01-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #0 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 0

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Space Station Politics (reusing external tanks)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 83 10:01:03 PDT (Fri)
From: Katz.UCI@Rand-Relay
Return-Path: <Katz%UCI.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: Space Station Politics (reusing external tanks)
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@Mit-Mc>
Cc: TAW@Su-Ai, SPACE@Mit-Mc, katz.UCI@Rand-Relay
Via:  UCI; 30 Sep 83 17:04-PDT

I think that you have a good point.  Many of the early NASA views on
how to build a space station were based on hollowing out Saturn V
boosters and attaching them to a maintenance core.  The idea was that
since the boosters were already leaving the ground, why not make use of
them.  The same argument applies to the Shuttle's external tank.  How
much would it take to modify it into an accessable compartment?
How much extra fuel would it take to leave the tanks in LEO instead of
having them burn up in the atmosphere?  I think that NASA and the
government may be thinking too high tech, but not of what is needed.
What we need first is not specially designed facilities, but life
support and space -- the rest will follow.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Oct-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #1 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
				 unknown
		  USS Little Rock (CLG-4) Did you serve?
			     Rollout Delayed
			      Shuttle at Pad
				Elevators
			 Soviet rocket accident  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 83 20:31:19-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!danc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: unknown

net.jokes
Cc:
Subject: USS Little Rock (CLG-4) Did you serve?
-------
Is there anyone out there in netland that served on the Rock?
I was onboard for two years.. 1973-1975.   It would be
great to hear from you if you did.  If you do respond, please
use mail or net.general.  Thanx.  And please forgive the 
intrusion with this non-news message.  
                                        Dan Cobb

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 83 20:35:29-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!danc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: USS Little Rock (CLG-4) Did you serve?

Is there anyone out there in netland that served on the Rock?
I was onboard for two years.. 1973-1975.   It would be
great to hear from you if you did.  If you do respond, please
use mail or net.general.  Thanx.  And please forgive the 
intrusion with this non-news message.  
                                        Dan Cobb

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 83 15:09:04-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Rollout Delayed

The rollout of the Columbia to the pad today was delayed
several hours due to a crack in a nozzle lining of an SRB.
The crack was later discovered to be only a machining mark.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 83 19:48:52-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle at Pad

The shuttle is now at the pad, after its rollout had been
delayed a few hours this morning due to a minor problem
with an SRB nozzle.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 83 12:03:32-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.pur-phy!piner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Elevators

There is a practical problem with elevators too. If your elevator
moves at 100 miles per hour. It will take 10 days to reach orbit.

					Rich Piner
					Purdue Physics Dept.

------------------------------

Date: 01 Oct 83  1236 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Soviet rocket accident  
To:   space@MIT-MC

a226  1149  01 Oct 83
AM-Space Accident,520
Soviet Rocket Burns on Launch Pad; Crew Saved
By HOWARD BENEDICT
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - A Soviet rocket burst into flames on a remote
launch pad in Asia last week, forcing the ejection of three cosmonauts
who parachuted to safety, U.S. intelligence officials said Saturday.
    The sources, who asked to remain anonymous, said the cosmonauts may
have been injured in the accident last Tuesday.
    The accident is as serious a setback as the manned Soviet space
program is known to have suffered, the sources said.
    The cosmonauts were saved when their Soyuz spaceship was jerked away
from the booster by an escape rocket mounted atop the capsule, the
sources said.
    They said the flash fire occurred as the liquid-fuel rocket was
about to blast off and send the cosmonauts, one of whom may have been
a woman, to relieve the crew aboard the orbiting Salyut 7 space
station.
    The sources said there is a possibility the cosmonauts could have
been hurt in the accident because of the abrupt ejection. Their
mission was designated T-10, as it would have been the 10th mission of
the Soyuz-T program.
    ''The escape rocket really pulled the capsule away with a slam bang.
The cosmonauts are subjected to 15 Gs for two to three seconds,''
said one source, referring to a gravitational force 15 times that
normally felt on Earth.
    ''That's like driving a car into a tree,'' he said.
    The sources declined to say where they got their information, but it
is known that the United States has an intelligence network that
includes spy satellites and radar listening posts along the Soviet
border.
    Earlier reports were that the T-10 rocket had exploded on the launch
pad, but the sources said they were fairly certain the accident was
caused by a fire. They did not rule out the possibility of a blast,
however.
    The Soyuz rocket is fueled by some 270 tons of highly flammable
kerosene and liquid oxygen. The space shuttle, the only U.S.
spacecraft now in operation, is boosted into orbit by a pair of
solid-fuel rockets and three main engines fueled by liquid hydrogen
and liquid oxygen.
    Prior to 1981, the United States used the same liquid fuel in its
rockets as the Soviets now use in the Soyuz craft.
    The Soviets have not made any public announcements about the
incident. Myron Nagurney, senior duty officer for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, said Friday night he had no
information about such an accident.
    The intelligence sources said the fire occurred about 1:38 a.m.
Tuesday, at the launch site, or 11:38 p.m. Monday, Moscow time. That
would have been 4:38 p.m. EDT Monday.
    The cosmonauts now aboard Salyut 7 were scheduled to come home this
week or next. It is not known how much longer they will now be forced
to remain in orbit.
    The only other known Soviet launching abort took place in April of
1975, when two cosmonauts aboard Soyuz 18A made an emergency landing
in the Alpine Mountains after the third stage of their rocket failed.
That rocket was launched from the same pad as the one that burned
last Tuesday.
    
ap-ny-10-01 1450EDT
**********

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #2 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
			     Shuttle article
			       ETs to orbit
				Elevators
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  2 Oct 1983  9:18:36 EDT (Sunday)
From: Andrew Malis <malis@BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Shuttle article
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: malis@BBN-UNIX

There's a fine article about the shuttle flights in the latest
issue of the New Yorker, dated October 3.  It's worth looking up
in your local library if you can't find it on a newsstand.

Enjoy,
Andy

------------------------------

Date: 2 Oct 1983 13:58-EST
From: Greg.Toto@CMU-RI-SENSOR.ARPA
Subject: ETs to orbit
To: space@mit-mc@cmua
Message-Id: <433965509/gmt@CMU-RI-SENSOR>

It is my understanding that more fuel is used dumping the external tank in
the ocean than is required to get it (with quite a bit of liquid oxygen and
hydrogen still aboard) to LEO. I believe this is because of the shuttle
flight profile required to insure that the tanks impact in the Indian Ocean.
I seem to recall an article on this in a recent Analog (by Jerry Pournelle
maybe?). The idea was to tether spent ETs together and use them for raw
material and for a momentum repository. There is a good story with this
theme in the November 83 Analog called "Tank-Farm Dynamo" by David Brin.

I would be interested in a discussion on this subject. Comments?


					Greg Toto
					(gmt@cmu-ri-sensor@cmua)

------------------------------

Date: 3 October 1983 01:16 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Elevators
To: pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.pur-phy!piner @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Let's see, 100 miles/hour, 10 days, 24 hours/day, that's 24,000 miles
above the surface. Yeah, if you're going to geosync orbit it'll take
that long. I guess people in a hurry had better go 200 miles up
(that's 2 hours of travel) then jump off and fire a small rocket to
achieve low-Earth-orbit before reaching the atmosphere, then at
leisure maneuver to desired orbit. This is a lot cheaper than going
all the way from Earth's surface using rockets. Alternately, once
you're out of the atmosphere you can go faster than 100 mi/hr, i.e.
the elevator can be in two parts, a slow part for initial ascent, then
a mass-driver or whatever for fast main part.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #3 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
			      spending spree
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     2 Oct 83 16:20-EST (Sun)
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund.umass-cs@Rand-Relay>
Return-Path: <gutfreund%umass-cs.UMASS-COINS@Rand-Relay>
Subject:  spending spree
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: arms-d@mit-mc, politics@mit-mc, ellis.umass-cs@Rand-Relay
Via:  UMASS-COINS; 3 Oct 83 16:41-PDT

Yes, it is very odd to find the military complaining about the cost of
the space station. On Sept 30, the military had the largest one day
spending spree in its history (NYT). They had $4.2 Billion dollars on
hand at the end of the Federal Fiscal Year. If they did not spend it
by the the next day, they would have to give it back to the Treasury.
Of course, no government agency likes to do that. So they spent all
$4.2 billion of it in one day. Naturally, they did not look to closely
at what they were buying, Most of the contract descriptions were under
2 lines of text for expenditures in the multiple millions.

				- Steven Gutfreund

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #4 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
			 Fifth shuttle orbiter...
			  Re: Elevators?? - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 October 1983 21:48 EDT
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Fifth shuttle orbiter...
To: space @ MIT-MC

I received an "Alert" postcard from the Campaign for Space
on Oct. 4 which read,

	  "Recent press reports indicate that the Reagan 
	Administration has decided against funding for a
	fifth shuttle orbiter, and that as a result, the 
	shuttle production lines will be shut down after
	the fourth shuttle is completed."

This is quite a surprise if true. Has anyone heard or read
anything to corroborate it?

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 83 4:32:02-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!zehntel!berry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Elevators?? - (nf)

#R:duke:-358200:zinfandel:11100005:000:342
zinfandel!berry    Sep 30 14:28:00 1983

While the elevetors or 'beanstalks' described by Clarke, Sheffield et. al.
DO require advances in materials, what is required isn't all that much
stronger than what we've got.  Carbon fibers in epoxy matrix is
ALMOST strong enough, if I recall correctly...

Berry Kercheval		Zehntel Inc.	(decvax!sytek!zehntel!zinfandel!berry)
(415)932-6900

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #5 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:
		    Re: re: space colonization - (nf)
		  Re: What is a deadly Von Neuman probe?
		Sun, aphelion, etc - an astronomer's view
			      shuttle tanks
       Re: sri-arpa.12203: Re: Space Station Politics (reusing exte
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 83 21:52:01-EDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!cozadde @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: re: space colonization - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1199500:trsvax:56000008:000:2364
trsvax!cozadde    Oct  3 12:57:00 1983



	To: John Redford

	I quite disagree with you on several points.  In the main, the 
	Antarctica is definitely a more hostile place to live, do business,
	or anything else required of a normal life.  Space has only two unique
	problems, vacuum and hard radiation.  The problems of vacuum have al-
	ready been addressed and disposed of in the short term and the long
	term is being studied and worked out.  Hard radiation is a little
	tougher.  It requires either moving quickly during exposure time or
	using some bulky object (Terra, Luna or convenient asteriods) as a
	shield during heavy radiation outburst periods.  We will most likely
	develop better shielding as time goes by especially if a well paid for
	demand comes about.
	The main reason the resources of Antarctica have been left dormant is
	they are not unique.  Coal is found all over the world and is easier
	to get to than digging through a few thousand feet of ice and snow to
	get to it.  The same thing goes for oil, gas, metalic ores, etc.  If
	the Antarctic had a resource that was unique (besides being the coldest,
	most removed from Man's corruptive influence) and economically recover-
	able, the place would be swarming with people (like the Yukon gold
	rush).
	On the other hand, space offers several unique resources that are
	either impossible or very difficult/expensive to duplicate here on
	Earth.  The first is full range gas pressure regulation.  Second is
	isolation from immediate integration with the human biosphere.  Third
	is full range of energy sources, both intensity and type.  Inexpensive
	transportation is available to move any size or (theorically) mass
	object as long as it is not within the atmospheric envelope of a plane-
	tary body.  There are many more, but I'm not trying to write a paper
	here.
	In conclusion, I don't think space will be left as a barren wasteland
	as the Antarctic has been.  There are more reasons to go there to work,
	live, and grow than the Antartic has ever offered.  I'm so confident of
	this that I am planning to 'retire' to space to start my second life.
	I figure I can only live dirt-side until I'm sixty or so, but I think I
	could live to be 120 to 150 years or so if I live out my 'second' life
	in space.


					lt. of marines
					...microsoft!trsvax!cozadde
					...laidbak!trsvax!cozadde
					...ctvax!trsvax!cozadde

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 83 11:25:31-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: What is a deadly Von Neuman probe?
In-Reply-To: Article <12170@sri-arpa.UUCP>

A von Neuman probe is a self-replicating automaton
which has been sent out by an intelligent life-form
to explore the galaxy in lieu of the personal
presence of the life-form.  A deadly von Neuman
probe is one that, through mutation (e.g., incorrect
replication of its program) or design (e.g., deliberate
design by the race that made it) is inimical to some
or all forms of life.  The fear is that such probes
might be deliberately sent out by xenophobic races
to wipe out planets it detects emitting electromagnetic
radiation before the intelligent race on such a planet 
could become a threat; or that a mutated probe might
even produce a race of probes inimical to its creators.

There is an interesting article on this and related subjects
that appeared just yesterday in my snailbox.  It is 
"The 'Great Silence': the Controversy Concerning Extraterrestrial 
Life", by Glen David Brin, in the *Quarterly Journal of the Royal 
Astronomical Society*, Vol. 24, p. 283 (1983). 

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (Snail)
	ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@utexas-11   (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 83 13:07:45-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Sun, aphelion, etc - an astronomer's view

Mark Brader (dciem!ntt) asked me to post the following, with additions,
in response to his letter to me asking whether the IAU has an official
position with regard to names for the Sun, Moon, etc., and about
capitalization of these names.

I have checked my understanding with Dr. J. D. Mulholland, who is most 
knowledgeable about these things, and this is how it shapes up:

The IAU has never taken a stand on the names of the Sun, Moon, Earth or
Galaxy since these names (with the exception of the latter) were in common
use for centuries and are simply part of the language.  As to capitalization,
the common practice until about 1940 was to capitalize, at which point the
grammarians took over the editorial offices of the various journals, and
"sun", "moon" and "earth" were no longer capitalized.  Mulholland himself
feels (and I agree with him) that this is a foolish exercise in pedantry, 
and he fought a battle with the editor of the Astronomical Journal which 
resulted in its adopting a neutral policy with regard to 
capitalization, i.e., whatever the author wants is what he gets.  As to the 
definite article, it is invariably used.  The word "Galaxy" is invariably 
capitalized to distinguish it from other galaxies, and again it takes the 
definite article.  In addition, one often sees "The Milky Way" - again, 
this is an ancient name.

To summarize: You can capitalize or not as you see fit; some editors may care,
but the IAU doesn't; use the definite article; always capitalize Galaxy or 
Milky Way when referring to our stellar system.

Mark also asked me to comment further on peri- and apo- words, and I am
happy to do so.  First, "pericenter" and "apocenter" can *always* be used,
regardless of the primary.  Except for these words, a particular primary is 
always meant.  Thus I have heard or seen in print the following (some, such 
as peribarythron and peribothron are strictly "unofficial"):

		Term				Primary

	pericenter, apocenter		Any primary
	perilune, apolune,		Moon (Lat. "luna" - Moon)
	pericynthion, apocynthion	Moon (Lat. "Cynthia" - Moon)
	pericytherion, apocytherion	Venus (Grk. "Cytheria" - Venus)
	perijove, apojove		Jupiter (Lat. "Jove" - Jupiter)
	perisaturnium, aposaturnium	Saturn
	perihelion, aphelion		Sun (Grk. "Helios" - Sun)
	perigee, apogee			Earth (Grk. "Geos" - Sun)
	periastron, apastron		any star (Grk. "Astron" - star)
	perigalacticon, apogalacticon	the Galaxy
	peribarythron, apobarythron,	a black hole (Grk. "bary" - heavy)
	peribothron, apobothron		a black hole (Grk. "bothros" - a
						bottomless pit)

In general, Greek roots are preferable to Latin since peri- and apo- are
Greek affixes.  I like "peribothron" much better than "peribarythron" -
there is a bottomless pit with this name in mythology.  It is also common
to talk about the "perigee of the Sun in its orbit around the Earth",
since for certain purposes in celestial mechanics this is a useful
concept, even if it contradicts the Newtonian picture.

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (Snail)
	ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@utexas-11   (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 83 8:00:48-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: shuttle tanks

Oddly enough, it would INCREASE the available payload of the shuttle to
leave the disposable tanks in orbit, because the Shuttle must manuever
to get rid of the things before it is in orbit, and because the last little
bits of fuel could be consumed.

DON'T ask me for the math on this -- this is all argument-from-authority
from David Brin at San Diego -- who has, by the way, written a couple of
good SF novels recently.  Brin is a professor of Physics at at (I think)
UC San Diego.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 83 8:30:26-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: sri-arpa.12203: Re: Space Station Politics (reusing exte


There is a group in Ca. which is either private or state sponsored called
the Ca. Space Institute (I think, can anybody provide more info?) which
is examining low cost missions such as reusing external tanks.  One of the
conclusions they came to was that it takes more fuel to manuver so that the
tank ditches in the right place than it would take to carry it into orbit.

Jose Torre-Bueno
decvax!duke!phs!jtb

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #6 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
			     Re: ETs to orbit
			   Re: Elevators - (nf)
		    Re: re: space colonization - (nf)
			     Re: naming stars
			 space commercialization 
	      Spacelab Mission Threatened By Faulty Booster
			      Re: Elevators
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 83 21:52:36-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ETs to orbit
In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.12229

I don't understand how it would actually save energy to take an ET all
the way to orbit, even if that added energy is relatively small.
What you may be thinking of is that the shuttle is limited in the range
of launch azimuths (and hence orbital inclinations) that can be reached
from Vandenburg because of "external tank disposal problems" (quite a
euphemism, eh?)  Inclinations between 57 (the upper limit of Kennedy)
and 70 degrees (the lower limit of VAFB) are therefore difficult to
achieve.  However, I don't see why this should be a real problem with a
space station, since you'd probably want to put it in a 28.5 deg orbit
in order to maximize the launch weight.

I seem to remember that STS flights do leave a fair amount of excess
fuel in the ET when it is jettisoned.  Whether it alone is enough to take both
the orbiter and the tank into orbit I do not know.  I doubt it.

You must remember also that the typical shuttle orbit is EXTREMELY low
in altitude.  Depending on its orientation with respect to the flight
path, the orbiter needs as much as 2 meters/sec/day to maintain a 250 km
orbit, the altitude of the upcoming Spacelab mission.  The orbiter
weighs about 90 metric tons; the empty ET weighs about 33.5 metric tons
and has a considerably larger cross sectional area than the orbiter.
An external tank left in a 250 km orbit, particularly one without any
attitude control, would decay in practically no time at all.  This means
that if you want to do interesting things with these tanks that you'll
have to select missions into much higher orbits than usual.  On these
high altitude missions the orbiter's payload capacity is already sharply
reduced by the need to carry extra OMS fuel, so you can see that things
fall apart quite quickly.

Actually, the Saturn V wasn't such a bad vehicle after all for launching
space stations.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 83 19:30:15-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Elevators - (nf)

#R:pur-phy:-102900:uiucdcs:12700039:000:347
uiucdcs!mcewan    Oct  5 15:20:00 1983

/***** uiucdcs:net.space / pur-phy!piner /  2:03 pm  Sep 28, 1983 */
There is a practical problem with elevators too. If your elevator
moves at 100 miles per hour. It will take 10 days to reach orbit.

					Rich Piner
					Purdue Physics Dept.
/* ---------- */

You could say the same thing about the shuttle!

				Scott McEwan
				uiucdcs!mcewan

------------------------------

Date: 5 Oct 83 19:36:38-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!krueger @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: re: space colonization - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1199500:uiuccsb:15700005:000:780
uiuccsb!krueger    Oct  5 19:37:00 1983

	There is at least one more difference between space and land: free
fall.  Certainly this can be a boon to some technologies, but the effects on
biological systems are not completely known (at least to me), especially in
long term stays.  Sure, people could live in a centrifuge, but how easy is
it to make such a gargantuan structure?  But don't get me wrong, I would be
very excited at the opportunity to live in space (I've already got ideas for
an orbiting swimming pool complete with upside-down diving board).

	On a related note, did those astronaut-ants that went up on one of
the recent shuttle missions really die of "old age?"  I seem to recall
hearing this on "Paul Harvey," but then, I hear a lot of things ...

					Jon Krueger
		  ...pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!krueger

------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 83 10:55:09-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: naming stars

he galactic plane, and the interstellar
dust obscures them from our view.

A bright supernova in the Milky Way would be a great treat both
scientifically and in general.  We are overdue.

I am grateful to Robert Elton Maas (ucbvax!REM@MIT-MC.ARPA) for pointing
out to me that my original submission should have been more precise.

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (Snail)
	ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@utexas-11   (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 09 Oct 83  1335 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: space commercialization 
To:   space@MIT-MC

n025  0930  06 Oct 83
BC-SPACEBIZ
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE
c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    LA JOLLA, Calif. - When the first Soviet satellite blazed into earth
orbit 26 years ago today, many people wondered what practical uses
could ever come of going into space.
    There is plenty to do, according to experts on commercial uses of
space, as long as ways are found to reduce the costs of getting
there. And it will probably be small new companies with big ideas on
how to reduce costs that turn the first profits in space-based
businesses.
    This was the consensus of a meeting held here this week by the
California Space Institute, a unit of the University of California
that calls itself the ''NASA of the West.''
    The symposium Tuesday on ''low-cost approaches to space
exploration'' drew 100 representatives from the aerospace industry,
academia, banks, small space technology concerns and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    There is a growing national consensus that space commercialization
is an idea whose time has come, said the space institute's director,
James Arnold, telling the group, ''Our destiny is in space.''
    The institute was formed in 1979 by the California Legislature to
coordinate space research on the various university campuses and to
promote space ventures in behalf of California businesses. Half of
NASA's $7 billion budget is spent in California each year, Arnold
said.
    Cal Space has a smaller budget of $2.5 million, he added, which is
spent ''catalytically.'' Last year 87 grants were awarded to
university scientists in areas such as remote sensing, climate, human
adapatation to space, astronomy, astrophysics and space physics.
    There are numerous opportunities for businessmen in space, Arnold
said. The most immediate lucrative market is in the launching of
communications satellites. Future markets involve materials
processing in a space environment of zero gravity.
    Several NASA spokesmen described to the entrepreneurs recent
government proposals to ''privatize'' space activity. These include
building a national space station that companies could use as a
space-based industrial park and turning over government-run satellite
launching programs to private concerns,
    Speakers representing large aerospace companies said space program
costs had usually run high because NASA always asked, ''Can you do
it?'' and the answer was, ''Yes.'' Today, however, NASA asks, ''Can
you do it for less money?''
    The answer is, ''Not yet,'' according to Robert Salkeld of the
Systems Development Corp., adding, ''We're hung with overmature
institutions.'' Improvements will come only, he said, with new ideas
on spacecraft structure, operations and chemical propulsion systems.
    Some companies have already begun taking over space projects that
NASA would once have kept for itself. This includes the leasing of
space aboard orbiting platforms where experiments can be carried out
and the ferrying of satellites to and from the manned shuttles. Such
projects are to begin about 1987.
    But it is the new companies with daring ideas that may pioneer the
commercialization of space, most conference participants said.
    For example, Starstruck is a concern with 50 people based in Redwood
City, Calif. It plans to build, own and operate a satellite launching
service by 1987 that could cut the cost of such services in half.
    It costs from $30 million to $60 million to launch a satellite
today, said Phil Salin, a founder of the company. If competition is
to thrive, there is no reason why that cost could not be cut by a
factor of 10 in the next 10 to 15 years, he added.
    Starstruck will reduce costs by burning liquid oxygen and synthetic
rubber in its rockets, an idea developed but abandoned in the 1960s,
Salin said, and it will launch from the ocean. A rocket would be
towed out to sea and fired, he said, which would do away with the
need for launching pads.
    With 80 satellites scheduled to be put into orbit in the next
several years, ''a market is there and some people will shop for a
bargain,'' he said.
    Other small concerns at the conference had services to sell. Two
offered full packaging of the ''getaway special'' experiments offered
by NASA's shuttle program and another described plans to set up a
satellite-run location and information transfer system. This would
send messages among subscribers in North America using pocket-size
''beepers.''
    University professors also suggested ways to save money and promote
space enterprise. Lynn Cominsky, a research physicist at the Berkeley
campus, said a university group would cut 10 percent from the cost of
a NASA satellite mission by doing the work on campus.
    And Frank Davidson, an engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, suggested that Congress form a space grant college system
in the tradition of land and sea grant universities.
    ''We see the moon as the next Klondike,'' said Stewart Nozette,
director of macro projects at Cal Space. ''And we believe a new breed
of scientist-businessman will get us there.''
    
nyt-10-06-83 1231edt
***************

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 83  2131 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: Spacelab Mission Threatened By Faulty Booster
To:   space@MIT-MC

a235  1428  09 Oct 83
AM-Space Shuttle,250
Spacelab Mission Threatened By Faulty Booster
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Kennedy Space Center crews went ahead
Sunday with plans for a simulated launch of the European Spacelab,
even though the Oct. 28 mission could be delayed until next year
because of worries about the safety of booster rockets.
    The crews aimed to hold a mock countdown Monday of the space shuttle
Columbia, which is to carry Spacelab 1 into orbit, space center
spokesman Rocky Raab said.
    Space agency officials said last week they were concerned that
severe damage to a rocket booster on a shuttle launch in August could
recur in one of Columbia's boosters, which are identical.
    Shortly after launch, exhaust from one of the two solid-fuel
boosters on the Challenger burned through the rocket's protective
lining and came within a hair of burning through to the booster
nozzle. Project manager Bob Lindstrom said Challenger could have
careened off course if the exhaust had burned through.
    Many of the Spacelab experiments depend on seasonal conditions, so a
delay of a few days for possible replacement of the Columbia's
boosters could scrub the mission for months.
    The faulty Challenger booster was examined by a space center team
over the weekend at the place where it was manufactured,
Morton-Thiokol Inc., of Brigham City, Utah.
    The launch depends on what they find. ''I expect early next week
we'll bring all this together,'' Lindstrom said.
    Spacelab mission is intended to be a showcase of international
cooperation. It is co-sponsored by the European Space Agency.
    
ap-ny-10-09 1729EDT
***************

------------------------------

From: digex@ml (Sent by ___004)
Date: 10/10/83 04:11:47

digex@ml (Sent by ___004) 10/10/83 04:11:47
To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
please remove me from your mailing list

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 83 16:08:59-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Elevators
In-Reply-To: Article <12246@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Unfortunately, starting from 200 miles up helps you very little
when it comes to achieving orbit.  It helps some, but most of the
fuel burned by, say, a Shuttle, goes into velocity rather than
height.  17000 mph takes a lot of rocket.  You definitely want
to take the elevator all the way up to Clarke ("geostationary")
orbit, so that you are at orbital velocity when you let go.

As for the time taken, nobody in his right mind has suggested
that the elevators move as slowly as 100 mph.  Clarke had his
"production" elevator cars highly supersonic even while still
within the atmosphere.  Given enough power to drive it, a 1000-mph
elevator should be straightforward with only minimal upgrades
to current technology.  (The Space Studies Institute's prototype
mass drivers have already demonstrated electromagnetic propulsion
at far higher accelerations than a passenger system would ever
need -- and the latest one is self-centering, so no guide rails
or suspension systems are needed.)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #7 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Apollo Questions
		    Re: re: space colonization - (nf)
			     Apollo Questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 83 23:32:21-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Questions
In-Reply-To: Article inuxc.799

The numbers vary somewhat from mission to mission, but here are some
approximations.

The total mass in earth parking orbit (including the SIV-B and its
remaining fuel) was typically 130,000-140,000 kg. The launch weight of
the LM was 14,670 kg for the early flights and 16,370 kg for the
J-series flights (Apollos 15-17).  Typical loaded weights for the
Service Module and Command Module were 24,000 kg and 5600 kg,
respectively.  This gives a total CSM/LM mass so far of 44,270 kg or
45,970 kg.  This ignores the launch escape tower (4000 kg) and the
launcher adapter (1800 kg) which have been jettisoned by this point.

The parking orbit from which TLI was done was typically at 170 to 180 km
altitude, extremely low but acceptable since the time spent there was so
short.  Once TLI was done, Apollo was still in earth orbit, but one
with apogee near the moon's orbit.

Once in lunar orbit, the mass of the combination CSM/LM was reduced to a
typical value of 33,000 kg due to the fuel expended in lunar orbit
insertion.

All of this data is from "The History of Manned Space Flight"
by David Baker.  This is a massively detailed, excellently written book; a
bargain at $35.  I got mine from the Air & Space Museum bookstore
and promptly read all 544 9"x13" pages during the Christmas holidays
last year.  (The pictures are good too.)

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 83 19:22:44-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!ulysses!princeton!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: re: space colonization - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <3130@uiucdcs.UUCP>

Rumor has it that the "astro-ants" of STS-7 died from dehydration.  The project
was sponsored by a high school district in Camden, NJ.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 83 6:54:30-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Apollo Questions

	Questions for you space history buffs. What was the
mass of the Apollo space craft at TLI? (Trans Lunar Injection)
What orbit was it in at the time of the TLI burn?
						Fred

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #8 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
			    Re: insects - (nf)
				  - (nf)
			   FWC full scale tests
			    G-forces question
		    Acceleration of Apollo and Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 83 23:35:31-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!davies @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: insects - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1199600:uiuccsb:15700004:000:58
uiuccsb!davies    Oct  1 21:47:00 1983

one more time: that was one billion insects PER PERSON!!!

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 83 18:39:14-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!markcoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: - (nf)

#N:uiucuxc:2400004:000:13
uiucuxc!markcoe    Oct  7 10:12:00 1983

te meZZZZ

:

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Oct 83 10:15:18-MDT
From: Bob Pendleton <Pendleton@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: FWC full scale tests
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

   Development of the carbon fiber SRB ( Solid Rocket Booster ) case
for the space shuttle has passed a major milestone.  The first tests
of a full size FWC ( Filament Wound Case ) segment were completed by
Hercules Aerospace recently.  All mechanical and bonded joints as well
as the case itself have been pressure tested and proved to have a
margin of safety of 1.53, NASA requires a 1.4 safety margin.  Four
full size segments have been wound to date.  The system should be test
fired early next year.

   It looks like we can look forward to a a BIG jump in space shuttle
payload capacity along about '86.  We won't know if FWCs are reusable
until after a few tests, but the folks at Hercules claim they will be.

