Date: Sun, 9 May 93 05:00:03 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #549 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 9 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 549 Today's Topics: April Air and Space Articles. Astronaut Visas Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing) (2 msgs) Boom! Whoosh...... DC-X Status? Face on Mars conspiracy! NOT! HST Servicing Mission landing at Edwards vs. the Cape Low gravity for up to 60 seconds??? Pat and the Big Dan PT 3/3: RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STARWARS DEFENSE SYS Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_) (2 msgs) U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment (3 msgs) Vandalizing the Sky Vandalizing the sky. (2 msgs) Will NASA's Mars Observer Image the Face on Mars? 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: 8 May 1993 15:54:13 -0400 From: Pat Subject: April Air and Space Articles. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5MAY199323382648@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >budget wasn't under severe stress as it is today. The UVS portion of the What's UVS? pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 May 93 05:02:17 PDT From: Max Nelson Subject: Astronaut Visas Following up on my last post, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states that "Astronauts are 'envoys of mankind' and are entitled to non-interference and all necessary assistance in distress." (Translation of Article V) This Treaty was quickly followed by the Rescue Agreement of 1968. This states that 1) "In the event of accident, distress, emergency or unintended landing of a spacecraft, the Contracting party shall take all possible steps to rescue and assist any personnel", 2) Thereafter, the astronauts shall be safely and promptly returned to the representatives of the launching authority.", and 3) "The term 'launching authority' refers to the State responsible for launching or the international organization responsible for the launch (if such is the case) provided that the organization has declared its acceptance of the rights and obligations of the Rescue Agreement and a majority of its constituent States are parties both to the Rescue Agreement and the Outer Space Treaty." (Note: 1 is a translation of article II, 2 is a translation of article 4, and 3 is a translation of article 6) I am uncertain how many countries (and which countries) have become signatories to these two treaties. For that information and treaty texts you can contact the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in New York. These issues are also discussed in "Outer Space: Problems of Law and Policy", Glenn H. Reynolds and Robert P. Merges, Westview Press, 1989. Max Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 1993 15:52:43 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1sev55$7g7@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >Rocket paperwork comes from (more precisely, goes to) OCST. Of course, given that only 23 people work at OCST, how much could they beat you up? Do you know that they are up for re-authorization this year? that every 5 year deal. Maybe you could present testimony to congress on creating experimental Rocketry rules. just some basic range safety, and destruct options, while larger devices need only be tested in low population areas. that or primary testing over water, with some range safety stuff. What do you think would make good range safety or experimental design rules? Experimental aircraft have the pilot/creator on board, so his butt is on the line. amybe the smae should be required on experimental rockets? or should it just have redundant guidance and control systems. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 23:35:43 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1sfn11INNgcr@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >Naturally, there's no difference between an aircraft loaded with a fuel >that is likely less flammable than gasoline with a trained pilot on board >who can push the 'off' switch if something goes wrong and a rocket loaded >with fuels of far higher energy and (in many cases) toxicity with no human >on-board control that can easily land hundreds of miles away in populated >areas. Aircraft can easily land hundreds of miles away in populated areas too, if the pilot is incapacitated (or even absent, after ejection!) and the plane is either particularly stable or on autopilot. This does happen; people die because of it; it's accepted as a routine risk of aviation. The energy content of most rocket fuels is fairly similar to that of aviation kerosene. Certainly the total energy content of a Pegasus is less than that of a max-weight 747. For either aircraft or rockets, you need reasonable assurance -- through on-board pilots, or redundant systems, or detailed prior testing -- that the thing is not going to run wild. For either one, stiffer standards should be applied for high energy content or toxic materials. And for either one, you will have to apply rather stiffer standards if the thing is unmanned or if it's one-shot hardware that cannot be tested repeatedly. But there is no particular reason why the standards need to differ from one to the other. (Yes, there are one-shot unmanned aircraft -- they're called cruise missiles.) There are beginning to be a few signs of sense appearing, such as the decision at White Sands that DC-X need not carry a destruct system. >Yes, there is too much paperwork, but let's not oversimplify the situation; >the two fields of endeavor are not the same and shouldn't be treated that way. Please explain why they are different. Not why system X needs to be treated differently from system Y, because that happens all the time within each field, but why the two *fields* are *fundamentally* different and *must* have different rules. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 23:03:30 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: Boom! Whoosh...... Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1set33$5o8@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >In article <1993May7.165618.3165@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: >|In the fall of 1990 there was a hot air balloon show here for a few days, >|and although most of the balloons were conventional, we also saw one in the >|shape of a giant Nike (?) sneaker and another one in the shape of a huge >|flying Ray-O-Vac battery. > > >THere are some amazing hot air balloon shapes. > >There was some Bad science Fiction movie, about the earth being >scorched by high speed winds ( really neat airplanes were shown, >navigating the winds) and an android on the run from what's >left of the government. at the end, the winds lift and all these >balloons take off. all amazing shapes and sizes. sorry i can't remember >the movie title, but memory is always the second thing to go. > This is driftin a little off-topic, but the name of that movie is 'Slipstream', made in 1989 or '90 and starring none other than Mark Hamil. Now, with the talk here about this mile-long space balloon, one thing I'd like to know is just how they would manage to pack something that huge into the payload shroud of a rocket or into the payload bay of a shuttle? And exactly what would it look like from the ground? >pat > Simon ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 1993 15:56:02 -0400 From: Pat Subject: DC-X Status? Newsgroups: sci.space Apparent delays and slips at teh WSMC end have moved first Dry firing to June 6th. that's what one of the guys here at McDac told me. pat ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 1993 17:00:36 GMT From: Andy Carol Subject: Face on Mars conspiracy! NOT! Newsgroups: sci.space > Goldin, the head of NASA said "yes" in response to a town-meeting > question last December. > > The questioner was a bit contencious, falsely claimly NASA was encrypting > its Mars data to censor evidence of intelligent life it had already found. If NASA even had the _smallest_ clue about E.T. life on Mars we would be blitzed with it every night on TV. Can you imagine the impact on their budget? There would be calls to send people/probes to check it out. Rather than covering it up, almost everyone in Gov would use it as a rallying cry to raise their particular budget. DoD to 'protect' us against 'them', NASA to check 'them' out, OSHA to make sure 'they' have good working conditions, etc. ---- Andrew carol@edfua0.ctis.af.mil ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 93 19:48:55 GMT From: Peter Jarvis Subject: HST Servicing Mission Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro In article <1s2rpc$khq@techbook.techbook.com> dant@techbook.techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes: > >Has anyone looked at the cost of taking the second mirror, building >another Hubble around it (with modifications for things that weren't >right on Hubble I such as the solar panel supports) and launching >that? How would that compare with the cost of the repair mission? I >wouldn't be surprised if it would cost less than bringing the current >one down, fixing it, and relaunching it. > They aren't going to bring it down and fix it. They are going to fix it on orbit. The telescope has many instruments on it that are working well. We have gotten good pictures off it as is. We are just going to make it better. Peter Jarvis................ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 23:08:45 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape Newsgroups: sci.space In article rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes: > ... I don't think it would cripple the program to land at the Cape > only when Edwards is unavailable... and that would be a better policy. > >Are you including the ferry-back risk in your assessment? >Moving the vehicle back to the Cape requires a couple of takeoffs and >landings, and they've had to work around a lot of bad weather in Texas. The en-route weather problems are indeed a headache, but with each orbiter averaging 2-3 flights a year, I can't see a few days' delay being a major roadblock. As for the takeoff and landing... an extra takeoff and landing or two in a well-proven powered aircraft with substantial operating margins has got to beat landing an unpowered orbiter with bizarre flying characteristics and marginal landing gear in a crosswind at a site (the Cape) with only one runway, solid obstacles to either side, and rapidly-changing weather. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 1993 15:57:02 GMT From: Claudio Oliveira Egalon Subject: Low gravity for up to 60 seconds??? Newsgroups: sci.space Sometime ago I read in a NASA pamphlet, that there is a jet (I guess it is the jet F-105, please correct me if I am wrong) which can maneuver to produce up to 60 seconds of low gravity. I am wondering if this jet is still flying and which NASA Center keeps it. Also how many people does it carry and how many parabolic maneuvers it can perform. C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov Claudio Oliveira Egalon ------------------------------ Date: 07 May 93 23:43:12 From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Pat and the Big Dan Newsgroups: sci.space Pat writes: >Dan Goldin was the guest speaker at teh AIAA, so I went down to >hear him speak. after a very over-priced lunch, he gave his >address. > it was the better faster cheaper speech, with mentions from >archimedes about using levers to pry planets. he did mention that >a new industry coalition is forming the national spacelifter >consortium, formed of 5 companies. he didn't mention names but i >heard they were (Lockheed, GD, martin, rockwell &trw?) Actually, it's Lockheed, GD, Martin, Rockwell, and _Boeing_. :-). I've heard it referred to as "NGCLS" - Next Generation Commercial Launch System, and as "National Space Launch System Consortium", but believe the real name is "CSTS"- Commercial Space Transportation System. According to sources within the beltway, MDC supposedly was invited to participate, but declined. Also, MDC is rumored to be rather "personna non gratia" (sp?) around NASA HQ currently, having to do with some politics and responses on some NASA projects.... >ps the McDac guys all cornered me at the bar later and wanted to >know who paid me to ask the question. they thought I had been a >gift from above. Not surprised. See above -- plus I've been hearing some _interesting_ rumors about SSRT/DC-X and MDC and the USAF recently. Just rumors and not worth repeating (unconfirmed data), but we'll have to see what comes out of them (There's usually some originating event or situation that causes the rumors to arise. That'll come out in a little while...). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 22:38:32 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: PT 3/3: RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STARWARS DEFENSE SYS Newsgroups: sci.space In article <736775431.AA02994@ship.net> Mcelwre@f764.n153.z1.ship.net (Mcelwre) writes: >1/0 6491/0 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1010 > Robert E. McElwaine > B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC > > > What's this? Some bizarre coded message for McElwaine's followers?? Incidentally, I've heard a few rumors that this McElwaine is neither a Professor or even a student at the University of Wisconsin, just some guy who managed to scam an account from them. Apparently they know about him but for some reason have had alot of problems when trying to evict him from their system. Simon ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 1993 15:46:49 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_) Newsgroups: sci.space You are operating on one mistaken assumption. THe STS main engines will have shut down long before any rendevous and capture. ANy approach will be done on RCS or maybe OMS engines, and the Re-Boost will use OMS engines. THese are all hydrazine Hypergolics. pat who did appreciate the the very interesting technical discussion otherwise. I didn't know how sensitve UV optics are. How does EUVE avoid these problems? no thrusters? or sealed optics? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 23:17:23 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1sh2n9$69@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >... I didn't know how sensitve UV optics are. How does >EUVE avoid these problems? no thrusters? or sealed optics? I don't have specs handy, but I'd expect that EUVE, like a lot of Earth-orbit scientific satellites, uses reaction wheels (of some flavor) and magnetotorquers rather than thrusters for attitude control. There are considerable practical advantages: no plumbing, no shift of center of gravity as fuel is burned, no toxic fuel to load, one less subsystem with an absolute minimum acceptable temperature (you doon't want fuel to freeze), no valves to malfunction or leak, no guaranteed end of mission when the fuel runs out, and less safety hassle and paperwork (even on an expendable booster). The only real price you pay is no ability to adjust the orbit; this is usually acceptable if you don't need a specific orbit and don't need more than a few years of operation to complete the primary mission. