with strict Researcha and Development.. The Other would be the part that deals with what we have now. Namely launching shuttles, missions, dealing with thr private sector (capitalists/non-profit organizations)... For what I have been seeing here is that the basic groups of people here are: Shuttle or not a shuttle.. Space Station or not Space Station. Space Station of one or another type. (basically kill Fred oand replace.) Shuttle or DC-X (or Shuttle or Space Plane). Mars or not mars.. Manned or unmanned. Any others I forgot, I know I missed something.. Sorry for any spelling or garmmer errors, I am trying to correct. Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 21:54:26 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb10.222108.5515@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: >What is "Have Region"? Have Region is an Air force project which built a number of structures for a hypothetical SSTO. They demonstrated that fuel tanks can be made which are light enough, strong enough, and heat resistant enough to make SSTO a reality. I am getting the Have Region final report soon and may post a summary. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------122 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 1993 21:20:53 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space I think they also re-assign the first word occasionally just for additional security/confusion. then they also re-assign it for operations. the big radar at alaska is cobra dane for developement and rivet kneecap? when running. and it has a an designation for parts. fun huh? pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 20:23:08 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: HST repair mission Newsgroups: sci.space >Well if you followed the existing plans, all you'd have would be >the metal bending costs and the launch costs. However, with some >of the instruments stripped out it's dynamics would change. Of >course you could fit dummy ballast in their place. I think that >resisting the urge to fix some of Hubble's faults in a follow on >satellite would be almost impossible though. Then you start to >get back into engineering design costs again. The critical unaddressed >issue is pointing accuracy and stability. You'd certainly want non-wiggling >solar panels and different, more reliable gyros. The flight avionics and >software would need revising. You'd like to modify the electronics to resist >SEUs in the SAA, etc. Money, money, money. > >Gary >-- Gary... The solar panels and gyros have already been redesigned, and will be part of the repair, so I don't see how that would change things very much for a HST Junior. Same with the software, to a lesser degree. I haven't heard of problems with HST's avionics, but the SAA is always going to be there, no matter what electronics are aboard. -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 93 17:29:28 GMT From: Richard Treitel Subject: leading-edge anonymity Newsgroups: alt.privacy,sci.astro,sci.space In article <1993Feb5.201810.14835@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: [...] |> Frog feces. There is some difference between an 'anonymous source' |> for police or journalists (who must worry about physical harm as a |> result of talking) and some little loudmouth running his mouth for the |> attention and sensation he hopes to cause. We have been shown evidence that the source of this anonymous post does indeed have reason to worry about physical harm. While I regard anonymous posters as invertebrates (speciesist but not sexist, OK William and Mary?) and wish they would give their names, I uphold their right to post. And ours to criticise them. - Richard ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 93 23:19:08 GMT From: Dave Ratcliffe Subject: leading-edge anonymity Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy In article , williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes: > In article <1993Feb4.182339.28811@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: > >I look at it as someone who wants to shoot of their mouth for > >attention but doesn't have the courage to do it other thna > >anonymously. This is generally a symptom of immaturity. > Really? The police seem to think that anonymous tips are a valuable > source of information. Bwahahahahahahahahaha! The Police think WHAT? If the police in your area consider anonymous tips as a valuable source of information remind me never to move there. GOOD police department consider anonymous tips with very LARGE grains of salt and usually even then as only worthless tips that chew up man-hours and effort tracking down. Most are worthless. > Why would they recognize that anonymity may not > be incompatible with value of information, but you give anon posters them no > credibility. It would seem that you have a gut reaction bias against > anon posters regardless of the content of their posting. This is called > prejudice. Call it what you want. I'll give you the best example of what anonymity can turn into. Ever listen to a CB radio? Guaranteed anonymity and it shows. People feel free to say all sorts of things when there's no accountability. Anonymous messages aren't worth the name they're posted under. > It seems this whole little discussion got started when some anon > poster posted an alleged transcript of the challenger crew conversations. > If you take the attitude that 'nothing is sacred', you can just read > that person's posting and say "Huh. Maybe it happened that way, maybe > it didn't." and go on with life. To get really upset about it seems > to be showing a lack of perspective. If you don't like it, ignore > it -- maybe it will go away. ....or turn into the same thing CB radio is now. Makes me shudder to think about it. -- vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu | Dave Ratcliffe | - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave | Sys. <*> Admin. | | Harrisburg, Pa. | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:48:45 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Mars "Space Station"/Cut a Iceburg for Mars! Newsgroups: sci.space Okay, if you got a asteroid fro the asteroid belt or from someplace else, and you get it to MARs, how would you get it to the surface? Chop it up and drop it down into the atmosphere/surface? Might need a orbital space station orbiting Mars.. Here is some ideas.. 1. Leave part of a Mars misson behind in orbit to act as a "Space Station". 2. Use a solar sil to send the "Mars Space Station" to Mars, automatice or manned. 3. Send the "Mars Space Station" by normal means, or nearly so. Ion drive or rocket or ?? 4. Other idea, maybe catch a ride of a coment/meteor and do some fly bys where ever the meteor goes.. Any ideas/or thought? Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:02:04 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?) Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >Josh, I woulda thought that you had learned from ISEE-3/ICE, Giotto >II, and Galileo that there are a lot of asteroids out there. If you >look hard enough and get clever enough, there may well be >opportunities. Yes, but these were all flybies, which are much easier than rendesvous, both in terms of delta-v and frequency of windows. >(Upon reading your message I went looking for Mars Trojans in the >*Boys' Big Book of Asteroids* but found nothing. I seem to recall a Mars Trojan being discovered a while back. Given the large population of small objects in orbits very close to Earth's, I suspect there will be an even greater swarm very close to Mar's orbit, if not at the LaGrange points themselves. Alternatively, astronauts might stopover at one of the known tiny asteroids near Earth on the way out. From a scientific and prospecting viewpoint, it makes much more sense to fly a bunch of automated missions and do quite a bit of telescopy before commiting astronauts to an asteroid. 