       Bob P.

-------

------------------------------

Date: 7 Oct 83 11:03:33-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!markp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: G-forces question

Can someone speak with the voice of authority and compare the G-forces
experienced by the shuttle astronauts with those felt by the Apollo
astronauts?  Did the Saturn-V have a much bigger "kick"?  Isn't the shuttle
lift-off assembly a lot lighter than the Saturn-V and thus maybe accelerates
faster?


Mark Paulin
...tektronix!tekmdp!markp

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 83 23:13:35-EDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!shark!sdb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Acceleration of Apollo and Shuttle

I seem to recall that the Apollo astronauts were subjected to 8 G's.
The Shuttle boosts at about 3 G's.

There is an interesting trade-off in that: higher G boosts are more
efficient in fuel, so payload is increased. On the other hand, you
have to build your payload stronger and brace it better, which is
parasitic and a pain to boot.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it is harder to build engines tat
run at the higher boost - and making them multi-shot wuld be even
harder.

   Steve Den Beste

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Oct-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #9 
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:
			 Deadly Von-Neuman Probes
		    Acceleration of Apollo and Shuttle
				   FWC
			  Space Station Decision
		  Re: What is a deadly Von Neuman probe?
			 space commercialization 
				  - (nf)
			   Re: Re: ETs to orbit
			  STS-9 Could Be Delayed
			  Mock Countdown/Liftoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 83 1026 EDT (Monday)
From: Kevin.Dowling@CMU-CS-A
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Deadly Von-Neuman Probes
Message-Id: <10Oct83.102648.KD0K@CMU-CS-A>

There is a series of SF books by Saberhagen dealing with such
self-replicating machines called "Beserkers". Apparently the offshoot
of a war between two races elsewhere in the galaxy, their goal is to destroy
life. They mutate and assume different large forms, and are sentient.
There are many short stories in the Beserker series which I found more
enjoyable than the longer novellas. Apparently, humans are too unpredictable
for the Beserkers, and can hold their own. The Beserkers are self-replicating
but mutations can (and do) occur.

There are some NASA reports dealing with self-replication, and the 
possibilities inherent in that concept.

	kevin  
(nivek@cmu-ri-rover)

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 12 October 1983 10:43:45 EDT
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
Subject: Acceleration of Apollo and Shuttle
Message-ID: <1983.10.12.14.17.41.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

The Shuttle was designed to limit acceleration to 3 G's, so astronaut
qualifications could be reduced (e.g., sending Walter Cronkite along).
Unfortunately, the acoustic stress in the payload bay is worse than with
liquid rockets, so a shuttle launch is not really more benign for the
payload.  Arianespace stresses this.

The 8 G figure for Apollo may be true, but that is peak acceleration just
prior to stage burnout.  Shuttle throttles down to keep down to 3 G's as 
fuel burns off, whereas Saturn engines were not throttleable.  As for
average acceleration (which may not be as important as peak), Atlas-Mercury
got to orbit in 5 minutes, Saturn-Apollo in 8, and Shuttle in 10.

Shuttle jumps off the pad faster than Saturn, Titan, or Atlas.  This is
characteristic of solid fuel rockets, which build up thrust much more
rapidly.  However, the Saturn engines were ignited about 9 seconds before
the tiedown clamps were released, so it is conceivable that other factors
are operating besides rapid thrust build-up.

On the topic of taking external tanks to orbit:  the OMS burns required to
take the orbiter into stable orbit after jettisoning the tank amount to
about 350 feet per second, which is pretty small considering that the tank
has already been lugged to over 25000 fps.

	David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 1983 1643-PDT
Subject: FWC
From: TOM MCGUINNESS <TMCGUINNESS@USC-ISI>
POSTAL-ADDRESS: TOM MCGUINNESS,SMC 2147,, NPS, MONTEREY,CA 93940
Phone: (Home) 408-899-1312 (NPS office) 408-646-2174/5 AV 878-2174/5

Anybody want to explain the difference between the two types of SRB's?
I know that FWC has a greater weight savings but is there also more
thrust?

                                                         T. M.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 1983 16:51:06 PDT
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Space Station Decision

From Aviation Week and Space Technology
October 10, 1983, Page 17.

Development of a space shuttle orbiter capabitily for missions of 
20-30  days in connection with a more slowly paced US space  sta-
tion  buildup  will be floated as a compromise  position  between 
space station advocates and station foes.   Defense Dept.'s posi-
tion  on an extended orbiter development is more  favorable  than 
some  managers have characterized it earlier (AW&ST  Oct.  3,  p. 
19).   Paul Thayer, deputy secretary of Defense, has written NASA 
Administrator  James H.  Beggs that,  "To the extent that a  more 
permanent  presence of man in space might contribute to satisfac-
tion  of  national security goals,  we believe a  more  promising 
approach  is to extend the capability of the space  shuttle."   A 
station  development could require NASA budgets of $18-20 billion 
per year by the early 1990s with $3 billion per year required for
station development alone in the late 1980s.  With such potential 
costs  there  are managers in the station  decision  process  who 
intend  to urge President Reagen to opt for a longer-paced devel-
opment as opposed to a 1991 station target date.

------------------------------

Date: 13 October 1983 01:51 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: What is a deadly Von Neuman probe?
To: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

<Opinion of REM on this doomsday question>

Oh, so that's what a "deadly Von Neuman probe" is? Well, I'm not too
worried. Generally creatures survive better if they try to use other
lifeforms to their advantage than if they destroy all other lifeforms
on sight. I rather doubt a dVNp would have much chance of surviving
long enough to dominate the Galaxy. I suspect other non-deadly VNps
would make better use of the resouces and fill the Galaxy faster. Then
when there's no more room to expand and the two VNp races begin
competing for the finite Galaxy, the non-deadly VNp race will develop
some defense against the dVNp, putting it on par militarily, and the
greater ability of the non-deadly VNp to use existing resources will
give it the edge in the gallactic war.

Regarding a biological race that programs its probes deliberately to
destroy all other lifeforms; it's rather easy for a mutation to cause
that kind of probe to fail to recognize the race that made it, or for
mis-design to cause it to recognize an alien race mistakenly. In the
former case, the original race would be exterminated; this likelihood
would tend to deter that race from making such a probe in the first
place. In the latter case, that alien race would likely be able to
kill off the dVNps, ridding the galaxy of them long before we humans
came to be (unless by accident the dVNps were created at about the
same time we humans came to be; very unlikely).

------------------------------

Date: 13 October 1983 02:13 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: space commercialization 
To: ARG @ SU-AI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

One thing that seems obvious to me is that the best way to get
something to space is to divide it into the part that's expensive per
unit mass (irreplacable stuff like people too) and the part that's
cheap to replace, send the expensive/irreplacable part via an
expensive but reliable means such as STS or Saturn/Atlas/Aegena, and
send the bulk part via cheap unreliable rockets like Connestoga or via
mass-drivers etc. Then the two payloads must be assembled in space,
which requires either a manned (oops, personned) space station or a
remote-control tug. I wonder if a solar-powered tug could be used to
move empty STS fuel tanks and random payloads to a high orbit where it
could fasten them together in a bundle for later assembly and use?
The tug could be a mass-driver, ion rocket, or sailship. Would these
technologies have sufficient accelleration to overcome air friction
during the first state of recovering a payload from very-low-Earth-orbit?

------------------------------

Date: 13 October 1983 02:22 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: - (nf)
To: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!markcoe @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Here's the complete verbatim text of a message in the SPACE digest. I
think something's missing!!

Date: 7 Oct 83 18:39:14-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!markcoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: - (nf)

#N:uiucuxc:2400004:000:13
uiucuxc!markcoe    Oct  7 10:12:00 1983

te meZZZZ

:

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 1983 19:03-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@MINET-NAP-EM
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: harpo!eagle!karn@Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: ETs to orbit
Via:  Usc-Cse; 11 Oct 83 17:39:04

Someone's probably said this already but...

The reason it saves energy to take the ET to orbit is that to put the
ET into a special suborbital trajectory into the Indian ocean the
orbiter has to be put (briefly!) into that same orbit.  After releasing
the tank the shuttle has to push on to orbit with the OMS engines.  The
shuttle is forced to follow a rather strange trajectory to dump the
tank, actually losing altitude at one point (down to 100 km, I
believe).  Saving the tank lets you go to orbit on the SSME's, which
are LH/LOX powered and thus have higher specific impulse than the OMS
engines.

Drag is the big problem.  NASA doesn't want the continual Skylab-type
hysteria that randomly falling ET's would provoke.  Using the SSME's
instead of OMS will get you to higher orbits for the same fuel mass.
Ideally the tanks would immediately be dismantled or incorporated into
some space structure.  The tank could be placed in a higher orbit quite
cheaply by raising it on a kevlar line with the shuttle on the bottom.
The ET would be equiped with a winch to reel in the line after the
shuttle let go.

 

------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 83 8:00:50-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 Could Be Delayed

Unexpectedly high damage to one of the SRB's on STS-8 could
force the postponement of STS-9 until next year.  On the
ascent of Challenger in late August, the exhaust from the
booster eat through the booster's protective lining to within
.2 inches of the nozzle itself.  If it has broken through
the nozzle, the shuttle would have gone out of control.
The boosters, which are being reused from previous flights,
are refurbished by Morton-Thikol, Inc., which reported the
damage to NASA late last month.  Agency officials decided
to go ahead with the rollout of Columbia to the pad and
carry on simultaneous investigations of the problem.  If
the launch is delayed more than a few days, it would have
to be postponed until February, 1984, due to seasonal requirements
for some of Spacelab's experiments.  Getting a new set of
boosters would take several weeks.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 83 16:38:04-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Mock Countdown/Liftoff

At 1230 EDT today, a mock countdown was started for the Columbia.
It is scheduled to conclude tomorrow with a simulated liftoff of
the shuttle.  Included in the rehearsal are tests of the Columbia's
hydraulic systems and new fuel cells.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #10
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
			   Simulated Countdown
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 83 20:03:53-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Simulated Countdown

NASA crews today took the Columbia through a simulated
countdown after a two hour delay due to a fuel leak.
The test, in which both the oxygen and hydrogen sections
of the external tank were to be filled with super-cold
liquid fuels, was instead carried out with only the oxygen
tank filled with liquid oxygen and the hydrogen tank filled
with gaseous hydrogen; the problem was due to a leak in
a hydrogen fuel line.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #11
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
			     New SSI Project
			   Re:   spending spree
			    O'Neill's new book
			      Launch Doubts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 1983 10:47:23-EDT
From: Marty.Uram at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: New SSI Project

The following is a letter sent from Gerald K. O'Neill, President of the Space
Studies Institute, to Institute members, dated October 5, 1983:

Dear Friend:

I want to report to you on a major new initiative SSI (Space Studies 
Institute) is undertaking and to ask your help to move this project
forward.

The Institute Directors will issue a request for proposals for the 
parametric design of a Solar Power Satellite (SPS) in the next two months.

This SPS design will be based on ease of assembly using automated equipment
and, most importantly, will utilize lunar-derived materials for its
construction period.

This project, as exciting and important as it is, will seriously strain
SSI's financial resources.  That's why I'm asking you to make a special
gift of $25 or $15 to help fund the SPS Design Project.  Let me explain.

The drive toward space colonization will be helped enormously if the 
economics of space manufacturing are proven attractive.

In turn, the economies of space are tied to the questions of energy changes:
Where can raw materials be found?  What is the energy cost of moving this
material from the source to the site of use?  How are the materials to be
separated into pure elements?  For what purposes are they to be used?

SSI has addressed the first three questions through its research into the
Mass-Driver and Chemical Separation of Lunar Materials.

Now, the Board of Directors has authorized the Institute to show an 
economical way to tap the virtually limitless and free energy available
in high orbit.  That's the purpose of our new research effort into
Solar Power Satellites.

A power satellite in geosynchronous orbit above the equator would convert
the intense, nearly full-time sunlight of high orbital space to low-density
radio waves (with an efficiency above 90%), then send them to receiving
antenna on Earth.

The plant's fuel cost will be zero, so the entire cost of power will be
that of amortization, maintenance and distribution.

The design of an SPS, based on construction from lunar materials, is the
most crucial research project in SSI's first five-year plan to develop
the resources of space.  Its success is vital to our achieving an
energy source capable of sustaining a suitable working and living
environment away from Earth.

Our plan is to circulate a "Request For Proposals" to aerospace firms and
researchers this winter.  Our contract will be to develop a design and
specification for a Solar Power Satellite that could be built using lunar
material and would recover its cost through sales of power at market rates.

Will you help get this important project started by making a special
gift to SSI in either amount I mentioned?  Your tax-deductible gift
will be used to help fund the SPS research.

This has been a highly productive year for the Institute with the
completion of two major projects and our Sixth Biennial Conference on Space
Manufacturing.  However, our financial resources have been depleted.

Our choices are either to postpone the SPS design project and make
serious cuts in our contact with Members and operation, or to ask SSI's
loyal Members to help supplement our budget by making a special gift to 
our Solar Power Satellite project.

Simply complete the enclosed form and return it to me at the SSI office
in Princeton.  In return, I'll keep you informed of the SPS design competition
and let you know of the Board's decision.

Please accept my thanks in advance for your continuing support of SSI's
important work.

				Sincerely,
				
				Gerald K. O'Neill
				President,
				Space Studies Institute
				195 Nassau Street
				P.O. Box 82
				Princeton, New Jersey  08540
				Tel: 609 921 0377

P.S.:  If you make a gift of $100 or more, I'll send you a special, limited
edition blueprint of the Island One Space Colony.  This drawing
shows the exact dimensions of the Bernal Sphere, designed to sustain
10,000 inhabitants in space.

------------------------------

Date: 11-Oct-83 00:24 PDT
From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc.  Cupertino CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Re:   spending spree
To: gutfreund.umass-cs@Rand-Relay
Cc: arms-d@mit-mc, politics@mit-mc, ellis.umass-cs@Rand-Relay
Cc: space@mit-mc
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-3C2WC>

If anyone has further information on the DoD spending spree, I would love to 
hear it?  Does anyone know what they spent $4.2 Billion dollars on?  Thanks,  
--Bi<<

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 83 20:45:39-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!fortune!kiessig @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: O'Neill's new book

	Has anyone heard any details about Gerard O'Neill's new
book?  I understand it's going to hit the streets pretty soon.

Rick

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 83 20:05:18-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Launch Doubts

NASA today declined to make a decision regarding the launch
of STS-9, opting instead to wait a few more days until more
tests results from the damaged STS-8 SRB are obtained.  However,
one official said that hopes for a 28 October launch date were
becoming more and more pessimistic.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #12
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
			     NASA anniversary
			  Re: G-forces question
		Halley's Comet Will Be Brighter This Time
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 83 18:21:18-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: NASA anniversary

NASA's 25th anniversary is the 23rd of October.  This might be a good
time to watch for things like space-station announcements.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 83 17:03:58-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: G-forces question
In-Reply-To: Article <2284@tekmdp.UUCP>

The Shuttle boosts much more gently than the Saturn V.  Saturn V
accelerations just before staging were 7-8 G.  The Shuttle gives
a maximum of 3 G.  This is quite deliberate, to make life easier
for both people and payloads.  I believe the shuttle throttles its
engines back at times to stay under the 3-G line.  The Saturn V's
engines basically had one throttle setting:  wide open.

It is somewhat more efficient to boost at high acceleration, because
you finish acceleration sooner and hence use less fuel fighting gravity
during boost.  (In case this isn't obvious, consider an extreme case:
if you boost at just slightly more than 1 G, you go up very slowly
and spend most of your fuel just keeping yourself from falling.)
But high-G boost is much harder on payloads and their support structures,
and one specific intent of the shuttle was to make payloads cheaper by
providing a less severe environment during boost.  It also complicates
crew selection; it is reasonable to assume that any healthy adult can
take 3 G, but 7 G is nastier.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 83 4:00:59-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Halley's Comet Will Be Brighter This Time

Pasadena, Calif. [AP] - Halley's Comet will be five to six times brighter
than previously predicted when it swings by Earth again in 1986, two
researchers say.
     Charles S. Morris and John G. Bortle said at a recent cometary
astronomy conference at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that previous
brightness calculations were inaccurate because they were based on
observations from 1910, the last time the comet streaked through the
solar [sic] system on its 76-year orbit.
     Scientists initially thought Halley's [comet] would be barely
visible to the naked eye, but Morris and Bortle predict it could be
as bright as Polaris, the star that marks magnetic north.
     Astronomers who tracked Halley's [comet] in 1910 weren't as expert
in the technicalities fo celestial observation, particularly measuring
light, and modern astronomers who used their data didn't consider those
limits.
     Halley's will pass inside Pluto's orbit in late 1985, pass closest
to the sun on Feb. 9, 1986 and should remain visible through April, 1986,
when it heads back into the stars for another 76 years.

*************************************
>From the Chicago Tribune - October 9, 1983.

Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL 
ihnp4!ihuxb!alle 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #13
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
		       Shuttle Mission 9/Spacelab 1
			       Comet Halley
			  SRB Tests Inconclusive
			  Solar power satellites
			   IRAS discoveries   
		 More info on Soviet rocket accident    
		     Story from the news wire: ASAT 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 83 22:45:48-EDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drux3!hogpc!houca!orion!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!mat @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Mission 9/Spacelab 1

The October 10 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology carries the second
in a series of articles about Columbia/STS 9/Spacelab 1.  I am sure that this
has all been covered before, but I thought I would review some points.

First, the mission is scheduled initially for 10/28, with usable windows
through 11/5.  The mission is scheduled for eight days with an optional
extension of up to two additional days.  After a maximum length flight,
Columbia would land with only two pounds of hydrogen remaining.  The mission
is endangered by a problem with the SRBs (see below).  If it is scrubbed,
Spacelab 1 will have to wait until February.

Landing will be at Edwards rather than Kennedy.  EAB was chosen over the KSC
landing site because the orbiter will be more than 19,000 lb heavier than
on any previous landing.  Additionally, landing at KSC makes the presence of
Heads-Up-Displays on the orbiter highly desireable.  Columbia does not have
HUDs.

Columbia will carry six men.  I believe that this is the greates number of
men (people) ever sent up in a single launch.  Can someone confirm or refute
this?

Spacelab is scheduled for round-the-clock operations with two shifts.  Neither
shift will be without an experienced spaceman.  This will be the first
mission scheduled for round the clock work -- either US or Soviet.  There
are 190 orbiter manuevers scheduled.

Spacelab 1 will carry 38 experiments, both in the laboratory and outside it
in the payload bay.  There are seperate communication systems and ground
crews for the mission and the scientific experiments, with the highest
transmision of any US manned flight.  There are about thirty different
telemetry formats!  The relatively new TDRS (Tracking & Data Relay Satellite)
system will be essential in getting the data up and down.


All in all, this is a pretty big flight.  Unfortunately it is in jeopordy.
Wear on the nozzle of one of the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) has far exceeded
expectations and design limits.  There is very little protective material left
on one side of the nozzle on one of the SRBs.  Morton Thiokol is studying
the problem, but the last report that I heard is not encouraging.  The
mission may have to await new SRBs and a new launch window in 2/84.
Among the possibilities:  The damage to the engine might be a fluke
(unlikely) in which case STS 9 can fly with what is has now.  It might
be possible to fit a new (factory-fresh?) engine to STS 9 which is
apparently already assembled.

An aside:  Anyone care to speculate how long it will be before we have a
reuseable launch vehicle whose thrust will exceed the nearly 7,800,000 lb
produced by the Saturn V ? Or how long it will be before we have a reusable
launch vehicle that can retrieve a satellite from geosynchonous orbit?

					Mark Terribile
					Duke of deNet

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 83 3:44:44-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Comet Halley

 I thought Halley had already passed inside Saturn's orbit ?
The comet will pass on the wrong side of the Sun (!) for it to produce
a spectacular apparition here but at least the herd of space probes that
are planned to intercept it should give us lots of interesting data.

DGD

...!vax135!ukc!dgd

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 83 3:32:01-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SRB Tests Inconclusive

Tests on the faulty STS-8 SRB were inconclusive this week, NASA said, and
hopes for a 28 October launch are becoming very dim.  If postponed, the
next available date would be 28 November, and after that, sometime next
February.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 1983 09:06:05-EDT
From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G
Subject: Solar power satellites

   Solar power satellites have some very serious drawbacks,
essentially because because they are "hard" energy systems in the
sense of Lovins [1977].  Here are a few of the drawbacks:

1) O'Neil discusses a 5 GW (to the grid) satellite [O'Neil 1982,
   p. 178], which is large by present standards.  Sunlight is not
   continuous at GEO year-round, and a satellite might fail, so a
   backup is necessary, which about doubles the cost.

2) The rectenna might fail (lightning, weather, earthquake,
   sabotage, etc.), so again a backup is needed.

3) Historically, "safe" exposure limits to radiation and
   chemicals have decreased much more often than
   increased.  A satellite designed for a certain beam
   energy density may turn out to be "unsafe" a few years later.
   A few years ago, most experts believed the only biological
   effect of microwave radiation was from tissue heating.  There
   is now evidence of other effects at much lower doses [IEEE
   1983].

4) Just uttering the word "radiation" will cause protesters to
   appear.  A satellite project could be tied up in lawsuits for
   years, however irrational the basis of the suits.

5) The rectenna will feed high voltage lines.  People don't like
   high voltage lines [Mains 1983].  Again there will be
   protests, lawsuits, and perhaps sabotage.

6) A power satellite is a sitting duck.  A foreign government
   could easily threaten to destroy it.

7) Recent history shows the danger of dependence on an energy
   supply far away.  What happens when the Organization of Power
   Exporting Colonies raises prices a few hundred percent?

8) The U. S. really has enough electricity for electrochemistry,
   motors, lighting, and certainly electronics.  There are much
   simpler and "softer" ways to provide space and process heat.
   The real crunch is in liquid fuels for transportation, and
   more electricity won't help there, at least in the short term.
   Electric cars are still waiting for a breakthrough in batteries,
   and I don't know of any research on
   electric airplanes.  Hydrogen is a long way off, and suffers
   from a huge PR problem (the "Hindenberg syndrome").  The U. S.
   wouldn't even need much additional electricity if it built a
   high speed electrified railroad system, since regenerative
   braking is fairly efficient.  By contrast, there are
   ethanol-fueled airplanes flying now.

9) Providing the U. S. with massive amounts of new energy will only
   delay for a few generations the inevitable population,
   resources, and environmental disasters.  We'll be better off
   if we deal with those problems now, while there's still a
   reasonable amount of land, water, and air left.


   I believe space colonization is vital to human survival, but
we will have to find a reason other than power satellites.

REFERENCES

IEEE 1983: "Experiments show microwaves can damage chromosomes,"
IEEE Institute, volume 7, number 8, August, pages 1 and 8.

Lovins 1977: Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace, Amory
Bloch Lovins, Harper and Row, New York.

Mains 1983: "The Minnesota power-line wars," Sheldon Mains,
Spectrum, volume 20, number 7, July, pages 56-62.

O'Neil 1982: The high frontier: human colonies in space, Gerard
K. O'Neil, Anchor Press, New York.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 83  1733 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: IRAS discoveries   
To:   space@MIT-MC

n516  2013  15 Oct 83
BC-SPACE-10-16
    By Robert Cooke
    (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service)
    BOSTON - Spectacular new results from the talented IRAS satellite -
including exciting evidence that many stars, like our sun, are
surrounded by rocky debris - is being held up by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
    Astronomers contacted at several observatories and universities
report there's ''a high level of frustration'' that the IRAS data are
available, but won't be released until Nov. 9 at a special news
conference and party at the National Air and Space Museum in
Washington.
    The first solid clue that a big announcement is coming arose during
an astronomy symposium last week here in suburban Cambridge, where
Dr. Charles Beichman, from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
California, commented simply that ''Vega is not alone.''
    Beyond that, scientists associated with the IRAS (for Infra-Red
Astronomy Satellite) have refused to discuss the results, even among
their fellow astronomers.
    Beichman's statement, however, told astronomers that in addition to
our own solar system, and in addition to the cloud of debris found
orbiting the bright star Vega, IRAS has also detected other stars
that have similar haloes of material.
    ''We took it to mean there are other examples'' of such stars found
by IRAS, one astronomer said. And, since Vega is ''a pretty typical
star, that probably means there are a lot more of them.''
    The importance of the discovery of numerous stars with potential
solar systems is that it suggests the formation of planets is
probably a common event. And if planets are common, life, too, may be
common in the universe.
    The IRAS satellite, which was launched just last January, is so good
at spotting relatively cool, dim objects because it can ''see''
infra-red light. This long-wavelength light - in essence, heat
signals - is blocked by the Earth's atmosphere, so ground-based
astronomers are unable to see infra-red objects.
    In space, orbiting 500 miles above Earth's surface, IRAS can look
unimpeded into the distant reaches of space and pick out the faint
glow of objects that emit their energy in the infra-red portion of
the spectrum.
    In addition to discovering the cloud of debris around Vega, IRAS has
also:
    - Found more new comets in shorter time than any observer in history.
    - Observed two giant galaxies passing so close to each other that
both are being torn apart by the pull of gravity.
    - Spotted areas of intense activity in distant galaxies where new
stars are apparently being born.
    Unfortunately, however, IRAS is soon to become useless. The
spacecraft's ability to see infra-red light depends on its
image-sensing element - 62 crystals of silicon-germanium - being
cooled to almost absolute zero. The sensor is kept cold by a flow of
liquid helium, and the supply of helium was expected to last only
seven months.
    Scientists reported, however, that the liquid helium has lasted
longer than expected, so they're hoping to get a full year of
observing out of the IRAS instrument.
    Among IRAS's discoveries, the most stunning thus far has been the
cloud of objects orbiting the star Vega, located in the constellation
The Lyre. Vega, one of the brightest stars in the sky, is nestled
inside the Milky Way, and estimated to be about 26 light years (or
150 trillion miles) from Earth.
    The Vega discovery provided the first firm evidence that solid
objects - which may range from buckshot size up to the size of small
planets - are in orbit around a star other than the sun.
    In addition, Vega is thought to be a relatively young star - only 1
billion years old compared to 4.6 billion years for the sun - so its
cloud of debris may be a solar system in the process of forming.
    Astronomers are interested in such systems, because finding numerous
examples may help solve the riddle of how our own solar system
formed. And, of course, it says we may not be alone.
    END
    
nyt-10-15-83 2312edt
**********

------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 83  1734 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: More info on Soviet rocket accident    
To:   space@MIT-MC

n026  0934  16 Oct 83
BC-SOYUZ
By JOHN F. BURNS
c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    MOSCOW - The Soviet spacecraft involved in an explosion on a
launching pad late last month carried two astronauts, not three as
previously believed, and the men are recuperating at a medical
complex near the launching site, a Soviet official said Saturday.
    The official said the astronauts, whom he described as ''veterans''
of the space program, were not seriously injured but had needed
medical attention for the effects of the acceleration they
experienced as emergency rockets blew their capsule clear of the
exploding A-2 launching vehicle.
    The official, who declined to be identified, said the escape rockets
had subjected the astronauts to a stress in excess of 10 times the
force of gravity as they blasted clear of the exploding launcher. He
said the force of the acceleration could be judged from the fact that
the escape capsule rose to a height of ''several thousand'' yards and
landed by parachute nearly three miles from the launching site in
central Asia.
    The official said the Soviet authorities originally intended to give
a public account of the accident but reversed their decision for
reasons that were not known to him. The official said the details
available to him had come from direct contacts with senior personnel
in the mission control center outside Moscow.
    The first accounts of the accident came from United States
intelligence sources, apparently relying on satellite reconnaissance.
They said the accident occurred Sept. 27 at the Baikonur launching
site in Kazakhstan, where all manned Soviet flights begin. The
American accounts said that some 300 tons of liquid fuel carried by
the booster rocket exploded at ignition but that the astronauts had
succeeded in blasting clear.
    Some Soviet accounts in recent days had suggested that the crew
included a woman, but the official who spoke Saturday said this was
definitely not so. He said that the launching site had been destroyed
in the blast and fire but that nobody on the ground had been injured.
He also said the accident had not endangered the safety of the
two-man crew of the Salyut 7 laboratory now in orbit.
    The assertion that only two men were aboard the endangered craft
lent support to the original U.S. intelligence account, which said
the astronauts were to have replaced Vladimir Lyakhov and Aleksandr
Aleksandrov, the astronauts sent into orbit in the Salyut craft June
27. When three-member crews have been involved, they have generally
acted only as visitors to the Salyut laboratory.
    American accounts have suggested that weakening batteries on the
Soyuz ferry craft attached to the Salyut might force an early return
unless a fresh crew could be quickly sent up with a new Soyuz vehicle.
    