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 1993 19:26:47 GMT From: Gregory McColm Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education In article jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes: >>In article <1993Apr30.151033.13776@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >>>People who criticize "big Government" and its projects rarely seem to >>>have a consistent view of the role of Government in science and >>>technology. ...[idiocy about government going into R&D to help >>> U.S. economic competitiveness] > >Your view, on the other hand, is perfectly consistent -- I want my >pork, and I want it now. You have the gall to use our tax money >to sit here and lecture us on how stupid you think we are, >and you can't even even tell the difference between your fetid >bureaucracy's propaganda and history. In actual history, the the >U.S. govnt. went into R&D with World War II (Manhattan >Project) and the Cold War (H-bomb, ICBMs, etc.) in response to >military threats from National Socialist Germany and the Union of Soviet >Socialist Republics. No knowledgeable person ever tried to pretend >this was going to help the economy. In fact, countries that concentrated >their R&D in the private sector (eg Japan) kicked our ass economically >in the latter half of the Cold War as rigor mortis set in. Japan >now outnumbers the U.S. in patents over 2:1, and dominates the world >in electronics, autos, etc. despite being a small little island >country and late-comer to the industrial revolution. > Much of Japanese R & D success is actually American failure of initiative. A number of innovations, from VCRs to fuzzy logic, were American, but American corporations were not interested. If American had not supported the basic R & D, then the whole world would have suffered, because the woefully inadequate Japanese R & D would not have filled the gap. Incidentally, American support for pure research goes back almost to the colonial era. Some presidents, like Jefferson and J Q Adams, strongly supported it. In this century, during the first half, there was a lot of money for social research, and the Washington bureaucracy favored social research over natural science research until V Bush reformed the system after WW II, only partly in response to the Soviet `threat'. Finally, you can't blame Space Station Freedom on the scientific community, which generally opposes it. No one but the pundits and the high energy physicists support the SuperCollider. Don't confuse prestige projects with scientific funding. -----Greg McColm ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 93 15:04:18 From: "Kenneth I. Laws" Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education > From: jason@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) > Program staff is well aware (or was > in the mid-80s) that the research proposal may describe work that is now > being completed, and that the funds being doled out at the moment > may well be spent on some other work. Program directors are aware that such things happen. However, they do not (as a rule, and as policy) recommend funding if they have evidence that this is happening in a specific case. Further, they are told that it is their duty to investigate suspicions that such abuses are occuring -- time and travel money permitting. If a letter arrives alleging such abuse, it must be followed up. Even if the program director were inclined to overlook the matter -- on the basis of a lab's scientific contributions, say -- NSF's Grants and Contracts has no legal authority to pay for work other than as proposed and NSF's lawyers have no choice but to seek recovery of funds that are not spent as granted. (They do this rather effectively, by withholding all further payments to the institution until the disputed amount is recovered.) An investigator who wishes to change the scope or nature of a project must ask NSF (or, in minor cases, university officials) for permission. Even NSF program directors have no authority to authorize complete changes in scope or direction without further peer review. Division directors have somewhat more authority, but grants are contracts and the contractual terms must be observed or renegotiated. The only permitted flexibility is that built into the NSF grants manual, taken to be part of the contractual terms. If you know of proposal mills that are routinely hoodwinking NSF and the peer-review process, I urge you to bring the matter to the attention of NSF. I can help provide contacts of whatever informality or formality you desire. -- Ken Laws Former NSF PD -- Dr. Kenneth I. Laws; (415) 493-7390; laws@ai.sri.com. Ask about my weekly AI/IS/CS online news service. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 93 15:16:07 From: "Kenneth I. Laws" Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education > From: jason@primal.ucdavis.edu (Jason Christian) > Programs in general would prefer > to make longer-term committments, to the researcher, than spend lots of > time niggling over the documentary details of one- or two-year grants. > Of course the longer-term awards also reduce flexibility... Programs, in general, do not have opinions. There is always a tension between the lab directors/politicians/NSF bureaucrats who want larger, longer-term awards and the thousands of less-influential professors who would rather get a small award than nothing at all. Program directors tend to side with the "small fry" (who submit most of the proposals). Division directors and above tend to side with the lab directors (who sit on the advisor committees and also influence the budget process. Congress wavers, wanting to support both sides. NSF's budgeters also waver, depending on how they think they can get the most money. For the moment, longer-term grants are officially sanctioned -- except in the numerous special programs such as Research Initiation Awards. NSF is trying to get its average grant period closer to three years (up from two years). This will mean fewer grants, and increased political pressure for more budget -- which wouldn't bother NSF a bit. -- Ken Laws -- Dr. Kenneth I. Laws; (415) 493-7390; laws@ai.sri.com. Ask about my weekly AI/IS/CS online news service. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 1993 15:41:17 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Vandalizing the Sky Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May8.032051.26340@uvm.edu> wollman@sadye.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes: |-GAWollman | |(*)I am somewhat uncomfortable with this phrase. I personally believe |that the night sky is inherently worth preserving in and of itself; |its value is independent of any economic benefit it might have to some |people. However, this idea is unlikely to gain my much support in the >crowd of raving Libertarian flamers that sci.space has become... I myself agree the night sky is worth preserving too, but not because some flamine "amatuer" astronomer ahs the right to a dark sky, but because we as a society wish to preserve some of our linkage to a natural order. The political process is such one must develope a consensus on this. maybe certain areas should be marked as dark sky zones, and no billboards allowed there. of course, i suggested this to krumins and he got his nose in a snit. I wonder if he is an alias for fred. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 12:15:24 GMT From: Richard D Pierce Subject: Vandalizing the sky. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu writes: > In Hawaii billboards of any kind are illegal. If a space-billboard's >orbit carried it over Hawaii (which it almost certainly would) could they >be prosecuted for violating Hawaii state law? Come on, get serious. By the same logic, everytime Mir passes over the U.S. borders, it would have to go through Customs and Immigration! National and (especially) local territorial borders do not extend to LEO. -- | Dick Pierce | | Loudspeaker and Software Consulting | | 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 | | (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) | ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 1993 15:36:05 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Vandalizing the sky. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space I think air rights presumptively stop at 500-1000 feet, unless you've built something, in which case your rights may go a bit higher then what you built. Sometimes air rights don't even convey with property, for things like land near elevated highways. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 22:49:01 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: Will NASA's Mars Observer Image the Face on Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space In article stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes: >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: > >>Or will it see something that it wasn't supposed to see and suffer the >>same fate as the Soviet Phobos 2 probe in 1989?..... > >>I saw this on the Fox network show 'Sightings' (credibility factor now >>plummets!) and the Soviet scientists insist that the last photo the >>probe took was of a huge UFO in orbit around Mars, a UFO (get this) >>25 km across- now that makes it as big as one of the Martian moons, >>so wouldn't it have been visible in telescopics obsvervations from Earth? > >>(anyone see any Men In Black hanging around the JPL control room...) > >Well if you are that paranoic, remember back when Voyager 2 went Not paranoic, just sarcastic :-) >past Saturn. Suddenly the camera stops, there is a blank bit, and >then more pictures of the outer moons, and all went well all the way >to Neptune. Stuck camera platform they said, but we know the CIA/NSA >in action. Why did NASA get funding for SETI, Why did Regan shortly >afterward start 'Star Wars' which is making great interplanetary >warfare weapons, but pretty useless for shooting down missiles. >What did they see on the way past Saturn that has never been published???????? > What Voyager 2 saw were no doubt the remains of a maintenance drone robot and some jetisoned cargo modules from the AA Space Freighter Valley Forge... :-) :-) :-) >Beat that Macilwane! It would be interesting if McElwaine would actually post something more current than the lame STS-1 cover up stories. :-) Simon ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 549 ------------------------------