90% of the near-earth asteroids are junk; only about 10% are likely to have good sources of ice or metal. We need to winnow out the 90% before we send astronauts -- or even $multi-million probes. It would be very inexpensive to characterize the surfaces of dozens of earth-crossers with the new large telescopes (eg Keck). Let's not send expensive spacecraft to mere rockpiles, much less astronauts! >Adventuresome cosmonauts might play with aerobraking at Mars or Venus >to give even further velocity changes! I'd do the Mars Trojan on the return leg, so that we don't lose the savings from aerobraking in Mars' atmosphere on the way out. If we can aerobrake, we can put more mass on the surface of Mars than on the surface of the Moon with the same size rocket! (Getting back's another story -- that's where native propellants from comets and/or Mars' atmosphere win big). Of course, there's always the extremely improbable possibility of an asteroid's orbit coinciding with an Earth-Mars transfer window. More probable (but still very rare) is a comet coinciding with an Earth-Jupiter transfer window, since Jupiter tends to capture comets into such oribts (the Jupiter family comets, perhaps the single most valuable resource for space colonization). These would be valuable enough, if found, that they are worth a few good computer searches, despite the probability we won't find any good windows. -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 1993 15:06:47 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Money Talks, and clinton listens. Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space Today, Spokesmen for Vice PResident Gore, announced that No cuts would be made this year to SSF, that 2.25 billion would remain in this years funding proposal. They refused to comment on reports from the OMB that GOLDIN had promised to Deliver the program for 40% less. Capitol Hill observers (Most likely a dear friend of ours) said they had never seen such rapid flip-flops. Oh well, I guess that 30 million didn't go for ad space after all. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 08:11:59 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Old Tech, why do we need new tech? Newsgroups: sci.space Doing repairs and such.. Why do we need a shuttle? Why not just send a newly made Apollo/Gemini/Mercury (nely made not a refurbish of an old one) on top of the right sized rocket and send it up to the sattelite to do the repairs.. Basically what Im trying to say is why do we need new technology when we have the technology to do many of the new projects.. Migth have to do some upgrades. Basically we have been living in the same world as the military services, basically the Cold War world, with its normal paranoid ideas.. Space Race and such.. Why not just use the tech we have for now, stuff that can do the job and nicely enough is old stuff (tech) and therefore cheaper, known, the infrastructure is there already. Why re-invent the wheel? Just some thing to think about! Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 1993 02:26:41 -0500 From: Pat Subject: parachutes on Challenger? Newsgroups: sci.space >In article <1993Feb12.052428.10628@olaf.wellesley.edu> lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins) writes: |>>The right solution for future vehicles is the one used today for airliners: |>>build them redundant and fail-safe so you don't *need* escape systems. Any |>>escape system is far inferior to being able to save the whole vehicle. |> |>I'm not sure the above is a very valid engineering or statistical comparison. |>Airliners fly thousands of flights each day while the Shuttle flys less |>than 12 per *year*. To build things that don't fail, you have to |>understand all the failure modes, both expected and unexpected (remember |>the Comet? The DC-10 engines?), and this unfortunately seems to require |>a few crashes now and then and some of deaths... What you also need to do is have reasonable margins on all components. The STS like most other rockets has very thin operational margins. a little too much stress and BANG. 747's have been accidentally pushed way outside their operational envelope with only minor damage, If you push the margins as hard as the military designers do, it doesn't take much to bend the airframe or drive the cost up an order of magnitude. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:12:05 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Shorter Posts/Subject Changes! Newsgroups: sci.space Can people please change the subject of a post if the post/answer/reply has definitely changed the meaning since the original post.. Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked Also maybe work on shorter taglines/signature files.. I read quite a few posts at my normal 1200 baud and it takes forever to weed thru some 100 post (50 if I call every day), I also check a few other newsgroups and I can read some 50 to 200 messages a night.. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 04:06:56 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: SSTO news Newsgroups: sci.space gawne@stsci.edu writes: >from today's "What's New": > from: WHAT'S NEW Friday, 12 Feb 1993 Washington, DC > [concerning funding for SSF:] > Congressman Brown told reporters he will urge President Clinton to > restore full funding when he meets with him later today. To > scientists who oppose the station, Brown said the science aspect > was always overrated; the space station, he said, "is like > building the pyramids, it will glorify the nation." What > alternative cuts would he suggest? "I would cut $3.5B out of the > Strategic Defense Initiative." [remainder deleted] >Now I know that SDIO is the sponsor of DC-X. Is that $3.5B a close >approximation of DC's budget? It's a close approximation of SDIO's entire budget. DC-X's budget was ~70 million dollars (or is it 40 million?). >-Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute Let me edit this with regard to the source you quoted above: > {\em "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe > are the laws of the universe."} - G. J. Caesar Perhaps I should have been posting this anomynously. -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu BTW, if you're using MSDOS, or Windows, look at the hardware. It was probably made outside of the United States. It's pervasiveness is based on leverage using little to no US-manufactured goods. If you want US manufacturing to stay alive, buy something else. Like an Amiga. Or an Atari. While you can. It's too goddamn late for you to stop acting retarded and buy a NeXT. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 07:22:37 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Suggest a Solution, Not just problems. Newsgroups: sci.space I have heard alot of people here, many who tell what is wrong, but they are part of the problem, for they do not suggest a solution to the problem.. Well I offer this solution to the problem, ask questions and suggest a solution to the problem. Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 182 ------------------------------