nyt-10-16-83 1234edt
**********

------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 83  2339 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: Story from the news wire: ASAT 
To:   space@MIT-MC

n519  2036  15 Oct 83
BC-WEAPON-3takes-10-16
    A NEWS ANALYSIS
    By Fred Kaplan
    (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service)
    WASHINGTON - Some time very soon (the date is classified), the
United States will test a new weapon system that promises to burst
through a new threshold in the arms race - a race for military
supremacy in outer space. It is a race that will be unimaginably
expensive; it will be almost impossible to turn back once it has
commenced; and even if the weapons involved work the way they are
supposed to, the nation will be less secure in the end.
    The new weapon seems deceptively harmless at first glance: a
12-by-13-inch cylinder, loaded with telescopes and infrared sensors,
attached to a two-stage rocket small enough to fit under an F-15 jet
fighter. The drama - and potential danger - lies in what this small
package is designed to do. It's called a Miniature Homing Vehicle
(MHV), and the idea is to fly the F-15 almost vertically up to the
edge of the atmosphere, then fire the MHV into outer space, where it
will home in on - and kill - an enemy satellite.
    If the first few tests of the MHV system succeed, we may find
ourselves propelled, almost inexorably, toward a new era of military
conflict. Maj. Gen. John H. Storrie, director of space for Air Force
Plans and Operations, told a House committee last March: ''Space is a
place; it is not a mission. We are going to continue to do the things
in space that we do in the atmosphere and on the ground and on the
seas'' - that is, to prepare to fight and win wars. A study signed
last year by the Air Force Chief of Staff, titled ''Air Force 2000,''
calls for ''space superiority,'' which requires ''the capability to
destroy hostile space systems.''
    Already, both the United States and the Soviet Union - especially
the United States - depend on space for a wide variety of military
missions. Most of what we know about the Soviet military, especially
about their nuclear weapons, comes from satellites. A great deal of
military communications, command-control networks, navigational aids
and other support systems are also channeled through satellites.
Moreover, Maj. Gen. Bernard Randolph, director of Air Force Space
Systems, has testified that a ''major'' objective of U.S. space plans
is ''to expand our military capabilities in space.''
    But, critics say, the more we rely on military platforms in space,
the more incentive the Soviets will have to develop their own
advanced anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, thus making our military
command network increasingly vulnerable.
    ''Right now,'' according to Paul Stares of the Brookings
Institution, ''if we lose our space systems, we'd be hurt but not
crippled. But if we continue to increase our dependence on space
systems, then we're just digging a hole for ourselves.''
    There's one way out of this hole - and that is to negotiate an ASAT
arms-control agreement with the Russians. Yet after our forthcoming
ASAT tests, this may be impossible. Air Force officials have
testified that it will take only six hours to install an MHV ASAT
system on an F-15 fighter anywhere in the world, at a cost of only
$632,000 per plane. Says Stares, ''There's no way the Russians could
have confidence that every F-15 isn't carrying an ASAT. What are we
going to do? Paint the F-15 different colors if it has an ASAT
mission?''
    An unfortunate element in all this is that right now may be the best
time for getting ASAT arms-control negotiations under way. To see why
requires a brief digression into history.
    The United States was the first to develop an ASAT system. From 1963
to 1967, the Army tested some of its Nike-Zeus ABMs as satellite
killers. From 1964 to 1968, the Air Force fired Thor missiles at
deactivated satellites in outer space in what was called the
''Squanto Terror'' tests (or, in a lower key, ''Program 437''). This
program was kept alive until 1975.
    Not until 1968, well after the Air Force had declared Program 437
''operational,'' did the Soviets start up their own ASAT program. The
Soviets' system is substantially more unwieldy than either the U.S.
programs of the 1960s or our forthcoming MHV plan. Their scheme was
to launch a ''killer satellite'' into an orbit that crosses an enemy
satellite and then to blow up the killer, destroying the enemy
spacecraft with shrapnel.
    Over the next 14 years, the Soviets conducted 20 tests. They have
used two different types of guidance systems. One directs the
killer-satellite by shining a radar beam on the target. The other is
more passive, with infrared systems that seek out the target by the
heat it generates.
    According to John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, the
Russians tested the radar-seeker version 14 times, most recently in
1981, of which 10 were successes. However, more recently, they tested
the passive infrared-seeker version six times - and all six were duds.
    Even the 10 successes had their limitations. They were all conducted
at low altitudes, whereas most U.S. satellites - including all
early-warning satellites - are stationed at very high altitudes. They
were also conducted within very narrow angles or inclinations (from
60 to 66 degrees), making it difficult to approach even the
low-altitude American satellites. Stephen Meyer of MIT concludes,
''They've really never had a test of what it would be like going
against a real U.S. target.''
    From 1977 to 1981, the Soviets stopped testing ASATs. Over part of
that period, the United States and the U.S.S.R. held three sets of
talks on negotiating an ASAT arms-control agreement. Then came the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the death of SALT II - and the
ASAT talks faded away.
    Last August, Soviet leader Yuri Andropov announced a moratorium on
all ASAT testing, and Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko submitted an
ASAT arms-control proposal to the United Nations, with terms that
seem to indicate seriousness.
    One obvious reason for Andropov's offer is a realization that the
United States is about to come out with a new ASAT system that will
probably be much more successful than the Soviet model. Indeed,
administration officials have dismissed the idea of negotiations
precisely because Andropov has proposed them. The reasoning: His fear
of our ASAT only confirms that it can give us an edge in the arms
race.
    But this is shortsighted, and not just because it lessens the
likelihood of an arms-control treaty. If the United States goes ahead
and tests its new ASAT weapon, the Soviets will undoubtedly break the
moratorium and resume their own testing - and probably develop a
better weapon than the one they have now. This will provoke us to
upgrade our system. And the race will be on.
    From here, any number of scenarios can be imagined: The United
States or the U.S.S.R. (or both) develops an ASAT that can
potentially strike satellites at high altitudes as well as low
altitudes, thus endangering the all-important early-warning
satellites. The other side then develops a system - perhaps involving
laser weapons - that can attack this new ASAT system. Or perhaps it
develops a space-based battle station that can defend the satellites
in the same way, say, that a task force of escort ships defends an
aircraft carrier. Then the other side builds weapons that can attack
the defenders. And on it goes.
    Indeed, this scenario is precisely what some people have in mind.
Although the U.S. Miniature Homing Vehicle program dates back to
1978, its most ardent supporters view it as a wedge into the whole
panoply of space weapons - some on the drawing boards, some as yet
only sparks and glimmers in the minds of technocratic enthusiasts -
that falls under the rubric of ''Star Wars.''
    The Star-Wars advocates tasted their first dose of legitimacy last
March, when President Reagan told a nationwide TV audience of his
''vision of the future.'' He held out the ''hope'' that a network of
anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs), space lasers and battle stations -
based on decades of research - would ''intercept and destroy (Soviet)
strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that
of our allies.''
    For years, a fringe element - led by Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.) in
Congress, Edward Teller and Gen. (ret.) Daniel Graham in the
military-scientific community and several others in various
bureaucracies and think-tanks - has been keen on moving the arms
competition into space. A very small group within the Air Force,
recently reorganized into a Space Command, believes that space can be
''The New High Ground'' (as Thomas Karas calls it in his book that
chronicles this community), from which the U.S. can reign supreme in
all other arenas of warfare.
    Reagan's speech, which was heavily influenced by talks with Teller,
gave this group the legitimacy it has long sought. Almost at once,
''Beltway bandits'' (as the ring of consulting firms around
Washington is popularly termed) and others put in contract bids to
study ''the military utility of space.'' More important, the subject
became a high-priority issue inside the national-security bureaucracy.
    Over the summer, three major outside studies were commissioned on
the subject. At this moment, an interagency group - consisting of
officials from the State Department, the Pentagon, the National
Security Council and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency - is
drawing up evaluations of those studies to present to the president
within the next month.
    Officials involved in the studies and the interagency meetings say
that nobody now knows how to go about even beginning to build a
Star-Wars system. Says one Pentagon official, ''At this point we have
no consensus on what it all means... I don't think we have the kind
of answers that we could base any sort of policy on.''
    In any case, officials are discovering technical problems that may
be insurmountable. A ground-based laser wouldn't work through clouds.
Even Gen. Randolph of Air Force Space Systems told a House committee
last spring that a space-based laser would require 10 megawatts of
power (some say much more) and would weigh 150,000 pounds - well
beyond the transport capacity of the Space Shuttle. To provide even
''a thin ABM capability,'' he said, we would need 50 to 100 of these
systems. Furthermore, they must have perfect accuracy: He likened the
mission to pointing a beam ''from the Washington Monument to a
baseball on the top of the Empire State Building and hold(ing) it
there while both of you are moving.''
    Then there's the cost. Air Force studies estimate it as $500
billion. An analyst on one of the government-sponsored study groups
puts it as high as $1.2 trillion.
    And that probably would not be the end of it. Officials and analysts
point out that the Russians could ''spoof'' any space-based ABM
system much more cheaply than it would take us to build one. Just a
few techniques: Cover the surface of a missile with a mirror that
reflects the laser beam; jam the communications between the space
system and the ground-control station; shoot it down with a laser
beam yourself. As one official puts it, ''If it can shoot down a
ballistic missile, why can't it shoot down its twin brother?''
    Still, the interagency group will not advise Reagan to abandon the
Star-Wars idea. ''This is the president's program,'' says one
skeptical official. ''We can't tell the president that he's got a
nutty idea.'' Instead, they will probably recommend that the military
spend the next several years doing research on whether these problems
can be overcome. Even this will cost quite a bit of money.
    For example, Robert S. Cooper, director of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), testified last spring that the
''Space Laser Program Plan,'' which will merely ''bring us to a point
where we can make reliable planning estimates of weapon development
costs and schedules,'' will cost $900 million. Other basic research
of this sort could cost as much as $4 billion a year - maybe more -
for several years; and even then, nobody will know very much more
than before.
    All of which leads some analysts to wonder whether it is sensible to
start treading down this seemingly endless road to begin with. Though
the ASAT program and the Star-Wars scheme have different origins, the
road to the latter can begin with the former. In fact, the kind of
technology needed for advanced ASAT systems - tracking mechanisms,
sensors, beams and so forth - is quite similar to the technology
needed for shooting down ballistic missiles. And the logic of the
ASATcounter-ASAT arms race provides a grand opportunity for the
Star-Wars brigade to bring in their programs through various side or
rear entrances if they end up getting locked out of the front door.
    The Reagan administration, however, is drawing no connections
between ASAT and Star Wars. There is an interagency group dealing
with Star Wars and another dealing with ASAT - but they are composed
of different people and the two never meet. Similarly, the group
concerned with ASAT is contemplating various arms-control ideas, but,
according to officials, no one has seriously considered delaying the
ASAT test until after these ideas have been fully explored.
    In short, an historic opportunity to halt a whole new age in the
arms race is being neglected, indeed scorned.
    It wouldn't be the first time. In 1970, to cite just the most recent
parallel, the United States deployed the Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile. It incorporated new technology
called MIRVs (Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles),
which allowed one missile to carry several warheads, each of which
could be guided to separate targets.
    Before MIRVs, a first-strike destroying the other side's land-based
missiles was impossible: One missile could hit only one enemy
missile; if one side built extra missiles, the other side could
counter by building more too. However, with MIRVs, a single missile
could (theoretically) destroy several enemy missiles. Thus, if the
United States and the U.S.S.R. acquired MIRVs, both sides would be at
once capable of destroying the other's land-based missiles and
vulnerable to such an attack themselves.
    Some U.S. officials favored proposing a ban on MIRVs during the
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. But this was rejected because others
felt MIRVs gave us a strategic edge over the Russians. Four years
later, the Soviets deployed their own MIRVs, and now the same people
who opposed a MIRV ban a decade ago decry the Soviet MIRVs, which
they claim have made our Minuteman missiles vulnerable. The most
interesting strategic arms-control proposal of recent years - offered
by Rep. Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.) - calls for getting rid of MIRVs.
But it's probably too late.
    Henry Kissinger told reporters in 1974, ''I would say in retrospect
that I wish I had thought through the implications of a MIRVed world
more thoughtfully in 1969 and 1970 than I did.'' Kissinger was
dissembling: His former NSC aides say that MIRVs were thoroughly
studied, that Kissinger knew exactly what their implications were
from the beginning, but went ahead with them anyway - to gain a
strategic edge.
    It's the same with the upcoming ASAT test and indeed all the growing
political pressure for at least elements of the Star-Wars plan. Even
more than before, the administration is failing - even refusing - to
think through the implications before the world changes in ways it
may later regret.
    END
    
nyt-10-15-83 2345edt
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #14
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
		   Video Disk of Space Shuttle Missions
		    Re: Story from the news wire: ASAT
			Re: Solar Power Sattelites
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 1983 0624-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Video Disk of Space Shuttle Missions
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]17-Oct-83 06:24:01.WMARTIN>

I saw an ad in the Oct 83 issue of VIDEO BUSINESS, a magazine for
video equipment dealers, that might be of interest to the readers
of SPACE.  I know nothing about this except what is in the ad,
excerpts from which follow:

Soar above the competition!  Offer your customers a CAV laser
videodisc passport to the "High Frontier"...  an astronaut's view
of the historic flights of America's Space Shuttle.

SPACE SHUTTLE Mission Reports: STS 5, 6 & 7

SPACE SHUTTLE is Volume 1 of SPACE ARCHIVE (tm) -- a new series
being launched into the consumer market by Video Vision
Associates, Ltd., producers of the highly acclaimed SPACE DISC
(tm) series.

SPACE SHUTTLE contains more than 800 color photos (with printed
guide) and 55 minutes of stunning video clips.  The suggested
retail price is $39.95.  Discs will be ready for shipping to
dealers in October.

Video Vision will underscore its committment to distinctive video
products with the release of additional programs, computer and
audio tape interfaces and software that expand the interactive
potential of laser videodiscs.

Vendor's address:
	
Video Vision Associates
7 Waverly Place
Madison, NJ 07940
(201) 377-0302

{Hope this is of interest to some of you -- Will Martin}

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 83 17:41:21 PDT (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Story from the news wire: ASAT
To: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI.ARPA>
cc: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA, Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Thanks for sharing this story.  I wonder how much longer the American
public is going to put up with "NEWS ANALYSIS" that might as well have
come straight out of the Soviet embassy.  Who is Fred Kaplan?  Just what
is "Independent Press Service"?  (That's almost as good as "nonaligned
nations").

I'm not even going to waste my time picking apart what any reader should
see as a blatant propaganda piece.

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 1983 20:44-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@MINET-NAP-EM
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: Howard.Gayle@cmu-cs-g
Subject: Re: Solar Power Sattelites
Via:  Usc-Cse; 17 Oct 83 21:38:03

Responses to Gayle's objections to SPS:

   Sunlight is not continuous at GEO year-round, and a sattelite might
   fail, so a backup is necessary, doubling the cost.

Not serious objections.  The earth's shadow intercepts GEO less than 1
hour per night near the equinoxes.  The interruption occurs during a
time of minimal energy usage, so it should be easy to make up for.

As for backups: if you only built ONE SPS a backup would double the
cost.  Even at 5-10 GW's this country can use many powersats, and
because rectennas are not highly directional only a few backup SPS's
are needed for high reliability.

Since SPS's produce an essentially constant power output their
economics can probably be improved by some form of ground-based energy
storage (fuel cells, batteries, pumped hydro) to cover daily cycles in
energy demand.  This storage system could buffer short interruptions in
the power beam, allowing backup sattelites to cut in their beams.  The
power beams are aimed electronically so the backup could be brought on
in seconds.

  The rectenna might fail, so a backup is needed.

Clearly this problem also applies to current technology, yet we manage
to cope.  If a rectenna (or a nuclear power station, or whatever)
fails, extra power is obtained from your neighbors.

By the way, rectennas have no moving parts, are highly distributed and
are extremely reliable.  Performance degrades incrementally as
receiving diodes fail.  The circuits for converting DC to AC are well
understood and are reliable.  If you worry about terrorism, consider
that terrorists need only blow up a few high voltage lines to black out
all of New York City for weeks.  No one has done it yet.

  Historically, "safe" exposure limits to radiation and chemicals have
  decreased much more often than increased.  A sattelite designed for
  a certain beam energy may turn out to be "unsafe" a few years later.

Intensity of the power beam is gaussian; it is bounded above by
exp(-c*r^2), where c is a constant and r is the distance from the
center of the rectenna.  The power intensity at the edge of the
rectenna is the same as that *outside* a microwave oven;  the intensity a
few miles further out is exponentially less.

I haven't read your reference r.e. chromosome damage, have the results
been confirmed?  In the worst case the utility need only buy some
additional land around the rectenna to reduce possible exposure of
passers-by to immeasurable levels.  The power beam is not pulsed;
there is some evidence that pulsed microwaves are more dangerous than
unpulsed microwaves.

   Just uttering the word "radiation" will cause protesters to appear.

So?  This will have little if any effect.  Powersats aren't fission
plants.  Anyway, if SPS is as economical as it appears to be someone
somewhere will build them (Japan?).  Anyone stuck with other energy
sources will go into economic decline, or, more probably, buy powersats
from the other person.

  People don't like high voltage power lines.

And therefore we don't have any, right?

  A power sattelite is a sitting duck.

Something in GEO is hard to destroy, except by another government.
That is an act of war.  Missiles would certainly start flying.  The
attacker would rationally strike first with his missiles.  Who cares
about the SPS then?

Re dependence on far away energy source:  the problem is that SOMEONE
ELSE OWNS THEM.  Presumably if XYZ Corp. (or Con. Ed.) builds an SPS,
it owns it.

Your final objections: (1) we don't need electricity (we need other
fuels), and (2) it will just put off the ecological crunch a few
decades.  Over long time scales electricity can easily substitute for
other energy sources (if the others become scarce/expensive), and (2)
*all* other energy sources are more polluting than SPS.  Only massive
increases in world energy consumption can substanitally raise the
standard of living, averting nuclear war, mass starvation, etc.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #15
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
			Re: Solar Power Satellites
				   SPS 
				   SPS 
			Re: Solar Power Sattelites
	      Re: Halley's Comet Will Be Brighter This Time
			 Geostar & Star Wars PAC
			Re: Solar Power Sattelites
		    microscopic particles around sun??
			     space elevators
			     space elevators
		    Re: Story from the news wire: ASAT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 18 October 1983 09:54:00 EDT
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
cc: dietz%USC-CSE.USC-CSE@Rand-Relay
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites
Message-ID: <1983.10.18.12.36.0.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

   I thank Dietz for a careful reply to my post concerning solar
power satellites.  Obviously, there is uncertainty about many of
the technical details on which a working system would depend.
But, before discussing technicalities, I emphasize that power
satellites are not an entirely technical problem.  Fundamentally,
the difference between what Lovins calls "hard" and "soft" energy
systems is the difference of local control.  Proponents of "soft"
systems argue that energy is too vital to be controlled remotely
or centrally, that local control is essential even if it is
economically suboptimal.  I think that I am the best person to
decide the right temperature for my apartment, not someone in
Washington, Riyadh, or GEO; I'm prepared to pay for that opinion.

   It is also unclear how energy is related to standard of
living.  Norway, for example, has an extremely high standard of
living, yet relatively moderate energy consumption for a developed
country.  It may be that "[o]nly massive increases in world
energy consumption can substanitally [sic] raise the standard
of living, averting nuclear war, mass starvation, etc."  On the
other hand, E. F. Schumacher and the other proponents of
"appropriate technology" claim that the best way to achieve
economic development is through low capital, low energy
technology.  As far as nuclear war is concerned, the greatest
danger is from countries with high energy consumption.  As for
mass starvation, you can't eat electricity.  You can, of course,
produce massive amounts of artificial fertilizer and pesticides,
but this just postpones the starvation one or two population doubling
times, after which you find the fertilizer runoff has polluted
lakes and rivers, and the pests have become resistant to the
pesticides.

   "As for backups: if you only built ONE SPS a backup would double the
cost.  Even at 5-10 GW's this country can use many powersats..."
Exactly.  A whole constellation [is that the appropriate
collective noun?] of power satellites would be needed for
reliability, so it would not be economical to have a diversity of
electricity sources.  Satellites would necessarily be most of the
eggs in our basket.

   "Intensity of the power beam is gaussian..."  That may be a
good model in a vacuum, but what does the beam look like after
it's been scattered by the ionosphere and the atmosphere?
Obviously nobody knows.  The power is much greater than
communications satellite downlinks.  There may be nonlinear
effects.

   "Something in GEO is hard to destroy, except by another government."
That's certainly true today.  Fairly soon, several private
companies should be able to put a few hundred kilograms into
GEO.

   "Re dependence on far away energy source:  the problem is that SOMEONE
ELSE OWNS THEM.  Presumably if XYZ Corp. (or Con. Ed.) builds an SPS,
it owns it."   Britain owned its American colonies.  GEO is an
order of magnitude farther away.  Nobody likes an absentee
landlord.

   "Over long time scales electricity can easily substitute for
other energy sources..."   True.  Let's start some research on
electric airplanes and electric launch vehicles.  Then, in 50
years or so, we can take another look at power satellites, with
most of the numbers in hand.  Until then, I'd like to survive the
Pittsburgh winter.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 83 10:51:50 EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: SPS 
To: space%MIT-MC@MIT-ML.ARPA


With regard to the message from Howard Gayle about SPS--
I suggest that Mr. Gayle consider "alternative information sources"
than Amory Lovins, who is an idiot [Access to Energy, May 82].

The major drawback to SPS (drawback once it is in operation, as
distinguished from difficulties that must be overcome to implement 
it) is the ground area necessary for the rectenna.  The energy
density of the beam in current plans (and required by federal
regulations) is less than that of direct sunlight, (340 watts per
square meter in one design, where sunlight can attain 1 kW/m^2).

In densely populated areas (where the power is needed the most)
such as New Jersey, land is expensive.  Indeed, solar power advocates
of all stripes would do well to remember that land is the ultimate
non-renewable resource.

Let's consider Howard's points:

    1) ...  Sunlight is not continuous at GEO year-round, and a satellite might
	fail, so a backup is necessary, which about doubles the cost.

This is silly.  Any power generation facility "might fail", and all undergo
scheduled outages.  This is why they are tied together in a "grid".
Individual facilities go "off-line" quite often.

    2) The rectenna might fail (lightning, weather, earthquake,
       sabotage, etc.), so again a backup is needed.

A rectenna would cover many square miles and have thousands of individual
antennas.  Try convincing your friends, "Pittsburgh might fail, so a 
backup is needed."  

    3) Historically, "safe" exposure limits to radiation and
       chemicals have decreased much more often than
       increased.  A satellite designed for a certain beam
       energy density may turn out to be "unsafe" a few years later.
       ...

As mentioned above, the energy density of the beam is on the order of
half that of sunlight.  With sophisticated measuring technology, you
will discover that everything is dangerous.  

    4) ...  A satellite project could be tied up in lawsuits for
       years, however irrational the basis of the suits.

This is unfortulately all too true.  You can help by learning the 
facts, and refuting the lies and distortions of the crazies.
And what happens when people realize that conventional means of
power generation are even more dangerous?

    5) The rectenna will feed high voltage lines.  People don't like
       high voltage lines ...

ANY power plant feeds high voltage lines.  Whatever the merits of
this apparently frivolous argument, it does not affect SPS per se.

    6) A power satellite is a sitting duck.  A foreign government
       could easily threaten to destroy it.

It's much easier to destroy a city or an ordinary power plant on the
ground.  Anybody with the ability to hit something in GEO would
have no trouble hitting any point on the surface.

    7) Recent history shows the danger of dependence on an energy
       supply far away.  What happens when the Organization of Power
       Exporting Colonies raises prices a few hundred percent?

We send them to bed without supper.  The SPS (at least the ones we're
takling about) are an American project.  Of course, if we wait until
we're dependent on foreign satellites...

    8) The U. S. really has enough electricity for electrochemistry,
       motors, lighting, and certainly electronics. ...

This is silly.  The cheaper electricity is, the more will be used, 
and the more ways found to substitute it for other resources.  The 
more expensive it, and other forms of energy, are, the more other
resources will be substituted for them (and benefits forgone). 
The goal of the "soft energy" advocates is a world in which all 
major energy sources have been replaced by human drudgery and misery.

    9) Providing the U. S. with massive amounts of new energy will only
       delay for a few generations the inevitable population,
       resources, and environmental disasters. ...

If you look at the countries that are in fact population, resources,
and environmental disasters, you will find them to be soft energy
paradises, like India, where most of the work is done by human muscles.
How organic!  The birthrate, you will find, is inversely correlated
with the consumption of energy per capita.  Using SPS in the O'Neill
(not "O'Neil") plan will expand our available resources radically
(mining the moon) and curtail the expenditure of terrestrial resources
(oil, uranium, coal) for power generation.

Indeed, O'Neill sees SPS as primarily a way to make space colonies 
economically feasible.  Although I suspect that the cost projections 
of SPS advocates are probably overoptimistic, I support them for that
reason.

--JoSH
-------

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 83 10:51:50 EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: SPS 
To: space%MIT-MC@MIT-ML.ARPA


With regard to the message from Howard Gayle about SPS--
I suggest that Mr. Gayle consider "alternative information sources"
than Amory Lovins, who is an idiot [Access to Energy, May 82].

The major drawback to SPS (drawback once it is in operation, as
distinguished from difficulties that must be overcome to implement 
it) is the ground area necessary for the rectenna.  The energy
density of the beam in current plans (and required by federal
regulations) is less than that of direct sunlight, (340 watts per
square meter in one design, where sunlight can attain 1 kW/m^2).

In densely populated areas (where the power is needed the most)
such as New Jersey, land is expensive.  Indeed, solar power advocates
of all stripes would do well to remember that land is the ultimate
non-renewable resource.

Let's consider Howard's points:

    1) ...  Sunlight is not continuous at GEO year-round, and a satellite might
	fail, so a backup is necessary, which about doubles the cost.

This is silly.  Any power generation facility "might fail", and all undergo
scheduled outages.  This is why they are tied together in a "grid".
Individual facilities go "off-line" quite often.

    2) The rectenna might fail (lightning, weather, earthquake,
       sabotage, etc.), so again a backup is needed.

A rectenna would cover many square miles and have thousands of individual
antennas.  Try convincing your friends, "Pittsburgh might fail, so a 
backup is needed."  

    3) Historically, "safe" exposure limits to radiation and
       chemicals have decreased much more often than
       increased.  A satellite designed for a certain beam
       energy density may turn out to be "unsafe" a few years later.
       ...

As mentioned above, the energy density of the beam is on the order of
half that of sunlight.  With sophisticated measuring technology, you
will discover that everything is dangerous.  

    4) ...  A satellite project could be tied up in lawsuits for
       years, however irrational the basis of the suits.

This is unfortulately all too true.  You can help by learning the 
facts, and refuting the lies and distortions of the crazies.
And what happens when people realize that conventional means of
power generation are even more dangerous?

    5) The rectenna will feed high voltage lines.  People don't like
       high voltage lines ...

ANY power plant feeds high voltage lines.  Whatever the merits of
this apparently frivolous argument, it does not affect SPS per se.

    6) A power satellite is a sitting duck.  A foreign government
       could easily threaten to destroy it.

It's much easier to destroy a city or an ordinary power plant on the
ground.  Anybody with the ability to hit something in GEO would
have no trouble hitting any point on the surface.

    7) Recent history shows the danger of dependence on an energy
       supply far away.  What happens when the Organization of Power
       Exporting Colonies raises prices a few hundred percent?

We send them to bed without supper.  The SPS (at least the ones we're
takling about) are an American project.  Of course, if we wait until
we're dependent on foreign satellites...

    8) The U. S. really has enough electricity for electrochemistry,
       motors, lighting, and certainly electronics. ...

This is silly.  The cheaper electricity is, the more will be used, 
and the more ways found to substitute it for other resources.  The 
more expensive it, and other forms of energy, are, the more other
resources will be substituted for them (and benefits forgone). 
The goal of the "soft energy" advocates is a world in which all 
major energy sources have been replaced by human drudgery and misery.

    9) Providing the U. S. with massive amounts of new energy will only
       delay for a few generations the inevitable population,
       resources, and environmental disasters. ...

If you look at the countries that are in fact population, resources,
and environmental disasters, you will find them to be soft energy
paradises, like India, where most of the work is done by human muscles.
How organic!  The birthrate, you will find, is inversely correlated
with the consumption of energy per capita.  Using SPS in the O'Neill
(not "O'Neil") plan will expand our available resources radically
(mining the moon) and curtail the expenditure of terrestrial resources
(oil, uranium, coal) for power generation.

Indeed, O'Neill sees SPS as primarily a way to make space colonies 
economically feasible.  Although I suspect that the cost projections 
of SPS advocates are probably overoptimistic, I support them for that
reason.

--JoSH
-------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 83 10:11 PDT
From: BollenG.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Solar Power Sattelites
To: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@MINET-NAP-EM.ARPA
cc: space@mit-mc.ARPA, BollenG.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Excellent response!  I would only add one comment.  Although it is
extremely important to examine the negative effects of large projects
such as SPS, we should never abandon an obviously profittable
undertaking simply because it will cause public uproar.  If governments
and institutions and individuals avoided doing anything that was
controversial, we would still be living in Europe, in a Feudal
government, dealing with overpopulation, plague, and, of course heartily
pooh-poohing the idea of sailing to the other side of the world.

Space-based power has its drawbacks.  Yet the problems are small
compared to the advantages.  A permanent human presence in orbit is the
next step towards stepping across space.  Granted, earth is looking at
an upcoming ecological & social crunch.  The tools to solve these
problems probably are not to be found by examining the problem in the
confinement of the earth.  Man needs to explore to find those answers.
Space is the way to go.  I just hope that the economics of power and
industry drive us in the direction that we must go.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 83 10:49:47 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Halley's Comet Will Be Brighter This Time
In-reply-to: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle's message of 16 Oct 83 03:02 PDT
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

I thought AP could do better than this.  The article quoted is full of 
misinformation. 

1.  "previous brightness calculations were inaccurate because they were 
based on observations from 1910"

I was at that conference and I did not understand Morris and Bortle to 
say why the brightness calculations were inaccurate.  They avoided the 
details, apparently because they are publishing their findings.  I assume 
that their reasoning is similar to that of Joseph Marcus, editor of Comet 
News Service.  In a recent article, he stated that in past times astronomers 
did not standardize on methods of determining comet brightness, and it has 
been shown that different methods that have been in use in the past give 
different results.

2.  "the last time the comet streaked through the solar [sic] system"

The limits of the solar system are not formally defined.  But the 
reasonable definitions include all of Halley's Comet's orbit, so it is 
always in the solar system.  For example, if we use the farthest distance 
of the farthest planet (Pluto at the extreme of its quite elliptical orbit) 
we get a 49.3 AU radius of the solar system.  Halley's Comet's farthest 
point from the sun is 35.3 AU. 

3.  "Polaris, the star that marks magnetic north"

Polaris is within a degree of true north, not magnetic north.  The magnetic 
north pole, along with the rest of the earth, rotates daily so that the 
point above it in the heavens it sweeps out a circle.  So no fixed point 
in the sky, much less a star, could possibly mark magnetic north. 

4.  "Astronomers who tracked Halley's [comet] in 1910 weren't as expert
in the technicalities fo celestial observation, particularly measuring
light"

Most comet brightness measurements today are still made by eye (not 
photoelectric devices) through small telescopes.  Astronomers have been 
making such measures quite as accurate as those of today for hundreds of 
years.  I believe we will find, when Morris and Bortle publish, that the 
problem they refer to is simply one of standardization of method.  Method 
is very important with comets because one has to compare brightness that 
is spread out over an area (the comet) with brightness of a pinpoint of 
light (stars used for comparison).

5.  "Halley's will pass inside Pluto's orbit in late 1985"

The comet never went outside Pluto's orbit.  Their orbits are in 
different planes, and so the orbits do not cross, strictly speaking.  
Even if we use a loose interpretation of "pass inside" to mean that 
the projection of the comet's orbit onto the ecliptic (the plane of 
the earth's orbit, which is close to the plane of all planets' orbits;  
It is the reference from which astronomers measure everything in the 
solar system) crosses the projection of Pluto's orbit, the orbits still 
don't cross in this sense.  The (projection of the) comet's orbit lies 
entirely inside (the projection of) Pluto's orbit.  Or take a simpler 
sense of "pass inside" -- when the distance from the sun to the comet 
is less than Pluto's average distance.  Then the comet is still always 
inside of Pluto's orbit.  The comet has in fact already passed inside 
of (in either of the above senses) the orbits of Neptune, Uranus, and 
Saturn.

6.  "it heads back into the stars for another 76 years"

Again, it never leaves the solar system, which is hardly "into the stars".  
Its maximum distance from the sun is in fact 1/7700 of the distance to the 
very nearest star.

It really irks me to see such botched information go out in the popular 
press.  Those of us fascinated with space exploration can use all the 
publicity we can obtain to get the public excited about these things, 
but this kind of junk seems counterproductive.

/Don Lynn.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 18 October 1983 17:13:26 EDT
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
Subject: Geostar & Star Wars PAC
Message-ID: <1983.10.18.20.30.12.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

Two quotes from the 21 October 1983 issue of Science, page 304:

   [A] private company in Princeton, New Jersey, is trying to
establish itself in the very same [navigation satellite]
marketplace.  This is Geostar, headed by Gerard O'Neill, a
particle physicist, advocate of space industrialization, author
of the book 2081, and president of the Space Studies Institute in
Princeton.  With self-assurance, he says that Geostar---still a
concept more than a tangible thing---will not compete with
Navstar because it will be so much better and cheaper.

   O'Neill is reluctant to discuss his project just now, for he
has applied to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a
special allocation of radio frequencies, and the period of public
comment is still running.  When the docket closes later this
fall, he plans to hold a press conference and announce the
(presumably favorable) results of a test in California intended
to simulate the Geostar system.

   As disclosed in the FCC docket, Geostar would consist of three
satellites in geostationary orbit, a ground station with massive
computing facilities, and thousands of small transponders
operating at microwave frequency.  The latter would be used not
just by airplanes (O'Neill thinks this will be less than 10
percent of the market) but by rail cars, trucks, and ordinary
autos.  The fundamental difference between this system and
Navstar is that Navstar requires very sophisticated,
nontransmitting analytical equipment in each receiver, while
Geostar puts all the sophistication into the ground station.
Users would communicate with the station through ``stupid'' but
noisy transponders, each costing in the range of $200 to $400,
according to O'Neill.  Another important distinction is that
Navstar would tell the receiver its own location, while Geostar
would give this information to the receiver and a central
tracking office.

     ---Eliot Marshall

Comments: it would be a lot easier for Geostar to charge user fees
than Navstar or Navsat.  The price sounds great, but I'm not sure
I want a ``central tracking office'' to know where I am.  I hope
the frequencies aren't absorbed too heavily by water molecules:
aircraft would need the system most when flying through clouds.
-----
A PAC FOR STAR WARS

   The innumerable political action committees already gearing up
for Campaign 84 were joined last week by a new one: the American
Space Frontiers Committee (PAC), dedicated to making a program of
space-based missile defense known as the High Frontier strategy
``the prime defense issue in the 1984 elections.''

   The new PAC intends to help finance the campaigns of people
who support its goals.  The High Frontier strategy, which was
conceived well before President Reagan's ``Star Wars'' speech of
23 March, is the brainchild of retired Army Lieutenant General
Daniel O. Graham, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
director of High Frontier, Inc., in Washington, and chairman of
the new PAC.  Graham's program would start with a ground-based
missile defense system around MX silos (thereby contravening the
1972 treaty restricting antiballistic missiles), and then over
the next 10 to 15 years evolve toward a global system of 432
killer satellites that would destroy hostile ICBM's with
infrared-homing missiles, or perhaps with laser or particle-beam
weapons.  In addition, Graham's $35-billion plan calls for solar
power satellites, a high-capacity space shuttle, and a military
space station with provisions for ``fly-along'' of civilian
experiments.

   Graham, like Reagan, sees this kind of orbital defense system
as an alternative to the current defense strategy of Mutual
Assured Destruction.  His theme---``A strategy of Hope for
Americans and Free People Everywhere''---seems to have struck a
chord.  President of the new PAC is Robert Dornan, formerly a
Republican congressman from California and before that a
talk-show host in Los Angeles.  The host committee for the PAC's
inaugural breakfast meeting on 29 September included such
luminaries as former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, science fiction
author Robert A. Heinlein, Senator Jesse Helms (R--N.C.), the
Reverend Jerry Falwell, Admiral Thomas Moorer, Clair Booth Luce,
and Phyllis Schlafly.  Already, the new PAC has raised some
$100,000 toward its goal of $1 million.

     ---M. Mitchell Waldrop

Comment: Phyllis Schlafly?!

------------------------------

Date: 18 October 1983 22:53 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Solar Power Sattelites
To: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL @ MINET-NAP-EM
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, Howard.Gayle @ CMU-CS-G

I'm in favor of SPS, but I must point out a minor logical flaw in your
argument about microwave safety. You say the power level at the edge
of the rectenna is the same as outside a microwave oven. You fail to
mention that microwave ovens are used perhaps an hour a day at
the most, usually much less, whereas the SPS will be beaming down 24
hours a day. Thus I would expect the accumulated exposure of somebody
on the edge of the rectenna to be a couple orders of magnitude greater
than the accumulated exposure of an average microwave-oven owner and
still 24 times as much as worst-case microwave-oven owner. The
accumulated exposure in a town ten miles away from a ten-mile-diameter
rectenna would still be much stronger than a microwave-oven owner
would receive. I think the exposure would still be safe, but needs
further analysis to be sure.

------------------------------

Date: 18 October 1983 22:59 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: microscopic particles around sun??
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

On the front page of the October 15 issue of the Peninsula
Times-Tribune there's a computer enhanced photo of the Sun during
June's total eclipse in Indonesia, showing "a giant ring of
microscopic dust particles circling the sun ... 600,000 miles wide and
hovers 900,000 from the sun's surface". But the globs shown in the
picture are as large as the planet Jupiter, hardly microscopic. Is
this a giant fraud, or what??

------------------------------

Date:  18 October 1983 23:22 edt
From:  SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  space elevators
Sender:  SAI-relay.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
To:  space at MIT-MC
Original-date:  4 October 1983 19:07 edt
Local:  space at MIT-MC
*from:  SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS

This is just to make sure I understand the physics of these
things.  If in the initial state the object is sitting on the
surface of the earth with potential energy U0 and a kinetic
energy due to the earth's rotation of E0 and they wind up in
earth orbit with a potential energy of U and a kinetic energy
at orbital velocity of E then:

          U0 + E0 + X = U + E

where X is the energy which must be supplied by the space
elevator in some form.  In other words the space elevator needs
X energy (solar, structural, chemical, ... ) to operate.
Furthermore in an idealized situation this X is the same X as
would be involved in the equations for a conventional rocket
launch.

I imagine that the space elevator has a number of advantages:

     - the energy expenditure can be distributed better which
     allows a better control of the forces of the launch

     - this energy control also allows for a more efficient
     imparting of energy

     - the space elevator could be much safer than a rocket
     based system

     - the space elevator avoids many of the problems with
     atmospheric resistance early in the flight

I don't know how many of these are true nor do I know what the
major elevator arguments really are since a lot of semi-physics
(no calculations yet) gets bandied about.  Since a lot of
sensible people feel that the elevator is a good idea perhaps
someone could point out the main reasons it is preferable.  If
my initial statement of physics is incorrect I would appreciate
a better description of how this thing works than is made
available in the popular press.

                              Yours for the space station,

                                   Seth


 ---(2)---

------------------------------

Date:  18 October 1983 23:22 edt
From:  SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  space elevators
Sender:  SAI-relay.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
To:  space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Original-date:  4 October 1983 19:07 edt
Local:  space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC
*from:  SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS

This is just to make sure I understand the physics of these
things.  If in the initial state the object is sitting on the
surface of the earth with potential energy U0 and a kinetic
energy due to the earth's rotation of E0 and they wind up in
earth orbit with a potential energy of U and a kinetic energy
at orbital velocity of E then:

          U0 + E0 + X = U + E

where X is the energy which must be supplied by the space
elevator in some form.  In other words the space elevator needs
X energy (solar, structural, chemical, ... ) to operate.
Furthermore in an idealized situation this X is the same X as
would be involved in the equations for a conventional rocket
launch.

I imagine that the space elevator has a number of advantages:

     - the energy expenditure can be distributed better which
     allows a better control of the forces of the launch

     - this energy control also allows for a more efficient
     imparting of energy

     - the space elevator could be much safer than a rocket
     based system

     - the space elevator avoids many of the problems with
     atmospheric resistance early in the flight

I don't know how many of these are true nor do I know what the
major elevator arguments really are since a lot of semi-physics
(no calculations yet) gets bandied about.  Since a lot of
sensible people feel that the elevator is a good idea perhaps
someone could point out the main reasons it is preferable.  If
my initial statement of physics is incorrect I would appreciate
a better description of how this thing works than is made
available in the popular press.

                              Yours for the space station,

                                   Seth


 ---(2)---

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 83 13:59:12 PDT (Tue)
From: Katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay
Return-Path: <Katz%uci-750a.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: Story from the news wire: ASAT
To: Hamilton.ES@Parc-Maxc
Cc: Ron Goldman <ARG@Su-Ai>, Space@Mit-Mc, katz.Uci-750a@Rand-Relay
In-Reply-To: Your message of 17 Oct 83 17:41:21 PDT (Monday).
Via:  UCI; 18 Oct 83 17:03-PDT

I thought we had enough of attacking the speaker, instead of what he says.
The article may have been long and may have left out quite a bit which one
would like for balance, but it did not sound like a blatant propaganda piece.
This piece is an interesting complement to other pieces in the news, and as
such is interesting.  I believe that you are correct in that it is probably
not good journalism and I would hate to think of people making decisions
about ASATs solely on the basis of such reporting.  On the other hand, I
also think it is important for people to get this kind of perspective in
addition.  Maybe what we need is a summary of that paper which includes only
the vital facts which were not covered in the recent Scientific American
article, with an addendum describing the classes of faults in the news wire
article (e.g. Overlooking the dynamics of negotiation).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #16
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
		      More on solar power satellites
				   SPS
			   Re: space elevators
		     Secrecy at NASA; Things to come
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 19 October 1983 08:02:34 EDT
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
cc: dietz%USC-CSE.USC-CSE@Rand-Relay
Subject: More on solar power satellites
Message-ID: <1983.10.19.11.38.6.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

   Once again, I thank Dietz for putting his finger precisely on
the problem:
	I get the feeling reading your objections that you have started with
	the idea that SPS is bad because it is large and are trying to justify
	that belief.
This is nearly a correct summary of my views.  I like to think
I am a conservative engineer.  I object to any energy supply
system which is not conservative, in the engineering sense of the
word.  "Hard" systems all depend on very large, complex devices
and on applied and in some cases basic research
which has not yet been done.  "Soft" systems depend on well
understood, proven technology like insulation and microhydro.
I am not opposed to big or risky projects per se.  I support
space colonization, lunar and asteroid mining, the Desertron,
etc.  But for energy supply, which literally means the difference
between life and death, I think it is reckless to pin our hopes
on unproved technology or on systems where a single failure could
be disastrous.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 19 Oct 83 14:31:19-MDT
From: Bob Pendleton <Pendleton@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: SPS
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

  I'm not very worried about the technical problems of SPS, they look
solvable to me.  As for the area and isolation needed for the
rectenna, you could put one in the Utah salt flats with no problem, no
one near by, not much of an ecology, just many square miles of salt.
If you MUST have rectennas near major cities why not float them 20-30
miles off shore?  Most of the really big cities are near an ocean.

  The main problem I see is the possiblity of power sats being
negotiated away in arms limitation talks.  This may sound a little
crazy, but people are talking about putting gigawatt lasers in orbit,
those lasers have to get power somewhere.  The whole "star wars" "high
frontier" concept could be negotiated away and power stats with it.
Not to mention that I'm paranoid enough to think someone has already
come up with a whole list of military applications for a high energy
microwave beam.  Oh, well.

  As to developing electric airplanes and space shuttles, seems to me 
we already have.  Given enough electricity water can be converted into
liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, very nice fuels, thank you.

		Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 83 12:52:29 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: space elevators
In-reply-to: SSteinberg's message of 18 October 1983 23:22 edt
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

The chief advantage of the space elevator, or most rocket alternatives, 
is that you don't try to take your fuel with you.  Almost all the fuel 
in a launch rocket is used to lift itself, very little to directly raise 
the payload.  Avoid this and you get an incredible reduction in energy use.
/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 1983 13:56-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@MINET-NAP-EM
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Secrecy at NASA; Things to come
Via:  Usc-Cse; 20 Oct 83 01:00:29

An interesting thought about that IRAS business springs to mind.  Maybe
NASA is being secretive because IRAS has detected some asteroids in
very lucrative orbits.  Theoretically there could be asteroids
transportable to earth with a delta-v of 150 meters per second or less.
IRAS should be an excellent asteroid detector, yet I haven't heard any
such results.  Are they being hushed up?  Maybe we'll have a manned
asteroid mission in the next few years. (Returning with several tons of
platinum, perhaps?  I can hear South Africa and the USSR screaming
already...)

On a more mundane level, NASA may use IRAS's discoveries to push for a
space platform for storing liquid helium, or for a manned space station
and associated IR telescope.  Some sort of semi-permanent replacement
is clearly needed.

Can IRAS could detect mars-like planets around nearby stars?  The
atmosphere of Mars is known to act like a large CO2 laser:  light from
the sun pumps the CO2 molecules to higher energy states, causing the
atmosphere to emit much energy in a few narrow IR bands.

I wonder what the space telescope will find?  The age of extrasolar
planetary science has begun!

 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Oct-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #17
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
				  Idiot
	      Re: Halley's Comet Will Be Brighter This Time
			     space elevators
			Re: Solar Power Sattelites
		      More on solar power satellites
			 Still more SPS comments
			    Electric airplanes
				   SPS
		 Re: space elevators -- another advantage
			     space elevators
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 20 October 1983 07:06:55 EDT
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
cc: JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Idiot
Message-ID: <1983.10.20.10.52.24.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

   "Amory Lovins...is an idiot..."

   I regret that this discussion has deteriorated into ad hominem
attack.

   Putting all other arguments aside, consider the things a space
colony could do to make money: materials, ethical drugs,
communications, astronomy, SETI, remote sensing, tourism,
spacecraft construction, etc.  Should the case for space colonies
be based on one technology, solar power satellites, which is
clearly politically and environmentally controversial?  Why delay
10 years and enrich a lot of lawyers when we don't have to?
Space colonies intended for some purpose on which almost everyone
agrees have a much better chance of being built sooner.

------------------------------

Date: 20 October 1983 07:16 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Halley's Comet Will Be Brighter This Time
To: Lynn.es @ PARC-MAXC
cc: "TO:" @ MIT-MC, SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

I could quibble with you on one of your points. Halley's comet isn't
streaking, it's just drifting, most of the time. Only when it gets
near the Sun and is traveling very rapidly could it be referred to as
"streaking". The rest of the time it's just running or crawling or
sitting [sorry, couldn't resist private TENEX joke]. Thus the AP may
be sort of correct in saying the comet streaks through the solar
system every so often, although I agree it would have been more
correct if it had said it streaks through the INNER solar system every
so often.

------------------------------

Date: 20 October 1983 07:35 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: space elevators
To: SSteinberg.SoftArts @ MIT-MULTICS
cc: "TO:" @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC

Yes the energy actually applied to the rocket payload would be the
same with an elevator. There are two major differences:
 (1) Rockets are very inefficient, most of the fuel is wasted in the
exhaust, very little is applied to knetic energy of the rising rocket.
 (2) Much of the energy actually applied to the body of a rocket is
spent lifting fuel and rocket engines rather than payload. Typically
the whole rocket at launch weighs an order of magnitude more
than the payload, so even with a perfect rocket you'd get only about
10% overall efficiency.

The combination of these two inefficiencies means very very little of
the energy in the rocket fuel actually gets applied to the payload.
With electric elevators you get nearly 100% efficiency from
electricity to payload-motion, and the way you make the electricity in
the first place is highly efficient too, much more efficient than the
burning of rocket fuel is.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 1983 9:57-PDT
From: dietz.usc-cse@Rand-Relay
Return-Path: <dietz%USC-CSE.USC-CSE@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: Solar Power Sattelites
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: Howard.Gayle@cmu-cs-g
Via:  USC-CSE; 20 Oct 83 2:13-PDT

Some additional comments on Gayle's objections to SPS:

   There are much simpler and "softer" ways to provide space and
   process heat.

I heartily disagree.  The alternatives to electricity for industrial
process heat are fossil fuels (dirty, expensive and limited),
geothermal, ground based solar or biomass.  Tests of ground based solar
for industrial process heat have failed resoundingly (see a recent
issue of Mechanical Engineering for a review).  Biomass quickly runs
into absurdities when you try to scale it up: because plants are such
inefficient energy collectors massive amounts of land are needed,
yielding high costs and seriously affecting the biosphere.  The
economics of ethanol are very dubious because of distillation costs
(witness the failure of gasohol).  Geothermal is too limited, is more
expensive and is somewhat polluting.

As for space heating, it has become pretty clear that active solar
heaters are uneconomical (unless you can get the government to pay for
them through tax loopholes or whatever).  The best that can be done is
to superinsulate homes and offices;  the economics of this approach
remain to be seen.  Replacing the current stock of buildings will take
time (the time to replace 50% of the homes in the US is 50 years) and
will reduce total consumption of energy only a little.

  Electric cars are still waiting for breakthrough in batteries.

True.  There are alternatives, though.  A nifty idea is a car fueled by
liquid nitrogen (!) heated by a small heat source (say, a hydrogen
flame) to 700 degrees then run though a gas turbine.  The result is a
car that produces very little pollution and gives a very smooth quite
ride.  Much less hydrogen (or whatever) is required than in
conventional engines, so the hydrogen can be economically stored in
metal hydrides.  Liquid nitrogen costs about ten cents per gallon
today, although this price is so low becuase the LN is a byproduct of
LOX production for the steel industry.  See the latest High Technology
(I think) for a short article on this idea.  Significant progress has
been made in the field of batteries (see the latest American Scientist
for an article on one promising type).  Hydrogen is a feedstock for
synfuel production, so maybe cars will use methanol (say) made with
hydrogen produced with SPS power.  Aircraft buring hydrogen have been
designed (but not built); aircraft could also burn synthetic
hydrocarbons.  Hydrogen can very easily substitute for natural gas;
indeed, hydrogen is better, because it can be burned more cleanly
without flame on a platinum catalyst, even at very low hydrogen flow
rates, making it ideal for cooking and warming food.  Heat pumps would
probably be better for home heating, though.

  The US wouldn't even need much additional electricity if it built
  a high speed electrified railroad system...

Rail transport is already near it upper speed limits because of track
alignment problems.  The tracks for bullet trains in Japan, for
example, are realigned every night(!), imposing high labor costs.  I
might agree if you are talking about magnetic flight transportation, at
least as far as transportation energy costs are concerned.

   Providing the U. S. with massive amounts of new energy will only
   delay for a few generations the inevitable population,
   resources, and environmental disasters.  We'll be better off
   if we deal with those problems now, while there's still a
   reasonable amount of land, water, and air left.

Who said SPS and ecological concern are mutually exclusive?  I'd rather
have lots of cheap clean energy AND a clean environment.

Building powersats will aid maintaining a clean environment.  Cheap
energy will make it easier and cheaper to recycle needed elements and
destroy dangerous chemicals.  SPS will eliminate incentives (such as
they are) for building nuclear power plants.  SPS will reduce acid rain
from coal fired plants.  SPS has the least thermal pollution of any
energy source, since the rectenna is some 90-95% efficient.  Cheap
energy will reduce manufacturing costs, raising the relative value of
other resources, such as a clean environment.  Cheap siderophiles from
the asteroids will reduce the cost of pollution controls (catalytic
converters, for instance, use platinum, paladium and rhodium).

Conversely, I don't see how not developing SPS could possibly help
prevent overpopulation, resource depletion and environmental disaster.
Cheap energy is necessary to significantly raise standards of living in
third world countries, decreasing the birth rate.  The shear magnitude
of the problem is apparent when one considers the amount of energy
needed to supply the world of the year 2000 at (say) half of current US
per-capita levels.  Conventional energy sources (including biomass and
ground based solar) would produce enough waste heat to potentially
alter the climate.

I get the feeling reading your objections that you have started with
the idea that SPS is bad because it is large and are trying to justify
that belief.  Indeed, I get the idea from your last objection that you
would object to ANY cheap source of energy, be it solar, fusion, or
whatever, no matter how clean it is, because it would seduce people
away from a limits-to-growth philosophy.

I recommend you read O'Neill's book "2081" for a lucid analysis of the
energy problem.

------------------------------

Date: 20 October 1983 07:49 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: More on solar power satellites
To: Howard.Gayle @ CMU-CS-G
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, dietz%USC-CSE.USC-CSE @ RAND-RELAY

I think you are overlooking one simple fact, that we don't plan to
supply 100% of our energy from a single SPS. In fact we don't plan to
supply 100% of our energy from a whole bunch of SPSs. If we did, then
if an SPS failed it's be death for a lot of people. But if we get our
energy from many different places no one failure can totally destroy
our electric supply nor even disasteriously reduce it.

Present we get too much of our energy from MidEast petroleum, so when
they cut off the supply we suffer greatly. But even so, we don't die
in mass numbers. If 10% of our total energy was from an SPS, and it
failed, the disaster wouldn't be as bad as the 1974 oil embargo, i.e.
we could easily survive it. If that 10% from SPS replaced some oil
imports, it'd mean next time here's an embargo we'd suffer even less
than we did in 1974. (I'd also like to see perhaps 20% of our energy
from nuclear power plants, again replacing an equal amount of imported
oil and/or coal burning; coal fumes kill people and resultant acid
rain kills fish in Canada and must be stopped!)

So let's add one more source of energy (SPS) to our repertory, so we
have more flexibility in response when one of the sources goes away
temporarily (MidEast embargo etc.) or permanently (coal is outlawed).
If it turns out in practice that SPS is safer than other forms of
energy, perhaps we can increase our dependence on SPS to 30% or maybe
even 40% (with more than one SPS up there and more than one rectenna
down here of course, same as we have more than one nuclear power plant
and more than one hydroelectric dam etc.).

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 1983 7:32-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@MINET-NAP-EM
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Still more SPS comments
Via:  Usc-Cse; 20 Oct 83 08:37:37

REM is not correct when he says the microwave exposure in a town 10
miles from a rectenna will be high.  The intensity decays
*exponentially* with the square of the distance from the rectenna; at
ten miles it should be very low.  I just mentioned the figure at the
edge of the rectenna (where the intensity is that outside a microwave
oven) to give some numbers; of course no one will live there.

Josh: Land use is a major reason for going to SPS (vs ground based
solar).  True, the energy density of the microwave beam is a fraction
of sunlight, but: (1) we can convert that energy to electricity with
90-95% efficiency (compared to maybe 20%-25% with photovoltaics), (2)
the power beam operates nearly 100% of the time and clouds don't affect
it, so the total land area we need to cover is only 1/10 to 1/8 that of
ground based solar schemes.  Most importantly, (3) the rectenna is
light weight and is made mostly of near transparent wire mesh, so crops
can be grown under it.  One can imagine a combination rectenna-
greenhouse for growing fresh vegetables near large cities.
Illuminating these green houses could be an excellent use of the energy
the rectenna recieves during off peak hours (i.e., at night); also,
properly designed greenhouses would be much less polluting than
conventional agriculture (no fertilizer or pesticide runoff).  Since
the rectenna will reflect back to space or dissipate as heat all energy
not converted to electricity you *could* live under it, if you wanted
to.  Probably you'd want to put your high energy industry under or near
the rectenna and live elsewhere.  If land becomes extremely valuable
then rectennas can be floated at sea or (just conceivably) floated in
the stratosphere on balloons (allowing much higher beam intensities and
smaller rectennas because you don't have to worry about airplanes or
birds).

-- Paul Dietz

 

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 83 16:56:05 PDT (Thursday)
From: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Electric airplanes
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

A solar powered electric airplane has already been demonstrated.  The
Gossamer Albatross group combined their construction techniques with
some leftover NASA Solar panels.  $250K for the top of the wing, $6 of
Mylar for the bottom.  I think they flew it from Paris to England.

------------------------------

Date: 21 October 1983 00:00 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Subject: SPS
To: REM @ MIT-MC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KFL @ MIT-MC

  The effects of microwave exposure are not cumulative.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 20 Oct 83 18:11:28 PDT (Thu)
From: Katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay
Return-Path: <Katz%uci-750a.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: space elevators -- another advantage
To: Lynn.es@Parc-Maxc
Cc: Space-Enthusiasts@Mit-Mc, katz.Uci-750a@Rand-Relay
In-Reply-To: Your message about SSteinberg's message
Via:  UCI; 20 Oct 83 19:01-PDT

Although the chief advantage of rocket alternatives is that you don't have
to lift the fuel, energy recycling is another advantage.  With two way
transfers (i.e. missions which eventually return), some lifting methods can
act like an energy bank.  You make a withdrawal when going put (up in the
gravity well), and you return most of what you withdrew when you return.
For a space elevator and some other systems, payloads going down help to
supply energy for the payloads going up.  Admittedly, some energy is almost
always lost and one can't always store up enough between launches.

Thus, SSteinberg's summary of Newtonian mechanics of launch are correct, but
neglect the change in mass due to fuel burning.  You reminded him about the
mass change, but neglected energy recycling.  Is there anything else we left
out?

------------------------------

Date: 21 October 1983 02:15 EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  space elevators
To: SSteinberg.SoftArts @ MIT-MULTICS
cc: SASW @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Oct 1983 23:22 edt from SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS

Seth,

I think your physical description of "space elevators" leaves out some
important facts, but I am not sure if this is reflected in your energy
equations.

1.  The energy expended is NOT the same as a rocket launch.  A rocket
launch must expend energy to carry the payload to orbit and more energy
to carry the energy-to-carry-the-payload along with the payload.  An
elevator can carry the latter in the elevator shaft.  Thus, the space
elevator is more efficient in carrying things to orbit.

2.  The energy expended is "stored" in the payload's new position in the
Earth's gravity well, and can be recovered.  The object can be driven
DOWN the elevator, generating energy via flywheels or electromagnetic
generators.  The structure of the elevator makes this possible, where a
rocket-based means of propulsion would not.  In fact, a space elevator
can be (ideally) driven completely by energy recovered from objects
"dropped" from deep space or even lunar orbit.

-- Steve

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Oct-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #18
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
			Columbia Rollout Wednesday
		 Re: space elevators -- another advantage
			   Shuttle on shortwave
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #17
	     (elevators) "is there anything else we left out?
			  The millisecond pulsar
			  The millisecond pulsar
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 83 14:27:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Columbia Rollout Wednesday

The Columbia will be rolled to pad 39A this Wednesday, beginning
at 0730 EDT, NASA said today.  The launch of STS-9 is still
scheduled for 28 October.

------------------------------

Date: 21 October 1983 09:05 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: space elevators -- another advantage
To: Katz.uci-750a @ RAND-RELAY
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC, Lynn.es @ PARC-MAXC

Indeed, if a space elevator (or rotating skyhook) is designed to
recover energy on descending payloads, then it would be
self-supporting energywise because when we start processing asteroids
for Earth-consumed materials more stuff will be coming to Earth than
leaving Earth on the elevator/hook, and with reasonable efficiency the
energy recovered from descending materials should exceed the energy
needed for ascending people and equipment.

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 21 October 1983 11:24:52 EDT
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
Subject: Shuttle on shortwave
Message-ID: <1983.10.21.15.22.17.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

According to Radio Nederland, during STS-8 NASA relayed shuttle
voice on 20.192 MHz lower sideband.  The frequency may be used
during the next mission.  Note that this is not a ham relay.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 1983 1244-EDT
From: Nena B. Bauman <NBB@MIT-XX>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #17
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
In-Reply-To: Your message of 21-Oct-83 0304-EDT

Please take my name of the "Space Digest" mailing list.  Thank you.
			-Nena Bauman (nbb@mit-xx)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 1983 0852-PDT
From: Richard M. King <KING at KESTREL>
Subject: (elevators) "is there anything else we left out?
To: space at MIT-MC


	Yes, there is.

	In an elevator from the ground to geostationary orbit or above, much
of the energy comes from the Earth's rotation.  (I think it would take us a
long time before use of this energy source had a noticable effect.  Long before
this we could "ground" some asteroids to compensate.)

						Dick
-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 1983 10:20-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: The millisecond pulsar
Via:  Usc-Cse; 21 Oct 83 11:36:58

Last year the pulsar PSR 1937+214 was discovered.  It has a period of
1.5578 milliseconds (642 rps);  its equator moves at 20% of the speed
of light!

The November Astronomy magazine has a piece on proposed theories for
the origin of the pulsar.  The object appears to have a very small
magnetic field, is not associated with a supernova remnant and is
spinning down very slowly.  These would be the signs of an old pulsar
-- except it spins much too fast!  In addition it appears to be alone
(not a member of a multiple star system).  If it were in a multiple
star system its motion could be detected by changes in the arrival
times of its pulses.

Earlier theories involved a pulsar forming in a binary system;  the
pulsar would then spin down and lose its magnetic field; then, its
companion would expand and matter would accrete onto the pulsar,
spinning it up again.  The companion would then itself explode,
disrupting the system.  Unfortunately the numbers don't come out
correctly; the companion would have to be so heavy it would supernova
too quickly to spin up the pulsar.

The new theory is this:  the system was originally a binary system with
two similar large stars.  They supernovaed near the same time, forming
two close neutron stars.  If the stars are close enough the orbit will
decay by the emmision of gravitational radiation.  At least one such
system is known today; the orbits are indeed decaying at precisely the
rate predicted by general relativity.

After some time (hundreds of millions of years) the two neutron stars
will be orbiting each other almost in contact with a period of about
one millisecond.  Tidal forces then destroy the smaller star,
transfering matter to the larger one.  At some point the smaller
neutron star is too small to remain a neutron star: it reverts to
normal electronic matter and torn apart.  Theory predicts the remaining
star emits gravity waves until its period is about 1.5 milliseconds,
which is nicely confirmed by observation.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 1983 10:20-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: The millisecond pulsar
Via:  Usc-Cse; 21 Oct 83 11:36:58

Last year the pulsar PSR 1937+214 was discovered.  It has a period of
1.5578 milliseconds (642 rps);  its equator moves at 20% of the speed
of light!

The November Astronomy magazine has a piece on proposed theories for
the origin of the pulsar.  The object appears to have a very small
magnetic field, is not associated with a supernova remnant and is
spinning down very slowly.  These would be the signs of an old pulsar
-- except it spins much too fast!  In addition it appears to be alone
(not a member of a multiple star system).  If it were in a multiple
star system its motion could be detected by changes in the arrival
times of its pulses.

Earlier theories involved a pulsar forming in a binary system;  the
pulsar would then spin down and lose its magnetic field; then, its
companion would expand and matter would accrete onto the pulsar,
spinning it up again.  The companion would then itself explode,
disrupting the system.  Unfortunately the numbers don't come out
correctly; the companion would have to be so heavy it would supernova
too quickly to spin up the pulsar.

The new theory is this:  the system was originally a binary system with
two similar large stars.  They supernovaed near the same time, forming
two close neutron stars.  If the stars are close enough the orbit will
decay by the emmision of gravitational radiation.  At least one such
system is known today; the orbits are indeed decaying at precisely the
rate predicted by general relativity.

After some time (hundreds of millions of years) the two neutron stars
will be orbiting each other almost in contact with a period of about
one millisecond.  Tidal forces then destroy the smaller star,
transfering matter to the larger one.  At some point the smaller
neutron star is too small to remain a neutron star: it reverts to
normal electronic matter and torn apart.  Theory predicts the remaining
star emits gravity waves until its period is about 1.5 milliseconds,
which is nicely confirmed by observation.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #19
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:
			  The millisecond pulsar
	     atmospheric effects of interplanetary migration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 1983 10:20-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: The millisecond pulsar
Via:  Usc-Cse; 21 Oct 83 11:36:58

Last year the pulsar PSR 1937+214 was discovered.  It has a period of
1.5578 milliseconds (642 rps);  its equator moves at 20% of the speed
of light!

The November Astronomy magazine has a piece on proposed theories for
the origin of the pulsar.  The object appears to have a very small
magnetic field, is not associated with a supernova remnant and is
spinning down very slowly.  These would be the signs of an old pulsar
-- except it spins much too fast!  In addition it appears to be alone
(not a member of a multiple star system).  If it were in a multiple
star system its motion could be detected by changes in the arrival
times of its pulses.

Earlier theories involved a pulsar forming in a binary system;  the
pulsar would then spin down and lose its magnetic field; then, its
companion would expand and matter would accrete onto the pulsar,
spinning it up again.  The companion would then itself explode,
disrupting the system.  Unfortunately the numbers don't come out
correctly; the companion would have to be so heavy it would supernova
too quickly to spin up the pulsar.

The new theory is this:  the system was originally a binary system with
two similar large stars.  They supernovaed near the same time, forming
two close neutron stars.  If the stars are close enough the orbit will
decay by the emmision of gravitational radiation.  At least one such
system is known today; the orbits are indeed decaying at precisely the
rate predicted by general relativity.

After some time (hundreds of millions of years) the two neutron stars
will be orbiting each other almost in contact with a period of about
one millisecond.  Tidal forces then destroy the smaller star,
transfering matter to the larger one.  At some point the smaller
neutron star is too small to remain a neutron star: it reverts to
normal electronic matter and torn apart.  Theory predicts the remaining
star emits gravity waves until its period is about 1.5 milliseconds,
which is nicely confirmed by observation.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 83 9:00:43-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: atmospheric effects of interplanetary migration

 Solid fuel rocket motors certainly deposit micron-sized spheres
into the atmosphere. I believe that these spherules, which are mostly
alumina have a fairly short life before drifting down if they come from
first stage motors (a la Space Shuttle).
Such motors used higher up might well create a problem.

...!vax135!ukc!dgd

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #20
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
		    Discovery Delivery May Be Delayed
		practical use for space, supernova defense
		       Re: NASA anniversary - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 83 3:33:16-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxi!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Discovery Delivery May Be Delayed

If the launch of the Columbia is delayed due to the SRB problem
and NASA has to roll it back to the VAB, there won't be enough
room for the Discovery (the Challenger is in the other hangar).
Therefore, NASA is now considering postponing the delivery of
the Discovery to KSC, now set for a week from today (Friday).

------------------------------

Date: 23 October 1983 23:58 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: practical use for space, supernova defense
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Suppose Betelguese goes supernova in the next century, bathing Earth
with intense ultraviolet rays and other nasties. Suppose we have
developed space sufficiently that we can put a protective barrier
between Betelguese and Earth, blocking all direct radiation so we get
only the charged particles that manage to swerve around our barracade.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 83 22:03:17-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA anniversary - (nf)

#R:utzoo:-324800:uicsl:11100017:000:126
uicsl!wombat    Oct 18 20:23:00 1983

Whether the true anniversary is on the 1st or 23rd, I don't know, but
NASA is planning to have a big celebration on the 23rd.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #21
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
	       re: Kaplan article on anti-satellite weapons
		     comments on failed technologies
		     Re: Consequences of STS-9 delay
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 1983 1719-EST
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space%mit-mc at MIT-ML
Subject: re: Kaplan article on anti-satellite weapons
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 11969738946.13.583.5539 at DEC-MARLBORO>

A few issues back someone complained about the article on anti-satellite
weapons by Fred Kaplan that came out in the Boston Globe.
Far from being a propaganda piece, the article 
summarizes a lot of people's concerns.  The September issue of
Spectrum magazine was devoted to the space program, and that the same theme
came up over and over again.  If we start developing anti-satellite weapons,
we will lose what small arms-control verification capabilities we have,
we will be plunged into another spiral of the arms race, and we will 
endanger peaceful uses of outer space.  
    Even on purely military grounds, a treaty forbidding anti-satellite weapons
would be a good idea. Our military satellites let us know what the Russians are
doing. ASAT weapons would help us prevent the Russians from knowing what we are
doing, but American security is so bad that it wouldn't help us much.   On the
other hand, their ASAT weapons would destroy our main means of reconnaissance. 
By developing ASATs we would be killing our own reconnaissance efforts and
hardly hurting theirs.  Not a good tradeoff.   
    The present Russian weapons are unreliable and unable to reach the
altitudes of our military satellites. They do not pose much of a threat. 
By negotiating a treaty now,  we can preserve a valuable military resource,
and keep civilian space use from being threatened.  If the Soviet embassy is
putting out this kind of common sense, then perhaps, just this once, we
ought to listen.
 
John Redford
DEC-Hudson

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 1983 1133-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space%mit-mc at MIT-ML
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: comments on failed technologies
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 11962062783.18.583.5234 at DEC-MARLBORO>

A little while ago I heard an interesting talk given by Don Pederson,
chairman of the EE and CS departments at UC Berkeley.  His subject was
"VLSI in perspective", but some of his comments on how technologies can
fail are relevant to what we've been discussing on SPACE.  
     Integrated circuits have been around now for some twenty years.  A
terrific variety of technologies have come and gone.  Pederson listed
some of the ones that he considered to be failures:

- Silicon on Sapphire MOS promised much greater speeds than regular MOS by
reducing the parasitic capacitances on the chip.

- Charge-coupled devices were to be the first means of getting 64K bits
of RAM on a chip.

- Magnetic bubbles were going to give us non-volatile storage without
moving parts.

- Josephson junctions switched orders of magnitude faster than regular
transistors.  However, IBM has recently cancelled their research program in
them (or so Pederson claimed). 

When he looked back on what things failed he noted a number of common patterns:

- Oversell on advantages.  Josephson junctions were going to blow all other 
computer technologies out of the water, even though they needed liquid helium
cooling, were difficult to fabricate, and difficult to connect to room 
temperature peripherals.

- Wrong market choice.  Why use magnetic bubbles when floppies are so cheap?
They were going for a replacement market rather than generating a new one.
That meant that the existing technology had a vast lead on them.

- Soon, major problems emerged with the new technology.  It turned out to be
difficult to fabricate complex chips with silicon on sapphire MOS, because
the sapphire substrate was full of defects, and expensive to boot.  Because
these technologies were out of the mainstream of research, not much effort
could be focussed on solving their particular problems.  If you have a thousand
people working on improving a mainstream technology, and ten working on this
specialized one, then the specialized one is quickly left behind.

The final result is slow death.  Bubbles still have proponents, as does
silicon on sapphire, but they are clearly dropping out of the race.  The
market is a moving target; if you shoot for a narrow market niche it will
be gone by the time your R and D is finished.
    
Let's judge, say, asteroid mining by these criteria.  Sure, there are 
potentially vast mineral resources out there (oversell on advantages).
But products like steel are bulky and not particularly valuable
(wrong market choice), and already well served by Earthside industries
(led by an existing technology).  The means for getting the material
back is not developed (major problems soon emerge), and only NASA and
its Russian equivalent can work on them, whereas everybody in the
world is working on regular steel production.

A better alternative would be advanced materials processing.  Go for the
ceramics and alloys that can only be made in space, but can open up 
entirely new product possibilities.  Glass, for instance, is brittle
because of surface defects.  Fiberglass gets its strength because the
fibers can be made very cleanly.  In weightlessness, large pieces of glass
could be cast without ever touching the crucible walls.  Their strength
and toughness could approach that of metals, while keeping their
high temperature properties and transparency.  Let's go for the radical,
imagination-stretching applications, and not try to attack the turf of
old, entrenched industries.

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

------------------------------

Date: 22 Oct 83 18:44:23-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Consequences of STS-9 delay
In-Reply-To: Article <2242@alice.UUCP>

I thought I would pass on some information that I have recently learned that
answered my own question about the possible effects of a STS-9 delay until
February on the planned launch of the Challenger in January.  The answer:
None.  According to NASA administrator James Beggs, in an interview with
WPRB radio here in Princeton, the Challenger will be unaffected by the
Columbia/Spacelab delay even if it is to last until February.
     One of the reasons that the Challenger mission (at one time called STS-11)
will be unaffected is that the planned November STS-10 mission was cancelled
due to IUS (Inertial Upper Stage) problems.  It's a sad state when one problem
causes the cancellation of a mission, giving subsequent missions' problems 
more time for resolution.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #22
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
			   Yukon vs. Antartica
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 25 Oct 83 09:35:20-PDT
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Yukon vs. Antartica
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA

	I'm not so sure that the Yukon was a very good counterargument to the
analogy of the Antartic to space colonization.  Even with the gold and the
Alaska highway (and what I believe is a much more temperate climate), the
entire Yukon territory still has a good deal fewer than 20,000 people in it.
That wouldn't accomodate the population overflow of the single suburb of San
Francisco in which I live (Redwood City), let alone the earth.
--Christopher

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #23
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:
		       Spacelab article in Science
			 Re: Failed Technologies
		     comments on failed technologies
		Re: Solar Power Satellites / soft vs. hard
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 26 Oct 83 13:36:14-EDT
From: Art Evans <Evans%TARTAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Subject: Spacelab article in Science
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA

The October 28 issue of Science magazine (the publication of AAAS) has
on pages 405-407 a report "Spacelab: Science on the Shuttle" which
summarizes the present status of Spacelab.  As usual for Science, there
is a good discussion of the history and politics of the situation.

Art Evans/Tartan Labs
-------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 1983 11:43-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Re: Failed Technologies
Via:  Usc-Cse; 26 Oct 83 12:37:34

The message about failed technologies is well taken.  We should
definitely look for technologies that are impossible on the ground but
feasible in orbit.

Asteroid mining was given as an example of a technology in direct
competition with ground based industry, and therefore not likely to
succeed.  This is incorrect.  No one has suggested that the asteroids
are a near-term economical source of iron or other common elements for
use on the ground.  At the very most rare, high value siderophiles
such as platinum could be returned to earth.

The real use of asteroidal (or lunar) material is as raw material for
building large space structures.  In space the cost advantage of
terrestrial materials is nullified.  Any large industry in space will
require mass for factories, power supplies, raw materials, etc.  Once
this mass becomes sufficiently large the use of extraterrestrial
materials will become economical.

Extraterrestrial mining is a "secondary" industry that will support
primary space industries, such as zero-g material processing, high
vacuum processes, solar power collection and so on.  ET-mining will be
economical (and perhaps necessary) should *any* of these industries
become very large.

An idea I heard of for space processing:  depositing high purity
silicon on large plastic sheets.  On earth the very high vacuum
required could not be maintained for economically reasonable deposition
rates; space provides an essentially infinite pumping capacity and much
higher vacuum.  Perhaps much larger & cheaper photovoltaic cells can be
made this way?

 

------------------------------

Date: 27 October 1983 02:47 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  comments on failed technologies
To: VLSI @ DEC-MARLBORO
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

You may be correct. Perhaps at this time we should concentrate on
novel applications (x-ray telscopes, true zero-gee science-fiction
movies, ...) and existing applications that are much too expensive
when done on Earth (pure pharmaceuticals, ...) and leave the more
mundane things (bulk platinum from the Moon, energy from the Sun
beamed or fuel-delivered to Earth, ...) for later after we've
established a foothold in space.

------------------------------

Date: 27 October 1983 03:06 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites / soft vs. hard
To: Howard.Gayle @ CMU-CS-G
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I don't think that receiving electricity from space (or oil from the
mideast) is analagous to somebody telling you what temperature you are
allowed in your home. It's more analagous to somebody building a
thermostat and offering it for installation (rather than you having to
build your own) or somebody providing a power grid that you may buy
electricity from (rather than you having to run your own generator).

Consider the supermarket vs backyard garden. You have the choice what
to eat, the supermarket offers a choice that in most cases is better
than what you can grow in your locality, still you can grow your own
food if you really want. Most of us will prefer the cheap SPS power
and the national power grid rather than insisting on our own private
windmill or wood-burning stove.

Television can perhaps control you, with the program content an
commercials brainwashing you to suit the advertiser's desires, with
virtually no use for the aired material other than what the advertiser
wants. The only choice you have is to watch or not to watch. But
electricity is a flexible commodity that you can use for just about
whatevr energy-intensive use you want. I don't see how the people who
provide you with electricity can control your use other than limiting
the gross amount you use.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #24
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
				   FWC
		    Re: IRAS discoveries kept secret?
			     Rollback to VAB
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 27 Oct 83 09:24:30-MDT
From: Bob Pendleton <Pendleton@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: FWC
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

  As far as I have been able to find out the FWC ( Filament Wound Case
) is a direct replacement for the steel case currently being used in
the space shuttle SRBs.  The FWC is the same size, has the same mating
hardware, takes the same pressure, and is loaded with the same
propellant by the same manufacturer as the steel case that it
replaces.  The differences are that the FWC is much lighter than
the steel case and more expensive than the steel case.

  The claim is that the reduced weight of the FWCs will produce a 30
to 50 percent increase in shuttle payload.  In the near future it
looks like the Air Force will be the main user of FWCs, but if
civilian payloads keep increasing in size then NASA will need FWCs to
meet the payload requirements.

  The last meeting of the Utah chapter of the AIAA had speakers from
Hercules and Thiokol talking about the early history of large solid
fuel rockets.  It seems the basic technology used in the steel case
SRBs was developed in the late 50s, early 60s, as part of the
Minuteman missile first stage development project.  The basic
technology for the FWCs was developed in the same time frame as part
of the Polaris missile third stage development.  Both technologies
have been in constant use and undergoing refinement for over 20 years.
Both technologies have produced engines that worked perfectly after
being stored for ~20 years.  Except for the size of the beasts the
SRBs are based on late 50s technology.

		Bob Pendleton
-------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 83 9:55:20 PDT (Thursday)
From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: IRAS discoveries kept secret?
In-reply-to: ??'s message of last week
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Someone (whose message I have erased) on this distribution recently 
surmised that the IRAS satellite people were hiding their asteroid 
discoveries, at least the ones near enough to mine in the future.  
In case anyone took this seriously, we now have one data point 
contradicting this.  

IAU circular 3878, dated Oct 14, announces the discovery of an asteroid 
with the temporary designation 1983TB.  It was found on observations by 
IRAS on Oct 11, and confirmed optically by Kowal at Palomar on Oct 12 
and 13.  At the time of the circular, the observation time was too short 
and the observations not measured accurately enough to establish an orbit.  
However, it was a fast moving object (almost 3 degrees per day), which 
indicates it passes near earth.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 83 19:20:08-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Rollback to VAB

The Columbia was rolled back to the VAB today, where it
will be demated from its external tank and SRB assembly.
Then, the shuttle will be moved back to the OPF, where
batteries will be recharged and Spacelab checked, and
the nozzle of the righthand SRB will be replaced.  The
whole thing will be reassembled by 6 November, and NASA
expects to be able to roll it back out to the pad by
the 10th (if the launch is to go off on the 28th; the
final decision on the launch date won't come for another week)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Oct-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #25
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:
			Launch Date Still Not Set
	   Re: (elevators) "is there anything else we left out?
			     The Right Stuff
			  clock synchronization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 83 8:08:51-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxi!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Launch Date Still Not Set

NASA and the ESA put off until around 1 November the setting
of the STS-9 launch date.  Engineers are preparing the Columbia
to be ready to launch on 28 November, but the two agencies might
opt to wait until February, when conditions will be better for
Spacelab.  If that happens, Spacelab will have to be removed
from the Columbia and moved to KSC's Operations and Checkout
Building for ''storage and maintenance.''

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 83 7:37:17-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!rene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: (elevators) "is there anything else we left out?
In-Reply-To: Article <12862@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Just out of curiousity, has anyone thought about what such an elevator
would look like? It would be AWESOME - imagine, a slender (I don't
care how wide it is - it would look slender) column stretching up to
infinity. What a breathtaking sight! How wide WOULD it be? What a
tourist trap (where is the best location?)!

			*gasp*
			  - rene
-- 
Arpa:   rene.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!rene

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 1983 19:56:13-PDT
From: CCVAX.trest@Nosc
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

Please Add Me to your List.  THANKS!!

	trest@nosc
	trest@nosc-tecr

	Mike Trest
	4065 Hancock Street
	San Diego, Ca 92110
	(619)225-1980

------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 83 11:17:05-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: The Right Stuff

"The Right Stuff", while it is a very good movie, was something of a
disappointment to me.  Perhaps I was expecting too much because of my
special fascination with the subject matter but then again I think the
movie does not wholeheartedly succeed even for those with lesser expectations.

Nothing but the highest praise can be given Phil Kaufman for his direction
and (to a much lesser degree) writing.  His skill is evident in virtually
every scene.  These scenes work far better in the movie than they did in
Tom Wolfe's book.  The failing point of the movie is that it is too much
like Wolfe's writing.  I perceive this to be the fault of the editors.
"The Right Stuff" had FIVE editors, and it looks like they all worked
independently, throwing their edited footage together at random.  There is
no coherence, no fluidity to this movie.  Some points are repeated all too
often while others (which needed to be made) are all but ignored.  I should
also mention that Kaufman could have written it better had he not used so
many "Wolfe-isms".  Wolfe's unique style, while rather interesting to read,
just grates on the ears when one hears the words spoken.

On the acting level, the movie is excellent considering the difficulties
inherent in a story with no main character.  They've chosen to emphasize
John Glenn, Alan Shepard, and Gordon Cooper at the expense of Wally Schirra
and Deke Slayton.  If you see the movie, count the number of lines spoken
by Schirra (Lance Henriksen) and Slayton (Scott Paulin)--you'll be surprised
how small the number really is.  But this is all but unavoidable here.
The actors themselves are all very good, most notably Ed Harris (as John
Glenn), Sam Shepard (as Chuck Yeager), Scott Glenn (as Alan Shepard), and
Fred Ward (as Gus Grissom).  Dennis Quaid (as Gordon Cooper) and Charles
Frank (as Scott Carpenter) should not be forgotten for their more than
adequate performances, and as I've said Henriksen and Paulin just weren't
given enough opportunity to show how well they can act.

Credit for the story has to be given to Wolfe.  He has done an incomparable
job of presenting a side of the first seven astronauts seldom seen before
his book was published.  He has also shown how much effect these men had
on the direction and philosophy of the manned space program.  The movie
does a better job than the book does in showing how the similarities and
differences in these seven personalities contributed to this end.  

There is little noteworthy about the special effects.  They are more
"artsy" than accurate and, while pleasing to look at, detracted from the
authenticity of the movie.  I do have to give credit for the achievement
of depicting aircraft in flight when years have passed since the last of
these relics actually flew.  There are many inaccuracies and inconsistencies
which aviation fans will spot easily.

They have also gone too far with the humor in this movie.  I disagree with
Walter Cronkite that they made LBJ look like a buffoon--while very funny,
I think it was probably not too far off target.  But they depict government
workers and German scientists collectively by caricaturizing them.  This
time could have been better spent giving the viewer more historical details
of the Mercury program.

One thing I will say for this movie is that it did not bore me.  The three
hours (plus!) passed by more quickly than two often do, even faster than
another long (but good) movie such as "Gandhi".  I do recommend it,
particularly to those who read Wolfe's book and didn't hate it.

***% (that's three and one half stars out of four)
-- 
		Roger Noe		...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 83 8:49:18-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houxn!4341gbs @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: clock synchronization

There is an article in the 24 October issue of PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
(Vol. 51, p. 1501) by Cohen, Moses and Rosenblum on

"Clock-Transport Synchronization in Noninertial Frames and Gravitational Fields"

"It is shown that electromagnetic and clock-transport synchronization
procedures are not necessarily equivalent.  In noninertial frames and in
gravitational fields both procedures can be path dependent.  Even for the
same path ~100 km above the Earth, the two procedures can give different
errors, ~89 usec/day (clock-transport synchronization) and ~60 usec/day
(electromagnetic synchronization)."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Oct-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #26
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
			    More SRB Problems
		 Re: space elevators -- another advantage
			       More on IRAS
			   IRAS discoveries   
		       mohs scale for power systems
	   Re: (elevators) "is there anything else we left out?
		       Re: space-approved adhesives
			   Re: space elevators
			 space approved adhesives
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 83 15:43:38-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: More SRB Problems

Engineers have found a minor leak in a joint in one of
Columbia's SRB's.  The leak, which has occurred before,
is not serious, but NASA says it may cause an extra
day's delay for STS-9.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Oct 83 16:25:48-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxw!rbc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space elevators -- another advantage
In-Reply-To: Article <12849@sri-arpa.UUCP>

You could use the structure of a power evelvator
to carry the energy from an SPS to the Earth.
In a superconducting cable perhaps.

Avoiding all the microwaves from space to ground
would cancel a lot of fears for the SPS.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 1983 10:56-PDT
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC
Subject: More on IRAS
Reply-To: dietz%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Via:  Usc-Cse; 29 Oct 83 11:46:33

I don't know if anyone took the part of my message about secrecy
seriously (I didn't).

I've heard that some Boston newspaper has discovered that next week
NASA will announce that IRAS has discovered a ring around the solar
system, at a distance of about 100 AU.  There have been some theories
of comet origins postulating that most comets are stored in orbits at
about this distance (as opposed to the Oort Cloud, which is much farther
out).  Details, anyone?

 

------------------------------

Date: 29 Oct 83  1221 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: IRAS discoveries   
To:   space@MIT-MC

n527  0145  29 Oct 83
BC-PLUTO-10-29
    By Robert Cooke
     (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service)
    A major surprise in astronomy - discovery of a huge ring surrounding
the entire solar system - will be announced soon by scientists
controlling a new space satellite.
    Details of the discovery, not yet disclosed by NASA, are scheduled
to be announced Nov. 9 at a news conference at the National Air and
Space Museum in Washington, a spokesman for the space agency said.
    The discovery is considered important because it may help scientists
understand how the solar system was formed from a cloud of gas and
dust 4.6 billion years ago. Since Galileo aimed the first telescope
at the stars and planets in 1610, this huge ring has not been seen.
    ''As I understand it,'' an astronomer at Harvard University said,
''the team (of astronomers) has found that the sun has a ring'' that
circles the solar system beyond the planet Pluto. The ring is
estimated to be 9.3 billion miles from the sun.
    A scientist at a different observatory said that ''there appears to
be a ring of substantial thickness'' beyond Pluto. He said it's
either ''a ring that is tilted up outside the plane of the ecliptic,
or it's stuff that's just spewed all around.''
    It's suspected, he added, that the ring material seen by the IRAS
satellite (Infra-Red Astronomy Satellite) consists of relatively
large particles, bigger than BBs. This was evident because of the
type of light, long-wave infrared signals, received by the satellite
instruments.
    ''My guess,'' the scientist said, ''is that it's some sort of debris
associated with comets.''
    Both scientists asked not to be identified because the space agency
has gone to great lengths to maintain secrecy.
    In addition to the ring, NASA is expected to announce a whole range
of other IRAS discoveries Nov. 9. These will include new stars with
dark materials in orbit around them, strange clouds of dust in space,
and infrared objects in other galaxies.
    Listed high among IRAS' achievements already is discovery that one
of the brightest stars in the sky, Vega, is surrounded by a cloud of
debris. This means Vega could have a solar system in the process of
formation. This discovery substantially raised the odds that planets
are a normal phenomenon near stars. And if there are many planets,
then the chances that life exists elsewhere are improved.
    The IRAS spacecraft, which scans the sky for signals in the
infrared, or heat, portion of the spectrum, was launched last
January. Its mission should end in about one month, when it runs out
of its supply of liquid helium, which is used to cool heat-sensing
instruments. IRAS is a joint project by scientists from the United
States, Great Britain and the Netherlands.
    The secrecy surrounding the new IRAS results was imposed by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and many astronomers
are critical because the findings haven't been released yet. ''This
is the tightest-kept thing I've seen,'' one scientist complained. ''I
can't imagine them being able to keep it so long.''
    There has been a report from Japanese observers several weeks ago
that a ring had been discovered much closer to the sun, but
astronomers interviewed this week said that result isn't widely
accepted.
    Because no information has been released on the new discovery,
astronomers are unable to guess what materials the ring might be made
of. Those who've had glimpses of the data, however, say the particles
are probably rock fragments.
    If that's true, then the ring is probably not very similar to the
bright and beautiful set of rings surrounding the planet Saturn.
Instead, the ring may be more like the recently discovered rings
circling the planet Uranus. These are so dark they may consist mainly
of carbon.
    According to astronomer Kenneth Brecher of Boston University, the
discovery of this ring around the solar system may help discover what
it is that perturbs, or slightly alters, the orbit of the planet
Neptune.
    ''It has been claimed that all the perturbations on the planet
Neptune are not accounted for by Pluto,'' Brecher said. And, more
recent calculations indicate Pluto is less massive than originally
believed, which means ''perturbations of the orbit of Neptune have to
be explained by something else.''
    In other words, Pluto isn't big or dense enough to give Neptune much
of a gravitational ''kick'' at closest approach.
    ''So now, Brecher said, ''they're coming along with something
else,'' the ring, ''which maybe can explain that extra perturbation.
This is an open problem that may be touched on by that observation.''
    END
    
nyt-10-29-83 0444edt
***************

------------------------------

Date: 29 October 1983 21:37 EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  mohs scale for power systems
To: Howard.Gayle @ CMU-CS-G
cc: SASW @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Oct 1983 03:06 EST from Robert Elton Maas <REM>

This discussion of "hard" and "soft" technology has gone quite far
without any description of what is meant by the terms.  Please explain
what you mean by this distinction, and how it applies to power systems
(solar power, fission and fusion power, etc).

Thank you.
-- Steve

------------------------------

Date: 29 October 1983 22:22 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: (elevators) "is there anything else we left out?
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!rene @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 25 Oct 83 7:37:17-PDT (Tue)
    From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!rene @ Ucb-Vax
    Just out of curiousity, has anyone thought about what such an elevator
    would look like? (where is the best location?)
<silly answer> Paris? (They already started construction on it about a
century ago, and indeed it's the most well-known tourist spot in
all of France.)
Sigh, it'll probably have to be on the equator, so that leaves Paris out.
Also you'd like to avoid hurricanes/typhoons, so I guess that leaves
out southern India. I guess it's gotta be in Brazil or central Africa.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 83 14:28:54-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space-approved adhesives
In-Reply-To: Article <3964@ukc.UUCP>

If your definition of heavy elements is >Boron, then I think you are
not going to find any adhesives of any kind, space-approved or not.
You have exactly five elements to work with -- hydrogen, helium,
lithium, beryllium, and boron -- and I doubt very much if you can make
any useful sort of adhesive out of hydride compounds or active metals.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 83 10:58:39-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5g!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space elevators
In-Reply-To: Article <12817@sri-arpa.UUCP>

                                         25 October 1983

A correction to the comment on rocket efficiencies.  While it is true that
the fact that most of the lift-off weight of current rockets not being
payload introduces an inefficiency, current rocket engines are quite
efficient at converting chemical e ergy into thrust. Typical figures are
75% for engines at sea level to 97% in vacuum, the difference due to back
pressure from the atmosphere at the engine nozzle exit.

                                                       Dani Eder
                                                       Boeing Aerospace

------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 83 6:19:02-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: space approved adhesives

   A correction on my request for space-approved flexible adhesives.
   Carbon and lighter elements are acceptable.

  If you know of any please let me know.
  Thanks,
          ...!vax135!ukc!dgd
  David Dixon
  Electronics Lab.
  Univ. of Kent,
  Canterbury, England ct2 7nt
  +227 66822 ext. 255

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #27
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:
		      Placement of a space elevator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 83 09:03:16 PST (Mon)
From: Katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay
Return-Path: <Katz%uci-750a.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Placement of a space elevator.
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@Mit-Mc>
Cc: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!rene@Ucb-Vax, SPACE@Mit-Mc,
        katz.Uci-750a@Rand-Relay
In-Reply-To: is there anything else we left out? (29 October 1983)
Via:  UCI; 31 Oct 83 17:03-PST

In addition to a location near the equator and out of the way of major
storms, there are several other considerations in the location of a space
elevator.  The elevator must be located away from local residents who would
be disrupted by the atmospheric disturbances.  The elevator must be
accessable to transportation.  The elevator system must be protected from
both failure and terrorism.

The best locations are probably small islands near the equator, just to the
east of a large land mass.  The land mass will sheild the islands from major
storms, and the sea will shield the elevator from people.  If it is close
enough to the land mass (e.g. within coastal waters) it will be accessible
to transportation.  As for tourism, the best view of the elevator (in good
weather) will probably be from a slight rise about 5 to 10 kilometers away.
There are also great security and reliability advantages to construction of
several elevators, not just one.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Nov-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #28
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
			     Two new planets?
			      Space elevator
		   What a space elevator may look like
			Realistic space elevators
			   Query Re:  Discovery
			    Space Solar Power
		   Re: Vaccumm and people exploding...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, Sept 28 1983
From: TIM%VPIVM2.BITNET@Berkeley (Ron Jarrell)
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
Reply-To: TIM%VPIVM2.BITNET@BERKELEY
Subject: Two new planets?

Heard on the news this morning that scientistss are gathering to discuss
discoveries made by the space telescope orbited earlier, and that they
fairly sure that they have found 1 or possibly 2 new planets in our
system.  When did all this happen???
                                           -Ron

------------------------------

Date:  1 Nov 1983 07:18:22 PST
From: CARROLL@USC-ISIB
Subject: Space elevator
To:   space@MIT-MC


   The space elevator can't be located in an earthquake-prone area,
either.
   Just how large will it be at the base?  Will it taper as it rises,
or will it be a straight column?
   I don't believe I understand all the physics involved in such a project.
Will the elevator be "resting" on earth; or, will it be "tied down" to
prevent it from being spun off into space?  If it will be 22,300 miles
tall, will it really be "straight", or will it curve like some galactic
spiral arm?  The magnitude of such an undertaking would be incredible!

   Answers or opinions from math-physics types solicited.

------------------------------

Date:  1 Nov 1983 1326-PST
Subject: What a space elevator may look like
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF>
To: space@MIT-MC
cc: katz@USC-ISIF

I have in fact seen something which may compare to what a space
elevator would look like, ie a tower extending from the ground to
infinity.  On the first Space Shuttle launch, since there
was very little wind and it was very clear, the tower of smoke from
the SRBs extended up as far as you could see!!  I have never seen
anything like it.  It lasted for only a minute or so, then dissapated.

At the night launch of STS-8, the winds and clouds were such that this did not
happen.

I don't think there is anything else comparable, which extends from the
ground up to infinity (apparently).

				Alan

------------------------------

Date:  1 Nov 1983 1634-EST
From: A. J. Courtemanche <LS.AC at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Realistic space elevators
To: space at MIT-MC

This talk of space elevators is pretty neat, but does anyone know what
sort of technology we would need to implement such a device?
Specifically, do we currently have materials that can be used to build a
tall (80 miles?  100 miles? 200?) structure that won't destroy itself
under it's own weight?  Also, what sort of structures will be needed to
make sure the elevator doesn't topple over?

------------------------------

Date:  1-Nov-83 22:52 PST
From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc.  Cupertino CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Query Re:  Discovery
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: DIA.TYM@OFFICE-2
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-3H1QN>

Does anyone know when they will roll out Discovery thru the streets of 
Lancaster, CA?  Thanks,  --Bi<<

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 83 0:06:27-EST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!zben @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Solar Power

[From the virtual flamethrower of ZBEN]
 The most cogent argument I have heard against the satellite solar power
idea is the resultant increase in heat pollution.  Thats right.  Those
big solar panels out there are tantamount to increasing the absorption
of solar power by the earth.  The fact that it is organized as electricity
and will be used to do useful work is only a local eddy; eventually every
watt we pull down from space will (by the 2nd law of thermo) be released
as heat upon the earth.  In the Larry Niven "Known Space" series the
Pierson's Puppeteers solved the problem in a unique way: they moved
their planet to another orbit farther from its sun.
 I think the solar satellites are yet another government give-away to the
high-tech aerospace industries.  We have plenty of desert right here on
earth, with the advantage of breathable air for the repairmen.
 Even if we set up the collectors in the desert, it will have a second-order
effect on local heat flows.  It would be equivalent to transporting some
amount of death valley's heat right into downtown L.A....
zben        ...seismo!umcp-cs!zben          zben@umd2.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 26 Oct 83 12:30:20-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxs!okie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Vaccumm and people exploding...
In-Reply-To: Article <1623@fortune.UUCP>

While we're on the subjects of people exploding in vacuum *and*
*2001*...

In *2001*, there's a sequence where astronaut Bowman is unable to
get back into the ship; HAL won't open the pod bay doors (#*$% AI
machines!).  Well, there's an airlock nearby, but in his rush to get
outdoors, Bowman forgot his helmet (#*$% actors!).  So this is the
end, right?

WRONG!  Our Hero knows (he being an astronaut and all) that you can
survive a short exposure to vacuum.  So he manages to blow his way
into the open airlock, get the door closed, and fill it with air
before he does a good imitation of a puffer fish.  In all, he was
in vacuum for about 15 or 20 seconds -- but it seemed much longer
(did any of you hold your breaths during that sequence?).  It was a
good tension-building scene.

BThis was no accident; Clarke knew his stuff.  In one of his earlier
novels (*Earthlight*), he has a good treatment of this same subject.
The crew of a crippled spaceship has to be taken onto another ship
before its pile blows; but there aren't enough suits to go around.
So the rest have to go over lines to the other ship (no hard-docking
is possible)...

B.K. (can I breathe now?) Cobb
BTL Indian Hill
Naperville, IL

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #29
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
		    Re: moondust & creationism - (nf)
	 Re: Space Solar Power - ZBEN's "heat pollution" worries
			   Soviet Space Walk  
			    Heat?  Watt heat?
			    Re: Space Elevator
		    Re: Vacuum and people exploding...
			  Re: Space Solar Power
			Realistic space elevators
		  argument in favor of Space Solar Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Oct 83 2:27:36-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: moondust & creationism - (nf)

#R:ihuxr:-72300:uiucdcs:12700041:000:2940
uiucdcs!miller    Oct 27 00:59:00 1983


     I have been asked via mail to provide more information on the lack of
lunar dust vs. age of the moon paradox.  OK, here goes:
     First, I sent a letter to Neil Armstrong.  Commenting on a videotape I
had recently seen of him made a few weeks after the Apollo 11 flight, I wrote
"... You made the comment that, shortly before the launch of Apollo 11, some
scientists had made the prediction that so much lunar dust should have accumu-
lated on the surface that the lunar module (and the astronauts on board) would
literally sink into the surface never to be seen again.  Is this a correct
evaluation of what you said in Vietnam? ..."  The reply came back "Your evalua-
tion of the statement made in 1969 is correct."  The letter then went on to
suggest two other places I might look for further information, including the
material by Dr. Thomas Gold, already mentioned in the base note.
     Other material of which I am aware include a comment made by Issac Asimov
in 1959 in which he said the lunar dust should have acccumlated to *at least*
50 feet.  Also, there was a symposium in 1965 jointly sponsored by NASA and by
the Smithsonian Institution.  The papers were published in a very long manual
called "Meteor Orbits and Dust" NASA-SP-135.  I have not had time to completely
read the whole thing yet, but one interesting paper in there is by W. G. Elford
entitled "Incidence of Meteors on the Earth Derived from Radio Observations".
In there, he gives influx rates into the earth's upper atmosphere for various
times and locations.  It is clear that the rates for the moon and earth should
be very similar, given their close proximity on a cosmic scale.
     So, even though the Soviet Luna and the American Surveyor gave empirical
evidence that the amount of dust was minimal, nevertheless, other data was
present to cause some concern among some scientists, given the assumed age of
the earth/moon system.
     While we're on the subject of odd data concerning the moon's age, you
might want to take a look at NASA-TR-R277 from 1968.  It deals with transient
lunar phenomena, which should not really occur if the moon is a cold, dead
body.  For instance, given the radius, material, age, etc. of a body, you can
estimate the cooling effect since that body was formed.  But Apollo 15's
thermal flow experiments gave temperatures outside of the range which could be
explained.  This data was repeated on Apollo 17 which gave the same results.
(They tried to repeat on 16, but one of the astronaut's feet got tangled in a
cable, damaging the equipment.)  References to this may be found in NASA-MR-12,
pp. 5-6 (and I *think* also in NASA-MR-10 and NASA-MR-11).  Also see "Planetary
Geology", pp. 183-184 by N. M. Short.
     This is not a complete list, as I have lots of junk on my desk at home I
haven't had time to read yet, as well as several references I need to chase
down in the library.  But, it should get you started.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 83 09:39:57 PST (Wednesday)
From: Jef Poskanzer <Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power - ZBEN's "heat pollution" worries
In-reply-to: umcp-cs!zben's message of 02 Nov 83 03:02 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

If that's "the most cogent argument" you've heard against SPS, then
let's build it right now, because that argument is bunk.  The Earth is
currently receiving sunlight at the rate of 1.1e24 ergs/sec.  That is
ten million gigaWatts.  One million rectennas.  As far as I know, no-one
is planning to build that many in the near future.  Let's look at a more
reasonable number, say a thousand ten gigaWatt rectennas.  How much
would this heat up the planet?  To raise the temperature of the world's
oceans by one degree C takes 5.71e31 ergs.  If you consider the
atmosphere alone, it takes about a thousand times less: 5.26e28 ergs.
In one year, a thousand rectennas would receive 3.15e23 ergs (plus a bit
because they are only 90% efficient).  Thus in the long run, the
temperature of the oceans would rise by about 0.00000001 degrees per
year; in the short run, the atmosphere would heat up by 0.00001 degrees
per year.  Are you still worried?

How about a little more thought and a little less flaming.
---
Jef

------------------------------

Date: 02 Nov 83  1103 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
Subject: Soviet Space Walk  
To:   space@MIT-MC

a205  1043  01 Nov 83
BC-Soviet-Space,140
Soviet Cosmonauts Work In Space
    MOSCOW (AP) - Cosmonauts Vladimir Lyakhov and Alexander Alexandrov
left their orbiting Salyut 7 station on Tuesday and attached a
solar-powered battery to the outside in a ''landmark'' maneuver in
Soviet space exploration, Tass said.
    The official news agency said the two men worked two hours and 50
minutes in widely varying temperatures to assemble, weld and attach an
extra solar-powered battery to the outside of the Salyut.
    ''Nonetheless, the cosmonauts are feeling fine,'' it said, adding
that for the first time it had conducted a radio interview with the
two men in space, but giving few details of what was said.
    Tass, apparently seeking to squelch Western reports of hitches in
the operation of the Salyut 7, stressed that today's maneuver was
planned and practiced in advance before the two cosmonauts went into
space June 27.
    
ap-ny-11-01 1340EST
***************

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 83 16:22:16 EST
From: Ron <FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Heat?  Watt heat?
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Come on!  Generating electricity any other way is going to have the
same effect!  Current methods do not take heat from somewhere on Earth
and convert it to electric power, only to be dissapated elsewhere when
used.

If we're going to continue to generate and use electric power lets do
it in the cleanest way possible: SPS.

(ron)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 1983 18:35-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: CARROLL@USC-ISIB,
    LS.AC@mit-eecs
Subject: Re: Space Elevator
Reply-To: dietz%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Via:  Usc-Cse; 02 Nov 83 19:37:38

The space elevator will be a pure tension structure (so it won't
topple).  In a constant gravity field the cable would taper
exponentially, thick end at the top.  However, since the cable will be
rotating and because gravity is inverse square the taper isn't so fast
near the top.  There was a diagram plus some mathematics in an issue of
DESTINIES (a now defunct SF book-a-zine).  Tensile strength/weight
ratios required are beyond current materials (but graphite is very
close).

The biggest problem with the elevator is, again, orbital debris.  Back
of the envelope calculations tell be that the mean time between
debris impacts will be on the order of hours.

An elevator from L1 or L2 to the moon or in mars-synchronous orbit is
feasible with current materials (but you still have to solve the
debris problem).

 

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 1983 19:55-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: randvax!decvax!ihnss!ihuxs!okie%Usc-Cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Subject: Re: Vacuum and people exploding...
Via:  Usc-Cse; 02 Nov 83 20:39:01

I thought we discussed this some time ago, with the conclusion that
while a person might survive vacuum exposure for several tens of
seconds he'd need immediate medical treatment.  Certainly the scene
from "Earthlight" is not possible -- the unsuited astronauts would be
incapacitated long before they could get to the other spaceship.
Clarke considered the limit to be loss of conciousness due to anoxia,
which is wrong -- bubbles in the blood get you long before anoxia does.

 

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 1983 18:54-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: zben@umd2
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power
Via:  Usc-Cse; 02 Nov 83 20:38:44

In reply to ZBEN's "cogent" argument against SPS:

   [ZBEN]
   The most cogent argument I have heard against the satellite solar power
   idea is the resultant increase in heat pollution.  Thats right.  Those
   big solar panels out there are tantamount to increasing the absorption
   of solar power by the earth.

I thought I addressed this issue in one of my messages.  Space solar
power actually has comparatively low thermal pollution, compared to
other energy sources.

The reason is quite simple:  the thermodynamically limited part of the
light-to-electricity conversion process is done in orbit.  The SPS
radiates its waste heat INTO SPACE, not into a cooling tower (or
whatever) on earth.  The power transmission process (microwaves & power
lines) dissipates into the biosphere as heat maybe 10-15% of the energy
delivered to the user.  In contrast, ground based thermal electrical
generators (fossil fuel, fission, fusion, thermal solar, geothermal)
waste at least three fifths of the produced energy as heat (150% of the
delivered electrical power).

Ground based solar is also a thermal polluter.  Deserts are fairly
reflective (~35% of the energy is reflected), so much of the sunlight
hitting them goes right back into space.  A power plant, be it a
power-tower or a solar cell array, will decrease this figure to about
5%.  The result is that ground based solar puts about 110% of the
delivered power into useless waste heat (over and above what the desert
would have absorbed).  Hardly a "second order" effect!

The only electricity sources I can think of that produce less thermal
pollution than SPS are wind and hydroelectric -- but I wouldn't be
suprised to find that if you extracted enough energy from the wind
temperature differences between locations on the Earth's surface would
increase.  In any case wind and hydro can't supply more than a small
fraction of the energy we'll need.

If you're still worried about thermal effects of SPS, you can make the
rectenna reflective (polished sheet aluminum, say).  The intensity of
the microwave beam is only 1/2 that of sunlight (at the center; at the
edges it's much less), so this looks feasible.  Beyond that, you can
move manufacturing into orbit (assuming delivering the goods to earth
doesn't dissipate too much energy in the atmosphere).  After that, you
can move consumption into orbit -- space colonies!

   [ZBEN]
   I think the solar satellites are yet another government give-away to the
   high-tech aerospace industries.  We have plenty of desert right here on
   earth, with the advantage of breathable air for the repairmen.

But ground based solar can't supply more than about 5% of the nation's
electricity needs.  Beyond that, you need to solve the problem of large
scale electrical energy storage -- a very hard problem.  And it isn't
completely obvious that ground based solar is cheaper than space based.
A large concentrator mirror could conceivably be easier to build, aim
and maintain in orbit.  It could certainly be far less massive than
ground based heliostat arrays.

		Paul Dietz (dietz@usc-ecla)

 

------------------------------

Date: 3 November 1983 02:19 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Realistic space elevators
To: LS.AC @ MIT-EECS
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

When actually finished, it won't topple under its own weight because
it'll be hanging from its orbital point (hanging both up and down from
there) rather than supported at the bottom. During construction,
however, if it's built bottom-up, it'll have to support its own weight
nitially. But more likely it'll be constructed in orbit and then
deorbited at one end, so it'll never have to support its own weight by
pushing from the bottom, even during construction. Note, it'd be
widest at the middle, at the orbital point, and taper narrower both
towards the ground and out to space.

Alternately the very bottom part could be supported from the bottom,
so it'd taper like the Eiffel Tower at the bottom, then reverse-taper
up to the orbital point and back down above it as in the first paragraph.
But the very bottom part would be infitesimal (a half mile?) compared
to the rest (20,000 miles or more).

Although there are some designs for having a tower supported from
below, there's a problem in putting so much weight on a single point
on Earth. I rather doubt the ground would hold. It would be
embarassing to build such a tower only to have the whole island it's
located on be sunk into the Earth by all that weight.

------------------------------

Date: 3 November 1983 02:25 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  argument in favor of Space Solar Power
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!zben @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Filling the deserts with solar collectors will reduce the amount of
light&heat that is reflected back into space, thus increasing the
total amount of heating. But with space technology for SPS, we can
also put up a thin barrier between Earth and space to shield the Earth
from some solar radiation and thus cool the Earth if need be.
Alternately if the Earth gets too cold we can remove the shield and
maybe even put up reflectors to send more sunlight to Earth. Once we
get into space we can increase or decrease total Earth heating easily
as needed. That's the real reason for space technology if you're
worried about ecology on Earth. We can avoid both ice ages and runaway
greenhouse effect by actively controlling the amount of solar
radiation reaching the Earth. Without space technology, restricted to
ground-based methods, it's very hard to control the overall
temperature of the Earth and avoid natural temperature disasters or
disasterous side-effects of civilization.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Nov-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #30
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
			       Space Debris
			      Re: beanstalks
	     Re: Re: space elevators -- another advan - (nf)
	   Re: (elevators) "is there anything else we left out?
			      gravity waves 
			   Re: Heat? Watt heat?
		      Re: Better solar sails? - (nf)
		      Re: Better solar sails? - (nf)
		       Shuttle to Launch This Month
		     Re: Shuttle to Launch This Month
			      Shuttle in VAB
			     IRAS discoveries
			 Witholding of IRAS Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 3 Nov 83 10:47:05-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Space Debris
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA

I understand that orbiting debris would be a problem for the space
elevator (and for anything else in orbit).  I also understand that
collisions could spew fragments that would themselves be hazardous.
I don't understand, though, why such collisions would be frequent.
I would expect the elevator to develop an orbital "shadow" swept
free of debris, and that collisions would only occur with objects
newly injected into this space.  Are the orbital mechanics such
that the elevator would continually intercept new debris trajectories?

					-- Ken Laws

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 1983 19:51-EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: Re: beanstalks
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <436755060/dmw@CMU-CS-VLSI>

Think of a space elevator as hanging down to the earth from
geosynchronous orbit (the other half hangs up to balance the force).
Since the elevator is hanging, it only needs to be lightly tethered to
the earth, and might withstand earthquakes given a flexible tether.  It
will be straight.  It must be tapered down in both directions from
geosynchronous orbit for minimum tension at the root.  No known
material has the tensile strength to build one.  But we can build
variations such as the skyhooks suggested by Hans Moravec.  These are
basically rotating poles in orbit.  An end comes down into the
atmosphere, you grab on, and it yanks you up, and you let go at the
top.  You have to balance this with mass going down or some other
energy input.

An interesting variation on Earth-to-orbit systems appears in the
article "The Launch Loop" by Keith Lofstrom in the December Analog
magazine.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 21:24:46-EST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!andree @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: space elevators -- another advan - (nf)

The  problem then becomes one of balance. You don't want your elevator drifting
up in orbit any more than you want it drifting down. The solution of piping
energy back to earth isn't bad.

Several people have pointed out that in space `Energy is Cheap.' I never
thought I'd see disposing of energy as a problem, though; to much like
disposing of money.

	<mike

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 83 14:01:09-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!watmath!jsgray @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: (elevators) "is there anything else we left out?

The best (only?) possible location for a "space elevator" is on the equator.
Check out "The Fountains of Paradise" by A. C. Clarke.

Jan Gray   (jsgray@watmath.UUCP)   University of Waterloo   (519) 885-1211 x2730

------------------------------

Date: 04 Nov 83  0047 PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: gravity waves 
To:   space@MIT-MC

n054  1329  31 Oct 83
BC-SCIENCE-WATCH (UNDATED)
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    In 1976 the Soviet Union's Crimean Astrophysical Observatory found
that the surface of the sun is heaving up and down every 160 minutes.
''The interpretation of this phenomenon,'' it reported, ''seems to
cause much theoretical difficulty.'' More recently, astronomers have
been puzzled by the enigmatic nature of an extremely powerful
celestial source of gamma rays called Geminga, which also have a
160-minute periodicity.
    Now, George Isaak of the University of Birmingham in England has
proposed that Geminga causes the solar oscillations. Geminga is
believed to be the closest neutron star to the solar system. Isaak
argues that if, like many other stars, Geminga is in a tight orbit
around some companion body, the pair might radiate gravity waves
sufficiently powerful to jostle the core of the sun.
    Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts the existence of
gravity waves, but they have never yet been convincingly detected.
The core of the sun, with a density of 30 tons per cubic foot, should
respond to such waves far more efficiently than the metal cylinders
used in earth-based detection efforts.
    According to the October 20 issue of Nature, Philippe Delache of
France's Nice Observatory and his colleagues have examined five
months' worth of gamma ray emissions from Geminga, recorded by the
satellite COS-B over a seven-year period. They report a 160-minute
variation and also note that tiny earth tremors reach a maximum every
160 minutes, as though the earth were also responding to the gravity
waves.
    As noted by Nature, however, there are several difficulties with
such proposed links. When two massive bodies are circling one another
every 160 minutes, as indicated by the gamma ray variations, gravity
waves should be emitted by each object. The pair would therefore
radiate one every 80 minutes.
    A research group at the University of Rome, led by Eduardo Amaldi,
has used suspended bars of metal to record oscillations that could be
coming from the core of the Milky Way Galaxy, but they are not yet
persuaded the cause is gravitational. Evidence for gravity waves from
the galactic core was reported a number of years ago by Joseph Weber
of the University of Maryland, a pioneer in such observations, but
was never generally accepted.
    

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 4 November 1983 04:07:23 EST
From: Dave-Aronson-H@CMU-EE-AMPERE
To: space@mit-mc@cmuc
Subject: Re: Heat? Watt heat?
Message-ID: <1983.11.4.8.45.54.Dave-Aronson-H@CMU-EE-AMPERE>

	Sounds familiar. A famous TV news figure (who shall remain nameless;
you may ask by mail) was quoted in a book I once read (way back in high
school) as having claimed that if we kept using nuclear powerplants at the
current rate (I think it was in the late 60's, early 70's or so), then all
our rivers, lakes, etc. would be boiling within some short time (I think he
said a decade or two) and totally evaporated shortly thereafter. Anybody out
there think he was right?

		From the padded cell of Dave Aronson
					arpa -- dja@cmu-ee-ampere (best)
					uucp -- ...idis!mi-cec!dja
					bell -- (412) 578 - 4428
					mail -- 1060 Morewood Ave., Box 1917
						Pittsburgh, PA 15213

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 83 11:26:06-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!bane @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Better solar sails? - (nf)

I first heard about the perforated solar sail idea at a talk by Robert
Forward at Constellation in September.  I forget whether he claimed the
idea was his or not.  The big win here is not that the sail gets lighter,
but rather that the sail will now let gas pass through it so it can be
used much closer to bodies with atmospheres; the holes are large enough
that gas molecules can get through, but smaller than the wavelengths of
most sunlight.  This will allow neat tricks like geosynchronous satellites
away from the plane of the equator (the satellite is a solar sail thrusting
along the earth's axis).

There were many other strange propulsion ideas thrown out at that talk;
Forward had just finished preparing a report for the Air Force on the
future of propulsion for space.  The one that had me gaping was not the
perforated sails, though.  Forward mentioned the possibility of the existence
of a form of helium created at enormous energy cost which:
1) Would be a solid up to about 300 degrees C.
2) Could turn back into helium gas with an energy release of about
   10 times the best possible chemical fuels.

Anybody out there know more about this stuff?
-- 
Arpa:   bane.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!bane

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 83 17:52:29-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Better solar sails? - (nf)

Perforating a solar sail with holes smaller than the wavelength of
light not only greatly reduces the mass of the sail, it also greatly
reduces the air drag on the sail in low Earth orbit.  (This would not
work in a viscous-flow regime, like Earth-surface pressure, but at
orbital altitude the individual air molecules are moving quite
independently of each other and it works fine.)

I heard about the idea in a talk by Robert Forward, but he may have
got it from somebody else.

You would definitely make the stuff in space, because it makes little
sense to apply the perforating technique unless your sail is as light
as possible to start with.  The lightest known solid sails are Eric
Drexler's metal-foil sails:  vacuum-deposited aluminum sheet about
30 nm thick.  Sails made with this stuff must be manufactured in space,
because the stuff is too thin to be unfolded from a compact package in
a practical way.  Drexler sails already have quite spiffy performance
(by solar-sail standards!), and a 90% reduction in mass would really
make them clip along, so if the practical details of perforating can
be worked out it would be great.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 83 16:41:50-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle to Launch This Month

NASA announced today that STS-9 will launch on 29 November.
The fall launch will mean the loss of at least 7 of the 32
Spacelab experiments, but NASA promised ESA a free ride on
future flights to make up for the loss.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 83 16:42:33-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle to Launch This Month

Correction:  STS-9 is scheduled to launch on 28, not 29,
November.  My apologies for not proof reading carefully.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 83 11:42:36-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle in VAB

Engineers Wednesday OK'ed the Columbia's two SRB nozzles,
and the shuttle was rolled to the VAB yesterday.  The
Columbia will be moved to the pad Tuesday in preparation
for the 28 November launch.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 83 16:45:40-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!cbosgd!djb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: IRAS discoveries

The following is taken without permission from today's (10/31/83) 
USA TODAY (a fine newspaper, I might add).

****************************************************************************
TELESCOPE MAY SPOT NEW PLANET 
By Michael Mecham
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - The orbiting telescope IRAS may have sighted at least one new 
planet, and more planets may come to light next week when astronomers gather 
here.

"There's a very good chance that IRAS will identify a new planet or two"
circling the Sun beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto, said Nick Gautier,
an infra-red astronomer from the University of Arizona.

Scientists from England and the Netherlands - the USA's partners in the
IRAS venture - will meet here Nov. 9.

IRAS, launched by NASA Jan. 25 at a cost of $119.3 million, discovered
more about the Large Magellanic Cloud - our nearest galaxy - in just one
minute of operation than had ever been obtained by earthbound observatories.

In 12 hours of operation, it doubled the number of small galaxies that had
been observed near the Milky Way.

It also discovered five comets, which astronomers believe are cruical to
determining the solar system's formation.

****************************************************************************

	David Bryant   Bell Labs   Columbus, OH   (614) 860-4516
	(cbosg!djb)

------------------------------

Date:  6 Nov 1983 18:34:59 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Witholding of IRAS Data
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

The  following IRAS data was taken from the American  Asrtonomical 
Society  Bulletin  Board.   Can anybody tell if any data is  being 
withheld?  I sure can't!

Sheldon Meth
_______

                         November 1, 1983 
 
                     IRAS CIRCULAR NUMBER 5 
 
   SOURCE ID         RA           FLUX DENSITIES (JANSKYS) 
    IRAS            DEC          12 UM   25 UM   60 UM  100 UM  
 
  0441+727P05   04H 41M 52S       <.3     1.2     4.6     6.8     
                 +72D 46.2' 
 
  0449+781P05   04H 49M 44S       <.6      .64    6.6    12       
                 +78D 06.6' 
 
  0506+536P05   05H 06M 07S        .34    1.7     9.4    16       
                 +53D 38.7' 
 
  0507+471P05   05H 07M 00S        .58    3.0    17      38 
                 +47D 07.0' 
 
  0507+528P05   05H 07M 19S     200     290      69      32       
                 +52D 48.9' 
 
  0508+796P05   05H 08M 16S       <.3      .62    6.0    11       
                 +79D 36.7' 
 
  0512+531P05   05H 12M 52S       <.4      .67    3.3     6.6     
                 +53D 08.2' 
 
  0512+514P05   05H 12M 59S       <.3     1.0     7.2     9.0 
                 +51D 28.7' 
 
  0513+581P05   05H 13M 28S       <.3      .47    5.2    13 
                 +58D 11.1' 
 
  0516+432P05   05H 16M 39S        .33     .79    6.3    11 
                 +43D 15.3' 
 
  0517+428P05   05H 17M 17S        .58     .73    4.5    14 
                 +42D 49.8' 
 
  0522+416P05   05H 22M 07S       2.6    18     140     190 
                 +41D 39.2' 
 
  0531-219P05   05H 31M 13S        .42     .77    9.7    32       
                 -21D 58.8' 
 
  0533+541P05   05H 33M 45S       <.2      .49    5.4     8.3 
                 +54D 08.0' 
 
  0536+467P05   05H 36M 09S     170     200      77      34       
                 +46D 44.2' 
 
  0538-220P05   05H 38M 06S       <.2     <.2     2.1     4.2     
                 -22D 01.7' 
 
  0540-240P05   05H 40M 57S       <.3      .52    2.8     4.4 
                 -24D 05.2' 
 
  0541+586P05   05H 41M 24S        .60     .87   16      40 
                 +58D 40.8' 
 
  0547-303P05   05H 47M 47S       <.2     <.3     3.7     8.3 
                 -30D 18.7' 
 
  0552-327P05   05H 52M 01S       <.2     <.4     1.8     4.2 
                 -32D 45.1' 
 
  0600+477P05   06H 00M 22S      34      31       5.1   <10 
                 +47D 47.9' 
 
  0610+668P05   06H 10M 39S       <.3     <.4     3.8     8.6     
                 +66D 51.2' 
 
  0623+744P05   06H 23M 57S       <.2      .88    5.4     8.3     
                +74D 28.6' 
 
  0705+719P05   07H 05M 32S       <.2     <.3     2.4     6.1     
                 +71D 55.0' 
 
  0706+718P05   07H 06M 45S       <.4      .42    4.1    10       
                 +71D 50.0' 
 
 
 
NOTES: 
 
1.   THE  SOURCE  NAME CONSISTS OF FOUR PARTS:  (1)  THE  LETTERS      
     "IRAS"  TO INDICATE THE ORIGIN;  (2) THE RIGHT ASCENSION  IN  
     HOURS  AND  MINUTES,  SECONDS OMITTED;  (3)  DECLINATION  IN  
     DECIMAL  DEGREES,  MULTIPLIED BY 10 AND THEN TRUNCATED (I.E.  
     +32D  42.3M  => +327);  (4) AN APPENDIX  STARTING  WITH  "P"
     AND  FOLLOWED BY THE NUMBER OF THE CIRCULAR;  THIS  APPENDIX
     STRESSES THAT THE DATA ARE PRELIMINARY. 
 
2.   POSITION IS GIVEN AT EQUINOX 1950.0. 
 
3.   THE  MEASUREMENTS  HAVE BEEN MADE BETWEEN EPOCHS 1983.1  AND  
     1983.3. 
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #31
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:
      Humorous Illustration on cover of Planetary Society Newsletter
			 Practical uses of space.
	     Re: Re: space elevators -- another advan - (nf)
			  Re: Space Solar Power
			  Re: Space Solar Power
			    Re: Space Station
			  Re: Space Solar Power
			      Re: Powersats
			Re: SPS and global heating
			   Re: The Right Stuff
			   Re: The Right Stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 83 10:46:27-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!mac @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Humorous Illustration on cover of Planetary Society Newsletter

On the back of the September/October "Planetary Report" (newsletter of the
Planetary Society)

"VOYAGER FOUND - In this whimsical painting, a fusion powered spacecraft
(background) with a human and dolphin crew has flown 375 billion
kilometers out from earth in pursuit of Voyager 1.  The spacesuited
dolphins have examined the ancient machine and discovered it's phonograph
record is missing - someone has been there before them...."

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 83 4:19:44-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!daemon @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Practical uses of space.

From: Ed Featherston  HL01-1/P06  225-5241 <roll::featherston>

 Begin Forwarded Message:
              -------------------------------------------

Newsgroup : net.space
>From : BACH::PIERSON
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.
Subj: Practical uses of space.

	In reference to some of the discusion of Solar Power Satellites,
    earthside ecological consideration, and failed technology.

	"Innovative" technologies are probably the best bet for opening up
    space industry.  However, once we're up there, the more traditional
    industries become very interesting options.

	Shipping energy down to earth (say to make steel or alluminum to
    make car bodies) has the problem of automatically increasing the total
    energy input of the planet and aggravating a possible global warming
    trend.  Using the heavy industries which may well be developed in space
    (for general space-side construction) to build car bodies, then shipping
    the car bodies to earth has several possible advantages.  It reduces the
    energy needs of earth, thus helping the energy problem without pumping
    more heat into the planet.  It reduces the pollution of earthside heavy
    industry, though a minimum pollution way of getting the cars down would
    be needed.  It also reduces the demand on finite earth resources.

							dan

		Mail address : ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!bach!pierson

              -------------------------------------------
 End Forwarded Message

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 83 14:13:59-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: space elevators -- another advan - (nf)

If you think "energy in space is cheap", then I can't help what you may
personally be in orbit around (apologies to HGttG).

My experience with amateur satellite construction has driven home the
EXTREME COST of generating electrical power in space.  The solar array
contract has dominated the cost of every satellite we've made; the typical
cost for a 50 watt array is $50,000!!  (Admittedly you could do better
by using a three-axis stabilized array, but only by a factor of pi.)
Needless to say, this economic imperative pervades the entire
electronics design.

Perhaps things will improve in the future, but I just wanted to drive
home the wide gap between what people are proposing with the SPS and
current reality.

Phil Karn
AMSAT

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 83 9:25:38-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power

                                                   1 November 1983

I'd like to make two comments about the 'heat problem'.  First, it is true
that the energy finally produced by an SPS is eventually converted to waste
heat, ALL useful work produces heat as the final byproduct.  The advanteges
of SPS are that there is less waste heat initially, and it can be compensated
for.

     In a conventional power plant, only about 33% of the prime mover power
is converted into electricity.  Thus three times as much heat is produced as
useful energy.  With an SPS, the added flux in microwaves can be compensated
for because the recieving antenna or 'rectenna' on the ground is made of 
metal, rather than ordinary earth.  The net result is .4 units of heat for
each unit of useful energy with an SPS, versus 3 units of heat / unit useful
energy with conventional sources.

     Second, with ground based solar, either thermal or photovoltaic, you are
covering the ground with a very dark surface, thus increasing the absorbtion
of solar energy and causing the very problem you speak of.

                                               Dani Eder
                                               ssc-vax!eder
                                               Boeing Aerospace

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 83 16:13:40-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power
In-Reply-To: Article <3408@umcp-cs.UUCP>

Setting up solar panels in the desert is *much worse* than solar power
satellites as far as heat pollution goes.  Why?  Because solar cells
are quite inefficient (15% is very good performance!) and the solar
radiation they absorb would otherwise be reflected and re-radiated right
back out into space!  Solar power satellites put the inefficient part
of the process out in space, where it doesn't contribute to Earth's
heat input.  The net result is that power-satellite power adds rather
less heat to Earth than ground-based solar power.  In fact, power
satellites add less heat to Earth per kilowatt of useful power than
almost any other power-generation system.  Strange but true.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 83 14:36:33-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station
In-Reply-To: Article <2285@alice.UUCP> <2286@alice.UUCP>

efinite about this.  Fuqua did not give a
date for when this decision would be announced.  Fuqua made his statement
last week.

					 Karl Stapelfeldt
					 Frank Lemoine
					 WPRB news & Princeton SEDS

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 83 6:42:14-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!zben @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power

[..]
Most of the refutations of my argument have been of the form: "the Earth is
sooooo big (usually followed by some numbers in exponential notation) that
it couldn't possibly be a significant effect".  Some of the others are worth
more thought.

What makes you think that, given a few sites that seem to be feasable, every
podunk community and every third world nation won't want to install their
own version?  We seem to be very good as a species at scaling things up to
the point the original assumptions become meaningless.  There was a general
feeling just a few years ago that the Earth was "soooo big" that burning
fossil fuel could not possibly shift things.  Now the newspapers are full
of stories that the greenhouse effect is on the way and that there is nothing
that we can do to stop it.  I don't want to see that happening anew...

How many aerosol spray cans does it take to bring burning vengance from
ultraviolet radiation?

D*mmit, there *are* no "quick fixes".  Just fools searching for them.
That includes fusion, satellite solar, oil-from-coal, and just about
anything but conservation and appropriate technology.  Unfortunately
these aren't sexy enough to motivate spoiled techno whiz-kids...

Santoyana said that those who didn't understand the mistakes of the past 
were doomed to repeat them.  Don't y'all wish I wuz around when fission 
power was the latest greatest "quick fix"?

(A friend of the Devil is a friend of mine...)

Ben Cranston       ...seismo!umcp-cs!zben        zben@umd2.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 83 11:33:53-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!daemon @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Powersats

From: Ed Featherston  HL01-1/P06  225-5241 <roll::featherston>

 Begin Forwarded Message:
              -------------------------------------------

Newsgroup : net.space
>From : DVINCI::FISHER
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.
Subj: Re: powersats

The heat pollution problem is not really an argument against powersats.
It is an argument against increased energy usage in general.  Let us ignore
the efficiency of power generation for the moment and consider only heat
pollution caused AFTER electricity has entered the distribution network.
If total energy usage is the same, it does not matter whether that energy
comes from atoms, from solar energy which fell on the earth eons ago and was
incorporated into fossil fuels, or from current solar energy which is collected
by a powersat, and would not have otherwise touched the earth.  Now if you 
add back in the waste energy caused by the power generation process, (as has
been stated before) powersats have a clear heat advantage.

I therefore contend that the heat pollution argument is valid against powersats
only if you say "Powersats will cause increased power usage compared to
terrestrially generated power, and therefore..."  Personally, I feel that
that we will use what power we think we need no matter what the source, and that
powersats are the most environmentally sound method of supplying that power.

Burns

		Mail address : ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

              -------------------------------------------
 End Forwarded Message

------------------------------

Date: 31 Oct 83 15:15:53-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!bcw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPS and global heating

From:	Bruce C. Wright

Although it is true that most of the energy beamed to earth from
an SPS will be radiated into the environment as heat, it does not
at all follow that this will result in more (or even significant)
global warming than fossil fuel.

First of all, much of the energy in generating stations is expended
as heat directly (about 60% as I recall), while in an SPS system the
energy is converted much more efficiently (more like 20% waste or
less as I recall).  This would allow a much larger amount of useful
energy for the same amount of heat load if SPS stations were used.

Secondly, although it is true that the energy from fossil fuel was
absorbed from the sun at one time, it is being released MUCH MUCH
faster than it was ever absorbed from solar energy.

Thirdly, and in many respects most importantly, the net heat accumu-
lation on the earth is going to be the integral sum of the amount of
heat received from the sun minus the amount of heat radiated from the
earth.  The major problem with fossil fuel is NOT the amount of heat it
produces directly (though that is a local problem in many places), but
the amount of carbon dioxide that it produces, which tends to hold
the heat better than most of the other compounds in the atmosphere;
therefore fossil fuels reduce the amount of heat which can be re-
radiated by the earth IN ADDITION to adding to the heat load directly.

In addition, in many places power is generated by wood or other recently
living plant matter.  This has the effect of decreasing the ability of
the biosphere to absorb carbon dioxide, aggravating the heating problem.

Objecting to SPS because it would increase the earth's heat load is
JUST PLAIN SILLY.  There are many other problems with SPS (notably the
fact that it is not a tested technology, and depends on several factors
which are themselves not tested technology - such as assembly of large
objects in space, how to get the material there when we have no experience
with doing this on that magnitude from either the earth or the moon, etc),
but this is a red herring.

			Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University

------------------------------

Date: 2 Nov 83 12:51:39-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!swatt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The Right Stuff

I was quite disappointed in this movie.  I hadn't read the book, but
had friends recommend it.  The photography was *very* hokey, especially
the scenes where they wanted you to believe some plane was going very
fast.  Worse than the photography however was that several major
historical figures were grotesquely mis-played.  Eisenhower and Lyndon
Johnson worst of all.  There were moments of pure slapstick protrayed
as if historical fact.

I read a review in the New Haven Advocate (local "alternate newspaper"
rag) which had, amidst lots of discussion mostly irrelevant to either
the book or the movie, one gem of a quote from one of the actresses
who played the astronauts' wives:

	"We were quite pleased with the way it turned out; we
	were able to reconcile what these women [the wives]
	felt at that time with our own views as feminists."

Heaven forbid that historical accuracy should interfere with making
a political statement. :-)

That view was about par for most of the movie.  I have very little
idea how accurate some of the parts of the movie are, but based on
what I know to be distortions, I have lots of doubts.  Perhaps in
this respect Kaufman was only following the book; I'll have to read
it and see.

	- Alan S. Watt

------------------------------

Date: 3 Nov 83 14:21:10-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!rene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The Right Stuff
In-Reply-To: Article ihlts.249, <1082@ittvax.UUCP>

With respect to accuracy: in a newspaper review, one of the people
portrayed in the movie (I forget which one) said, "It was well done.
Not very accurate, but well done. [For instance] I don't remember all
that morality stuff." (That's a quote from memory). I think the
scientists were portrayed as being more unsympathetic and more the
stereotyped 'german scientist' than they should have been. Naturally,
scenes were compressed - it wasn't THAT easy to get a window in the
nose cone of the Apollo.

				- rene
-- 
Arpa:   rene.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!rene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Nov-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #32
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
		      Exercises in Macro-Engineering
	  List of astronomy depts. and observatories on the net
	Re: List of astronomy depts. and observatories on the net
	Re: List of astronomy depts. and observatories on the net
	  Creationist citation of Pettersson's meteroite article
		      IRAS discoveries: Betel Shells
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 1983 9:10-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Exercises in Macro-Engineering
Reply-To: dietz%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Via:  Usc-Cse; 05 Nov 83 10:46:21

The latest issue of Analog has an interesting article by Keith Lofstrom
on a novel electromagnetic launching device called the "Launch Loop".
The launch loop is a narrow iron strip formed into a loop some 4000 km
in circumference.  The iron moves at some 10 km/sec, and is guided by
attractive forces, mainly from permanent magnets.  The loop is located
at the equator.  The central section rises to an altitude of some 120
km and stays there for about 2000 km, then dips back to earth.  At the
ends the iron strip is guided around a large turning loop (10's of km
in diameter) and sent back again.  At 10km/sec the loop would fly into
space without some extra force to hold it down; this force is provided
by masses magnetically suspended below it (attractive magnetic
techniques again).  Payloads are launched by putting them on top of the
loop using repulsive magnetic levitation; magnetic drag from the loop
accelerates the payload to orbital velocity and above.  The force the
loop can exert is limited by eddy current heating of the strip (you
don't want to heat it above the curie point).

The idea doesn't look totally impossible, although I suspect the
attractive magnetic technique would cause eddy currents in the strip.
The strip has a mass of 35,000 tons and stores some 1/2 x 3.5E7kg x
(1.0E4m/sec)^2 = 1.75E15 joules of energy, about 3 weeks output from a
1Gw electric plant.  Lofstrom points out that the loop would make an
ideal long distance power transmission system:  the power transmitted
by a 1 kg/m strip moving at 10 km/sec is some 500 Gw, and can be
extracted with high efficiency (99%).  Estimated cost of the loop is $1
billion.  It could launch one million tons of material a year to
geosynchronous orbit.

Lofstrom doesn't mention it, but his idea may provide a cheap way to
store electrical energy.  A 1 kg/m strip formed into a circle with a
radius of 100 km and moving at 10 km/sec would store some 8.7 million
kilowatt hours of energy.  The strip itself would be very cheap: it's
only 628 tons of iron.  The expensive parts would probably be the
magnets for suspending the strip against gravity and for providing
centripetal force (the centripetal acceleration is 100 gee's), the
control electronics and the linear motor for adding/removing energy
from the loop.  The loop would have tremendous angular momentum --
would the earth's rotation cause a problem?  Maybe counterrotating
loops are needed, or the loop can be put entirely at one latitude.  For
centripetal magnets of fixed strength the energy stored in such a loop
is proportional to r^2, while material costs rise linearly in r, so
you want the loop to be as large as possible.  If this idea is feasible and
economical then maybe wind and ground based solar make sense after all.
I don't think Lovins would approve, though.

Lofstrom and friends are currently building a 3.4 meter, 170 m/sec
prototype system.  If you want to donate time/money to his project
you'll find his address at the end of the Analog article.
 
Date: 6 Nov 1983 7:56-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Launch Loop: correction

Correction:  the above ground mass of the launch loop is 35,000
metric tons, not the iron ribbon mass.  The mass of the ribbon is 6,000
metric tons.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Nov 83 18:07:44-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!riddle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: List of astronomy depts. and observatories on the net

The following is a list of astronomy departments and observatories on the
net.  Does anybody know of any others?


 Name: astrovax
 Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Astrophysical Sciences
 Contact: William L. Sebok
 Phone: (609) 452-3586
 Postal-Address: Princeton Univ. Observatory, 129 Peyton Hall,
 	Princeton, NJ 08544
 Electronic-Address: astrovax!wls
 News: princeton
 Mail: allegra akgua burl cbosgd cithep decvax fisher ias ihnp4 jplcom kpno 
 	princeton rocky2

 
 Name: hao
 Organization: High Altitude Observatory/NCAR
 Contact: Peter Gross
 Phone: (303) 494-5151 x348
 Postal-Address: P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
 Electronic-Address: seismo!hao!pag
 News: menlo70 cires hplabs csu-cs seismo kpno
 Mail: ucsfcgl brl-bmd nbires boulder ntia ames-lm stc70

 
 Name: kpno
 Organization: Kitt Peak National Observatory
 Contact: Mike Brown
 Phone: (602) 327-5511
 Postal-Address: P.O. Box 26732, 950 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85726-6732
 Electronic-Address: kpno!brown, or kpno!usenet
 News: arizona hao hsi ut-sally
 Mail: arizona astrovax charm decvax floyd hao hsi ias ihnp4 lbl-csam miami
 	misvax sdcarl sdcsvax seismo solar unc utastronomy ut-sally vortex

 
 Name: utastro
 Organization: University of Texas, Astronomy/McDonald Observatory
 Contact: Fritz Benedict
 Phone: (512) 471-4461
 Postal-Address: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712
 Electronic-Address: fritz@utastro.UUCP
 News: ut-ngp
 Mail: ut-ngp ut-sally ut-tsp kpno kei-zeus

----
Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 83 9:29:05-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!riddle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: List of astronomy depts. and observatories on the net

Hmm.  I think I goofed when I included hao.UUCP on the list of USENET
sites involved in astronomy.  True, "hao" stands for "High Altitude
Observatory," but I'm not sure that the altitudes of interest to the
folks there are quite  t h a t  high!
----
Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 83 10:14:13-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!ut-sally!riddle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: List of astronomy depts. and observatories on the net

Oops again!  HAO, I am politely corrected by a small legion of people,
is indeed engaged in astronomical work.  As one person put it:

> From: seismo!hao!hull
> Subject: Re: List of astronomy depts. and observatories on the net
> Posted-Date: 6 Nov 83 18:39:41 EST (Sun)
> 
> Hmmmn.  Uh, how high is high enough?  Er, um, we have several observing
> programs, many collaborative in nature, that involve ground based telescopes.
> We also have many programs that involve observations from satellites.
> It is possible that everyone in the HAO will write to you about this, but
> don't worry, you probably will not be flamed.  Let me try to make a summary:
> 
> 0. The High Altitude Observatory is a Division of NCAR, The National Center
> 	for Atmospheric Research.  NCAR is a Laboratory for UCAR, the
> 	University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.  UCAR, a consortium
> 	of 50 member Universities, is a contractor to The National Science
> 	Foundation.
> 
> 1. The Solar Maximum Mission Program
> 	This program, initiated by Dr. Robert M. MacQueen and others at HAO
> 	was a NASA contract to develop a satellite coronagraph for observations
> 	of the Solar Corona on a synoptic basis from 2.5 to 5.0 solar radii.
> 	The objective was to develop the understanding of Coronal Dynamics
> 	and MHD Plasma Physics with respect to Solar processes.  The launch
> 	was carried out in 1979 and in appx one year of observations, the
> 	HAO/NASA instrument collected 30000 images of the white light solar
> 	corona.  Some of these images display coronal transient phenomena
> 	not previously seen.  Many of these images are today found in the
> 	literature as computer-enhanced false-color intensity contours.
> 
> 2.  Solar Maximum Repair Mission Program
> 	Too bad, but the SMM spacecraft failed in multiple ways after about
> 	a year of operation.  This NASA program, which involves most of the
> 	scientists formerly using SMM data, will continue to work together
> 	with Dr. Frost (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) to re-activate
> 	the programs when the repair is completed by the crew abord NASA's
> 	shuttle flight STS-13.  NASA will repair the satellite's Attitude
> 	Control System (ACS), and HAO will need to replace an electronics
> 	box (MEB).  The HAO repair program is headed by Dr. Lewis L. House,
> 	who until recently had been in charge of the data reduction program
> 	using NCAR's CRAY computers.  The Main Electronics Box was fabricated
> 	by the Ball Brothers Research Corporation, the subcontractor for the
> 	original sucessful instrument.  The box will undergo final testing
> 	next week here at HAO prior to being shipped to the NASA Goddard
> 	Space Flight Center for integration with the STS-13 mission hardware.
> 
> 3.  The SMM was initially supported by, and is now totally supplemented by the
> 	Mauna Loa Solar Observatory (mlso) coronagraph station on the island
> 	of Hawaii at 11000 ft. altitude on the North side of the mountain.
> 	(Mauna Loa is regarded as an active volcano.  One eruptions did occur
> 	within a few miles of the station, however most are far away down the
> 	southeast flank.)  Including HAO scientist Dr. Richard Fisher, the
> 	station is manned by a five member HAO team, and makes synoptic
> 	observations of the Solar Corona from 0.5 to 3.0 Solar Radii in
> 	complement with the SMM.  Observations are supplemented by selected
> 	H-Alpha telescope images that the crew collects in patrol mode, or
> 	other modes where activity is evident.
> 
> 4.  New programs at HAO will obtain data for the Solar Variability program,
> 	and will include a collaborative program with Dr. G.W. Lockwood of
> 	the Lowell Observatory and Dr. Dimitri Mihalas of HAO to collect
> 	synoptic data on a significant number of stars in the K-Line and in
> 	H-Alpha.  There is ample evidence that there are stars with cycles
> 	and chromospheres (See Wilson, et. al.) so its about time we got some
> 	solar/stellar documentation.  Dr. Fisher (HAO) is planning to collect
> 	Solar K-Line data at MLSO as well.  The K-Line is an excellent magnetic
> 	spectral line generated in the chromospheres of the Sun and many stars.
> 	
> 5.  A new collaborative program with the Sacramento Peak Observatory will
> 	use instrumentation constructed at HAO and SPO to measure velocities
> 	of solar surface material to an accracy of less than one meter per
> 	second.  HAO scientist Dr. Tim Brown is working with SPO scientist
> 	Jack Evans to begin gathering data in the near term.  The HAO portion
> 	of the instrument was delivered in July, and integration with the
> 	SPO Perkin Elmer 3220, CAMAC, optical ports and mechanisms is well
> 	along.
> 
> The above discussion concerns mostly instrumentation efforts at HAO.  There
> is an equal preponderance of theoretical work done here under a couple of
> other programs that I will not delineate; it is not possible for me to compose
> an article of this length without making an annoying mistake somewhere, so
> I had better stop here.
> 				Regards, Howard Hull... A member of the
> 				HAO Instrument Group
> 
>  {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
>        		        !hao!hull

Oh, well, into each life some blunders must fall.
----
Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 83 10:28:00-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Creationist citation of Pettersson's meteroite article

>From "Scientific Creationism (Public School Edition)" Edited by Henry M.
Morris, Ph. D.; Director, Institute for Creation Research:

"It is known that there is essentially a constant rate of cosmic dust
particles entering the earth's atmosphere from space and then gradually
settling to the earth's surface. The best measurements of this influx
have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million
tons per year [1].

1. Hans Pettersson, 'Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust', Scientific
   American, Vol. 202 (February 1960),p. 132 "

---------------------------------------------

>From the cited reference:

"In general the cosmic spherules from the ocean floor indicate a higher
rate of meteor-fall in recent times."

...( and after describing his own 14  million ton result)

"To be on the safe side, especially in view of the uncertainty as to how
long it takes meteoritic dust to descend, I am inclined to find five million
tons per year plausible."

------------------------------------------

My purpose here is to show the essential dishonesty of Morris's
use of published literature. Morris also makes statements about the nickel
content of ocean sediments which completely ignore Pettersson's detailed
discussion of exactly that topic. Also note that "Scientific Creationism"
had its first printing in 1974, so that in addition to ignoring Pettersson's
own uncertainty, Morris is ignoring all the data of the intervening
14 years, including data from earth satellites, the Apollo program, and
the Pioneer spacecraft, all of which superseded terrestrial measurements.

In his talk, Dr. Brown belittled the significance of Pettersson's work,
preferring to cite satellite data. I've been unable to find published
references to either the earth satellite data that Dr. Brown mentioned
or results of the Apollo 17 meteor counter, which he also mentioned. I have
found results from Pioneer, which show a very low flux of micrometeroids.

Anyway, none of this mitigates Morris's misrepresentation of Pettersson's
article, which I find impossible to ascribe to error or sloppiness.
In fact, the five million ton figure is in the title blurb, so that
Morris must have dug the 14 million figure out of the text, where it
appears just prior to the quote I gave above.

	Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

------------------------------

Date:  9 Nov 1983 09:28:31 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: IRAS discoveries: Betel Shells
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

NASA News Release 83-172

IRAS DISCOVERS GIANT DUST SHELLS AROUND THE STAR BETELGEUSE

        Astronomers studying data from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite at
the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, have discovered three giant dust
shells that are asymmetrically placed around the star Betelgeuse.

        IRAS, which was launched Jan. 25, 1983, is a joint project of the
United States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

        It was already known that Betelgeuse, a red supergiant star, loses
material.  The IRAS data show evidence for the presence of dust shells which
extend more than four light years from the star.  At this distance, the
material must have left the star 100,000 years ago.  IRAS observations thus
allow astronomers to study the earliest stages in the episode of mass loss.

        A surprising result is the strong asymmetry in the distribution of dust
around Betelgeuse.  While it is thought that the process of mass loss is more
or less symmetrical around the star, all material observed there by IRAS is
seen north of the star.  A possible reason for this asymmetry is a strong
deformation of the symmetrically ejected material by the ambient interstellar
gas through Betelgeuse moves.

        Betelgeuse is one of the brightest stars in the constellation Orion.
It is conspicuously red and belongs to the class of red supergiants.  It is one
thousand times larger than the Sun; if placed in our solar system, it would
extend to the planet Jupiter.

--------
END
--------
At a news coference today at NASA HQ in Washington, other interesting IRAS
discoveries were announced.  Of interest is the discovery of three bright bands
surrounding the sun between Mars and Jupiter, one along the ecliptic, the other
two about 9 degrees above and below the ecliptic.  One explanation for the
bands is debris from asteroidal collisions all movin in orbits inclined 9
degrees from the ecliptic.  The result of such orbits would appear to be three
bright bands in the orientation observed by IRAS.
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Nov-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #33
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
			      Shuttle at Pad
			Discovery En Route to KSC
			    SRB nozzle problem
			  Re: SRB nozzle problem
			  Re: SRB nozzle problem
			   SRB failure recovery
			       Space debris
		     space debris vs. tower/elevator
		      Re: Realistic space elevators
		      Exercises in Macro-Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 83 17:34:01-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle at Pad

The Columbis was rolled to the pad today in preparation
for its 28 November launch.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 14:49:57-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Discovery En Route to KSC

The Discovery, which was rolled out of its Rockwell hangar last week and
flown to Carswell l AFB in Texas yesterday, took off for KSC this morning,
on top of a 747.  The ship will be placed in a hangar at the space center
and readied for its maiden flight, for its maiden flight, scheduled for
next spring.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 83 14:15:45-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!smb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SRB nozzle problem

Does anyone know what the final verdict was on what caused the lining
erosion?  I just saw a news story that said that although the nozzle
on Columbia was changed, the protective material was OK, and that the
boosters have been "exonerated".  The NASA spokesperson is quotes as
saying that he didn't understand the complex tests performed, but that
NASA is statisfied that there won't be any more problems.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 9:22:12-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!mhuxm!rhib @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SRB nozzle problem

According to recent press the lining erosion problem was localized to
a single batch of lining material.  I presume NASA has taken steps to
ensure that subsequent batches are not subsequently found to be
defective

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 8:27:38-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihldt!jhh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SRB nozzle problem

I don't rember the details exactly, but I believe there was a bubble
between the lining and what it lined.  This bubble pushed the lining
into a position where it was more subject to erosion.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 13:59:38-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!daemon @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SRB failure recovery
Forwarded-From: Ed Featherston  HL01-1/P06  225-5241 <roll::featherston>
>From : DVINCI::FISHER
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.

Thinking about near-failures of an SRB and what might be done has led
me to some interesting questions which I wonder if someone out there
can answer.

Suppose only a single SRB lights up on the pad.  Is the shuttle released
before SRB thrust is confirmed?  If not, can the hold-down bolts and the
ET/orbiter structure withstand the thrust of a single SRB for 2+ minutes?

Now suppose a single SRB fails after the shuttle is in the air.  From all
I have read, RTLS abort assumes that the SRB burn can proceed to completion
so that SRB sep and ET sep can occur.  Can either the SRB or the SRB/ET
combination be separated while one or more SRBs are still burning?  Are
any of the above SRB/ET configurations aerodynamically stable?  Would the
orbiter get completely fried in the SRB exhaust?  Would that be better than
umpteen million pounds of asymmetrical thrust? Would the SRB be likely to
collide with the orbiter? What happens to the SRB's steerable nozzle (and its
associate APU) when it gets no command input from the orbiter?

Have any analyses of the above questions been done, or is an SRB failure early
in the mission automatically fatal?

Thanks in advance for any answers,

Burns

Wed 9-Nov-1983 13:31 Eastern Daylight Time
Mail address : ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

Date: Tue 8 Nov 83 09:38:55-CST
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Space debris
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: laws@SRI-AI.ARPA

One of the bigger problems with space debris (re: a stalk/elevator) is that
the thing will be moving at orbital velocity at only one point along its
entire length.  Even assuming everything else out there were also in an
equatorial orbit, the collision velocities could be very high indeed.

But, of course, hardly anything else IS in an equatorial orbit, so there is
no possibility that the stalk/elevator could "sweep clean" its orbital path,
except in the degenerate case: sooner or later, almost EVERYTHING would
intersect its path.  The few exceptions are easy enough to imagine.

------------------------------

Date: 9 November 1983 01:20 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: space debris vs. tower/elevator
To: Laws @ SRI-AI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Whereas a normal "point" satellite sweeps out a ringlet, thus can
collide only with something whose orbit intersects that ringlet and
happens to be in correct phase once, a tower/elevator sweeps out a
plane, and thus collides with anything that crosses that plane when it
happens to be in the same phase as the tower/elevator.

If you think about it a little, you'll see that every other orbit is
either in that plane or intersects it, thus every object in orbit
whatsoever is a candidate for colliding with the tower/elevator. If
it's in the plane, and has exactly the same orbital period, there's no
problem, thus geosynchronous satellites and geosynchronous
tower/elevator can co-exist. If it's in the plane, and has any
different orbit, there's a certainty they'll collide within time
1/(1/T-1/t) where T and t are the orbital periods (times of
revolution) of the two objects (tower/elevator and satellite). If it's
outside the plane, but with exactly the same period as the
tower/elevator, it'll cross the plane twice each orbit at the same
point, so if it misses the first two times it'll continue to miss. But
if it's outside th plane and with a different period, it'll cross at a
new point each time, eventually crossing where the tower/elevator
happens to be at that moment and colliding with it.

Active space missions can calculate the location of the tower/elevator
throughout the mission and carefully avoid getting too close to it,
but passive (non-motive) satellites and debris will eventually collide.

The only place it'll be safe for a passive object, besides on Earth or
in geosynchronous orbit or attached to the tower/elevator, will be far
enough out that it's beyond the highest point of the tower/elevator,
i.e. far beyond geosynchronous orbit, whereas virtually all existing
debris and satellites are in low orbit.

Thus it appears we need a space tug to clear out the debris and be on
hand for occasionally shoving random passive satellites out of harm's
way, before the tower/elevator will be practical.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 83 21:10:07-EST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Realistic space elevators

x                                              6 November 1983

     Unfortunately, current materials technology does not allow the
construction of a reasonable geo-synchronous tower.  But you can do
some interesting things with current structural materials.

     The key concept to understand in dealing with tall structures
is 'scale height'.  In a tower made of a given material, it is
the maximum height a constant section column can be built, and can
be found by dividing the compressive strength (lb/in**2) by the
density (lb/in**3).  The result is in inches.  In a cable hanging
from the sky, it is the maximum length a constant section cable
can be before breaking, and is found the same way.

     Some examples: Steel 240,000 psi , .3 lb/in**3 = 800000 in = 12.6 mi
         Kevlar 3650 MPa , 1500 kg/m**3 , 9.8 m/s**2 (note, 1 gravity
 is assumed in english units, must be explicit in metric) = 248 km

     If you want to build a minimum weight structure taller than one
scale height, you taper the column or cable by a factor of e (2.718...)
per scale height.  One interesting material is graphite reinforced epoxy,
which we use here at Boeing in commercial airplanes.  The scale height,
allowing a factor of saftey for real world design, is 50 km.  It is
quite possible to build a tower that reaches into low earth orbit.

     Fortunately, as you get away from the earth's surface, gravity
is less, so the scale length increases.  Unfortunately, the number
of scale lengths to GEO, even for kevlar, is 26.  This means the tower
has to weigh e**26 = 1.45x10**11 times the 'payload'.  If we could
grow saphhire fibers, with a theoretical strength of 2.8 million psi,
then the tower would only weigh 5000 times the payload, which would
make it a feasible transportation system.

                                                 Dani Eder
                                                 Boeing Aerospace

------------------------------

Date: 10 November 1983 07:46 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Exercises in Macro-Engineering
To: dietz%USC-ECL @ SRI-NIC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

A rotating loop oriented vertically and in east-west orientation
(north-south axis) at the equator, or horizontally (up-down axis) at
the poles, or otherwise perpendicular to the axis of rotation
(parallel to the plane of the equator, axis parallel to axis of
rotation of Earth) at other latitudes, wouldn't experience gyroscopic
problems. Of course at those other latitudes you'd have to support
this big slanting ring against falling over, unless perturbations were
damped out by the gyroscopic force!!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Nov-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #34
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:
			     Discovery at KSC
			  Re: Space Solar Power
			    Greenhouse Effect
		   Re: Space Solar Power- -Cheap Stuff.
			     SPS, heat, etc.
	     Re: Re: space elevators -- another advan - (nf)
		       Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)
			    PV Cell efficiency
	     Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)
	     Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)
			   Re: The Right Stuff
		       Re: Apollo 11 landing trivia
			  Neil Armstrong - (nf)
	     Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)
		       Non-equatorial Launch Loops
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 23:18:31-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Discovery at KSC

The Discovery arrived at KSC this afternoon, and workers there immediately
began demating it from its 747.  It will then be placed in the Orbiter
Processing Facility, next to the Challenger, already there, and checked
out for its maiden flight next June.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 83 14:53:24-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!dartvax!betsy @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power

I quite agree:  there ARE no quick fixes.  Furthermore, there are no
permanent fixes, even including conservation and 'appropriate technology'.
(I suspect my definition of 'appropriate' may be broader than yours,
but let that pass.)  The best we can hope for from any technology is
to move the 'threshold of catastrophe' farther away.  Coal mines
and woodstoves are having visible,tangible effects on our environment
right now, while satellite power may pose threats a hundred years
away.  Personally, I'll take the hundred-year threat over the this-week
threat any day.  You may call this 'mortgaging our posterity's futures';
I call it 'trusting to  our posterity's intelligence'.
 
Betsy Perry
decvax!dartvax!betsy

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 83 10:12 PST
From: Swenson.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Greenhouse Effect
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Swenson.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Concerning warming Earth-greenhoue or other effect:

It has been proposed to install partial mirrors (small mirrors
intersperced with open space or the equivalent of a partially silvered
mirror) to reflect enough energy away from Earth to counter the greenhouse
effect.  Any comments?

Bob Swenson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 83 15:37 PST
From: BollenG.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power- -Cheap Stuff.
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: BollenG.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Regarding Phil Karn's comment about the Extreme Cost of solar power
generation:

Solar Arrays for sattellites are constrained by both size, and mass,
which a PowerSat would not have.  PowerSats could use much cheaper
technology to produce power, specifically, heat engines.  In the
orbittal vacuum, a shadowed area would radiate the heat absorbed on the
sunward side of a barrier.  This barrier could be extremely thin, as
long as it remains opaque.  This simple heat -cool cycle could very
efficiently run a conventional turbine, and from there we go to our
microwave transmitter.  Such a structure could be built cheaply with
lunar material, once we get out into space.

No carefully processed Si is required, so it shouldn't cost $1,000 per
watt.  The technology is simple, so design and construction should be
simple.  The cost of the array should not be the determining factor in
analysing the feasibility of Space Solar Power.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 83 13:33:53-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!lipman @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SPS, heat, etc.
Forwarded-From: Ed Featherston  HL01-1/P06  225-5241 <roll::featherston>
>From : BACH::PIERSON
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.

    The point is not that SPS will cause heat pollution relative to other
energy sources, that is obviously absurd.  The point is that the laws of
thermodynamics make it impractical for us to continue increasing our total
earthside energy use.  Space is an excellent place to move energy or
pollution intensive industries so that our earthside energy (and pollution)
budget can be spent on things that *can't* move away from the earthside
population.

    I am well aware that we can't do this immediately.  In fact serious
proposals would run into intense opposition from the current earth-based
industries and labor as well as economic arguments.  What I am claiming is
that moving these industries is both practical and beneficial *after* other
space industries are well established.

    							dan
		Mail address : ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!bach!pierson

------------------------------

Date: 10 November 1983 06:32 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Re: space elevators -- another advan - (nf)
To: harpo!eagle!karn @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 2 Nov 83 14:13:59-PST (Wed)
    From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
    If you think "energy in space is cheap", then I can't help what you may
    personally be in orbit around (apologies to HGttG).
What the crap are you talking about? Please desist in making such
vague but nasty innuendos about we who are in favor of developing
space. If your remark is supposed to be some drug-culture jargon left
over from the 60's, I'll have you know I have never spaced out on
drugs and probably never will. If your remark has some other meaning,
I have no idea what the crap you are talking about. Since you prefaced
this message with this obscene (in my opinion) remark, I'll be a bit
blunt in replying to the rest of the message.

    My experience with amateur satellite construction has driven home the
    EXTREME COST of generating electrical power in space.  The solar array
    contract has dominated the cost of every satellite we've made; the typical
    cost for a 50 watt array is $50,000!!
That's because you idiots are building those arrays on Earth using
mostly manual labor, and then orbiting them. If you automate the whole
process, using materials from the Moon and asteroids, using a
mass-driver instead of a chemical rocket for orbiting things from the
Moon, and you do the whole process in space on a large scale, you'll
get a cost reduction of several orders of magnitude. So stop doing it
your way and start planning to do it the way we have been advocating, huh?

    Perhaps things will improve in the future, but I just wanted to drive
    home the wide gap between what people are proposing with the SPS and
    current reality.
Current reality is that we haven't yet bootstrapped ourselves into
space. We need an initial investment to get things started, then enough
time for the bootstrapping process to build up, and finally we'll
begin to get a wonderful return on our investment. We have the choice
of investing just enough money for minimal bootstrapping, which gives
minimum risk but a long time before we get payback; or investing a lot
more to get things going faster; or of course not investing at all and
stagnating on this teensy planet forever.

[The rest of you, please forgive my nastiness here, but I really
object to somebody accusing me of mental derangement or whatever he
was innuendoing about just because I hold a different opinion from him.]

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 83 22:45:21-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)

	D*mmit, there *are* no "quick fixes".  Just fools searching for them.
	That includes fusion, satellite solar, oil-from-coal, and just about
	anything but conservation and appropriate technology.

English translation: *MY* solution is the only solution, and anyone who
disagrees is just not as {intelligent,enlightened,omniscient} as I, so
don't waste your time trying to think of alternatives, and don't listen
to those fools who think there may be another alternative.

Considering your grasp of the effects of SPS as demonstrated by your earlier
article, I think I'll hear out the fools.

				Scott McEwan
				uiucdcs!mcewan

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 10 November 1983 15:43:37 EST
From: Kevin.Dowling@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: PV Cell efficiency
Message-ID: <1983.11.10.20.32.52.Kevin.Dowling@CMU-RI-ROVER>

Reported in latest Laser Focus and EOSD:
	Spire Corp. has developed a process for growing a thin film of
Ga-As directly on a silicon substrate. The process converts a conventional
single band-gap Si cell with a typical efficiency of 12% to a two band-gap
cell with a theoretical efficiency of 30% and a likely conversion rate
of 25% in large scale production. In solar cell application, Si is lower
in cost but GaAs is more efficient because it captures a larger portion
of the solar spectrum. The blurb (in the postdeadline reports section)
goes on to mention that the method is a metalorganic chemical vapor
process that allow extremely precise deposition of the GaAs.
At a production level of 1MW per year, this photovoltaic process is estimated
to add $1.30/W to cell costs; at 50MW/year, only $0.22/W. Cell effficiency
will thus be more than doubled.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 83 0:27:11-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!ajs @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)

I don't know the names of the Apollo  CM/LEM  pairs,  but you did get me
thinking about another piece of Apollo trivia.  I have a recording  made
off the TV of the Apollo 11 landing.  It amazes me that about 15 seconds
of that historic  event have  virtually  disappeared.  Between  "contact
light" and "we copy you  down",  there is a stream of  technical  jargon
(from  Aldrin?)  that you just  don't hear  anymore.  Apparently  it was
edited out of some key masters  that made their way into common use (I'm
guessing about that...).

Not  only  that,  but,  the  15-second  fragment  is  also  absent  from
"transcripts"  published in  newspapers  the next day, and even from the
Apollo 11 Mission Report!

Before I post it, does anyone have an accurate  transcript?  Some of the
words are a little hard to hear.  There's  something  about "ACLM out of
descent" I'm not sure of...

Alan Silverstein, hpfcla!ajs

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 83 13:26:30-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)

Here's the transcript from the Apollo 11 landing, also from the book
"The History of Manned Space Flight":

EAGLE: Faint shadow. 4 forward. 4 forward, drifting to the right a
little.  6...down a half.
CAPCOM: 30 seconds.
EAGLE: Forward. Drifting right...contact light. Okay, engine stop.
ACA out of detent. Modes control both auto, descent engine command
override off. Engine arm off. 413 is in.
CAPCOM: We copy you down, Eagle.
ARMSTRONG: Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.
CAPCOM: Roger, Tranquility, we copy you on the ground. You've got a
bunch of guys about to turn blue. We're breathing again. Thanks a lot.
EAGLE: Thank you.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 83 13:47:13-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!osu-dbs!julian @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The Right Stuff

"With respect to accuracy:" That was Mercury, not Apollo.

Maybe that person was in the wrong place at the right time.  Or maybe
he wasn't paying attention. Whatever, doesn't mean "all that morality
stuff" didn't happen.

Remember, this is a movie adaption of the book. Three hours long, and
yet they had to leave out a great deal. It's still neat to see that
book brought to life.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 83 11:27:37-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo 11 landing trivia

This item of trivia is near and dear to my heart. I have it memorized
and I often recite it on appropriate occasions, such as when I turn off
the ignition after a long trip. These words are on a floppy National
Geographic record which came with a post-Apollo issue of the magazine.
The words are hard to understand, but they are faithfully reproduced
by Norman Mailer in "Of a Fire on the Moon". Here they are, but I don't
guarantee them against transpositions or omissions (Note the very first
word he says):

ALDRIN: Ok, engine stop. Modes control both auto. ACA out of detente.
	Auto descent engine command override off. Engine arm off.
	413 is in.

HOUSTON: We copy you down eagle.

ALDRIN: Houston, Tranquility base here; the Eagle has landed.

Another item of trivia which I recently learned: shortly after the landing
Aldrin, an Episcopalian, celebrated communion with some wine and a wafer
which he had brought in his personal kit.

	Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 83 22:45:26-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Neil Armstrong - (nf)

I just received mail from someone who had seen my article about astronaut
Neil Armstrong confirming the deep dust theories on the lunar surface.  He
wanted his mailing address.  Unfortunately, the person seems to be on ARPANET
and I don't know of a way to reply to him through mail.  So sorry to the rest
of you who see this; I don't know of any other way to respond.
Mr. Armstrong's address (as well as that of many other famous people, by the
way) may be obtained from the book Who's Who which is available in every
library.  I would give you the exact address, but my stuff is at home and I am
at my office.  Besides, it is easy for you to look it up through Who's Who.
I do remember he is in Lebanon, Ohio (working as an oil company executive - a
long way from walking on the moon, huh?)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 17:40:34-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!bane @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)

I believe this jargon was caused by a landing computer overload, forcing
Armstrong to take over full manual control in the last few meters of
descent.

Arpa:   bane.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!bane

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 19:09:25-PST (Wed)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: Non-equatorial Launch Loops

One major problem with any non-equatorial launch loop will be
pseudo-forces created by the earth's rotation.

A good example of what I am talking about is the Foucault pendulum.
At the north (or south) pole, the "ground trace" of the pendulum bob
will rotate by 360 degrees in exactly 23h 56m ... as the earth rotates
underneath it.  (Note:  this is one rotation with respect to the *stars*,
not to the *sun*).

Meanwhile, here below the deep south (seriously, 50 km due west from KSC,
and at the same latitude as Cairo, Egypt) our Foucault pendulum at the
University makes one complete revolution every 48 hours.  As I recall,
the period of rotation at any latitude L is given by 24/sin(L) hours.

This is important for any non-equatorial launch loop because it is
*impossible* to secure the track against these psuedo-forces.  Sure, it
should be no problem to anchor the magnets for the *lower* portions of
the track, after all the force/unit length of track should be fairly
small, but the *upper* portions of the track cannot be anchored.  After
it has been up for a few days, I suspect the track will begin to look
like this from above:

							  ^north
	   (------					  |
	  (	  ------				  |
	 (		------				  +----> east
	  (------------------------------------------)
	     ground portion	   ------	      )
			 	         ------	     )
					       ------  space portion


If the ends of the space-borne portion of the track are anchored as
shown in *Analog*, the curve of the track should be even more inter-
esting, but totally impossible to show on a text terminal.

Unfortunately, this is not the only pseudo-force involved with the
loop.  Because of the high speed of the track, its phyical dimensions,
and its mass, it will have a *very* large angular momentum.  As a result,
it will act as a giant gyroscope balanced on the earth's surface.  The
coriolis effect described above, or any of a number of other ghastly
forces will then have very strange effects on the loop.  For example,
if I did my cross product correctly the coriolis force will cause the
figure-eight pattern shown above, and then the properties of a gyroscope
will cause the *entire* loop to slide in a east-west direction.  (I am not
sure which direction).  However, in this case the forces exerted on the
ground anchors may be into the hundreds or thousands of tonnes of force.
Needless to say, trying to simultaneously (1) support that segment of
the loop, (2) deflect the loop either up or across, (3) keep the loop
from touching the magnets, and (4) stop the entire loop from sliding
along its length is a major task.

What other forces can be exterted on the loop?

(1):  If the earth's magnetic field changes around the loop, a nice
      hefty current will be generated in the loop. (well, it is a
      conductor).

(2):  If static charges are carried with the loop (or even "standing
      waves" of current under correct conditions), the entire loop
      will act as a giant generator.

In both cases, the loop will be coupled to the earth's magnetic field,
and thence to the sunspot cycle of the sun, and thence to ....


I have not had the time to calculate the exact numbers based on the data
given in the December issue of *Analog*, but I am fairly certain that
moving the loop away from the equator will greatly complicate the dynamics
of the loop, possibily to the point where the loop can no longer be
controlled.


		    Bruce Giles
		    ---------------------
	(UUCP):	    decvax!ucf-cs!giles
	(Snail):    UCF, Dept of Math, POB 26000, Orlando Fl 32816

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #35
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:
			     IRAS Discoveries
		   TDRS Problems Will Not Affect STS-9
			 Cosmonauts returning    
			     Re: SRB failure
			   spray cans and ozone
			     The Right Stuff
			   ABM WEAPONS 3takes 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 9:12:00-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: IRAS Discoveries

Washington [UPI] - A satellite telescope that discovered what may
be a solar system [sic] also has found a previously unknown asteroid
among the planets, stars in formation and more comets than any other
observatory in history, scientists from three nations said Wednesday.
     Astronomy textbooks will have to be rewritten because of the new
evidence, the experts said.
     Scientists from the Us, Holland and Britain assembled at NASA's
headquarters to report on the latest data from the IRAS.
     They said that in addition to the asteroid, IRAS has found
evidence fo previously unobserved rings around a distant star and
three bands of dust circling through Earth's solar system.
     "So far the results of this effort have been nothing short of
spectacular," said NASA chief James Beggs, speaking for the entire
panel.
     "The taxpayers got a look at the universe that's never been seen
before," said Nancy Boggess, an astronomer on the US IRAS team.  "It
gave us a definite perspective on our own planet here.  A lot of
chapters in astronomy books will be rewritten because of what we found
here."
     US astronomer Fred Gillett said IRAS has detected an
asteroid-like body less than 1.2 miles across that passes closer to
the sun than any known planet or asteroid in the solar system.  Its
orbit intersects that of Mercury.
     Beggs said the satellite is responsible for the discovery of five
comets, "more new comets than any other observer in our history."
     Also discovered were three giant dust shells around Betelgeuse,
an older star and one of the brightest in the Orion constellation.
The shells will help scientists study the deterioration of stars.
     IRAS mapped three rings of dust within the solar system, possibly
the result of asteroid collisions.  The dust lies mostly in the plane
in which the planets travel.
     Gerry Neugebauer, head of the US IRAS team, said information from
the satellite also showed that many areas of the universe previously
thought to be empty are filled with small clouds of gas and dust
believed to be stars in formation.
     IRAS was launched in January, but because its coolant is running
out, it will not be useful after January, 1984, the panel said.  The
scientists said the next-generation telescope is to be launched in the
1990s.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 10:53:27-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: TDRS Problems Will Not Affect STS-9

An antenna on the TDRS-1 satellite failed yesterday, and
NASA is having trouble activating its backup system.  However,
the two are a redundant package designed to be used only
if a main antenna and its backup fail; that has not yet
happened.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 83  1422 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
Subject: Cosmonauts returning    
To:   space@MIT-MC

a016  0113  12 Nov 83
Cosmonauts Reportedly Plan Return
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Soviet cosmonauts who have been in space since
June are planning a descent to Earth later this month in a spacecraft
that may be in danger of losing its fuel, according to a published
report.
    The Washington Post reported today that the Soyuz 9 spacecraft
carrying cosmonauts Vladimir Lyakhov and Alexander Alexandrov will
have been docked at the Salyut space station for 149 days before it
returns to Earth.
    The newspaper, which quoted unidentified U.S. intelligence sources,
said the Soyuz 9's batteries are running down and its volatile
hypergolic fuels, which ignite on mixing, have been evaporating to the
point that the spacecraft's fuel tanks could be almost empty.
    Previous Soyuz crews have returned to Earth in spacecraft flown to
the Salyut space station by an exchange crew, which stays aboard
Salyut for a week or two until another, long-term crew arrives. This
way, there is always a crew aboard the Salyut to tend its long-term
experiments.
    The suggestion that Lyakhov and Alexandrov will return to Earth
aboard their own Soyuz means that no exchange of crews is
contemplated, the Post said. According to the newspaper, this
indicates that the launch pad explosion in September that almost
killed two cosmonauts who were to take Lyakhov and Alexandrov's places
was as serious a setback to the manned Soviet space program as any
accident the Soviets have suffered in the past 20 years.
    The Soviet news agency Tass reported Thursday that the cosmonauts
had begun medical preparations for their return and U.S. sources told
the Post that the two men had been talking with their flight
directors about returning Nov. 24, Nov. 25 or Nov. 26.
    
ap-ny-11-12 0412EST

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 83 20:33:38-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!rcj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SRB failure

According to my father, who is chief of safety, west coast, for
United Space Boosters Inc., the problem with the SRB was related
to one batch of the protective lining material becoming contaminated
with silicon.  This was, however, an early verdict and I have not talked
to him since.

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3814 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ floyd clyde ihnp4 mhuxv ]!burl!rcj

------------------------------

Date: 7 Nov 83 21:02:24-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!we13!burl!clyde!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: spray cans and ozone

I forgot to sign my note.  Also, if anyone has any recent reports on
the ozone issue, I'd be glad to see them.  The most recent stuff I've
seen was in 1979 and the verdict could have changed since then.  Still
interest does seem to have evaporated.

			       J. L. Giles
			       jlg@lanl-a

------------------------------

Date: Thu 10 Nov 83 10:18:49-MST
From: Bob Pendleton <Pendleton@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: The Right Stuff

   Having read the book I had to see the movie.  I loved it!  It was
hilarious!  It followed the book quite well but, of course, left out a lot
that was in the book.  I think of the movie as the comic book version of
the book.  The heros were heroic, the bad guys (scientists) were
villainous scum, and the politicians acted like politicians are supposed
to act.

   Someone, the director maybe or the editor, was a little confused.
They show a Mercury-Redstone taking off, then cut to a shot of an
Atlas staging, then back to the Mercury-Redstone.  Later after showing
a Mercury-Atlas taking off they cut to a shot back from the nose that
clearly shows a fin, Redstones have fins, Atlases don't.  When talking
about the rocket assisted F-104 they mention that it has the BIG
ENGINE, in the book the BIG ENGINE was always the follow on engine for
the X-15.  

		It was well worth the $5,  After seeing it 
		YOU WILL BELIEVE THAT A MAN CAN FLY

			Bob Pendleton

P.S.  Please don't flame at me about an Atlas being a one stage
vehicle and therefore not capable of staging.  It is referred to as a
1.5 stage vehicle and dropping the two outboard engines is considered
staging.

------------------------------

Date: 06 Nov 83  2043 PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: ABM WEAPONS 3takes 
To:   arms-d@MIT-MC, space@MIT-MC

By CHARLES MOHR
n005  0617  05 Nov 83
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - A group of experts has urged President Reagan to order
an increase in long-range research on relatively exotic technologies
to defend against a nuclear attack.
    Government officials said the president was expected to follow that
advice by the Pentagon-appointed panel of technologists and give
priority to still remote technology, rather than undertaking a crash
program to deploy actual defensive weapons quickly. Some members of
Congress have recommended a deployment program.
    Many scientists outside government have expressed doubt that any
combination of technologies would provide a workable defense against
nuclear missiles. But the technologists' panel, called the Defensive
Technologies Study Team, is more optimistic about the long-term
prospects, officials said.
    The recent recommendations to the president would substantially
increase an already ambitious spending plan that was under
consideration before Reagan called for study of a high-technology
antimissile system in his so-called ''Star Wars'' speech March 23,
the officials added.
    Although some of the proposed systems might be based in space and
might use directed energy such as lasers or particle beams, officials
said the study team did not confine itself to space-based methods in
its report to the Defense Department and the White House.
    Perhaps the greatest significance of the emerging White House policy
does not concern the technological details of proposed devices.
Instead, administration sources say, it may be the president's clear
determination that the United States should shift from a policy of
nuclear deterrence based solely on offensive weapons and seek to
devise a workable defense against nuclear attack after it has begun.
    Nevertheless, in terms of military research and development, the
study team's advice to the president takes a middle course. It
rejects pressures from those who believe a defense can be built
quickly from available technology. But it also rejects a larger body
of strategic and scientific thinking that nuclear defense is not a
wise goal and that only moderate research efforts should be continued
to avoid a technological surprise by the Soviet Union.
    Some prominent scientists outside administration policy-making
circles said they were very skeptical of the technical feasibility of
such systems and even more dubious about the strategic and political
wisdom of seeking to build them.
    One such scientist, Dr. Sidney Drell, a physicist who is deputy
director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, commented, ''This
is a crucial period for strategic doctrine.''
    Dr. Hans Bethe of Cornell, a Nobel laureate who was director of
theoretical physics for the Manhattan Project in World War II, said,
''My opinion is that it is still totally science fiction.''
    Reagan argues that such a system could render a ''system of horrible
weapons obsolete,'' a reference to offensive intercontinental
missiles. His critics among scientists argue that such a defense
would only spur the Soviet Union to increase its stock of nuclear
missiles and to undertake complex countermeasures that could render
the United States even more vulnerable and make peace more fragile.
    ''No matter how bad things are now, they can get worse,'' said one
critic, Dr. Henry Kendall, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology who is chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    On the other hand, the practicability and desirability of
antimissile systems have been strongly championed by such figures as
Dr. Edward Teller, leader of the team that developed the hydrogen
bomb, and Dr. Lowell Wood, a prominent scientist at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.
    ''I am not telling you that we have complete plans,'' said Teller.
''If we did, we would argue for deployment rather than more
research.'' He added that one could not work on military research
without a ''positive attitude.''
    Some news reports last month indicated that the president had been
advised to develop and deploy such a weapon system, but officials now
say such reports were incorrect.
    The scientists on the Defensive Technologies Study Team did not
recommend actual development and deployment of the weapons, officials
stressed. Instead, the panel urged a strong, prolonged research
effort punctuated by periodic demonstrations of technology
feasibility. The team was headed by James C. Fletcher, former
administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    Robert S. Cooper, director of the Defense Department's Advanced
Research Projects Agency, said the Fletcher panel had been charged by
the administration with giving greater consideration to advanced
technologies that were unlikely to be available any time soon and
that could lead to workable weapons ''by the late 1990s.''
    In all, there were three committees reporting to the president on
strategic defense. Besides the Fletcher panel, there was the Future
Security Strategy Study, headed by Fred S. Hoffman, a military and
research analyst. An interagency group, coordinated by William P.
Clark, then the national security adviser, urged that the United
States make clear its resolve and ability to overcome the problems of
a workable defense against nuclear weapons.
    Several officials said many of the technologies being considered
were so ''immature'' that it was difficult to estimate what
production might cost. Several officials said the Fletcher panel's
recommendations might lead to an increase of $500 million to $1
billion in research spending for the 1985 fiscal year, which starts
next Oct. 1. Expenditures of $18 billion to $27 billion over five
years are being discussed.
    To some policy makers, the increased expenditures now being
considered, while large, do not seem enormous. According to Defense
Department officials, nearly $2 billion was put in the early budget
draft for this type of research for 1985 even before Reagan's March
speech. Early planning for the next five-year military budget
discussed spending $10 billion to $20 billion on strategic defense.
    But Dr. Kurt Gottfried, a Cornell physicist who is an officer of the
Union of Concerned Scientists, called the proposed expenditures ''a
prodigious amount of money.'' He and other critics like Kendall said
they doubted that such sums could be efficiently spent in pure
research.
    Another potential controversy involves the probable effectiveness of
any defense against nuclear missiles. Reagan's speech put forth a
vision of a highly effective screen that might almost eliminate
civilian casualties. Many government experts and some members of the
Fletcher panel think that, under the best circumstances, many
civilians would be killed or injured.
    Asked about this, Cooper of the Defense Department gave what is
increasingly a standard administration response. ''Even if only 50
percent of all incoming missiles were stopped,'' he said, ''the
Soviets could then have no confidence in the success of a first
strike, and war would be more remote.''
    Teller argued that if the Russians were forced to increase
expenditures greatly to assure their missiles got through, ''we would
have accomplished something.''
    Because the technologies and strategic doctrines under discussion
are complex, so is the debate about their technical feasibililty and
military wisdom. Some examples illustrate this.
    The Fletcher panel reportedly recommended research leading to a
three-tier system that would be able to attack Soviet missiles first
as rocket motors were lifting them through the atmosphere. This would
be followed by interception in midcourse as the re-entry vehicles
coasted above the atmosphere, and then by final defense as the
re-entry vehicles plunged back into the atmosphere over the United
States.
    Bethe argued that midcourse interception would be made difficult by
the deployment of many decoys for each actual warhead.
    Also, because the missile boosters are much more vulnerable to
damage from lasers or other technology than the heat-resistant and
hardened warheads, interception in the boost phase is regarded as
especially desirable.
    Laser ''battle stations'' could be placed in relatively low orbit,
and with foreseeable rocket technology this would be the most
plausible course, experts say.
    But the earth's rotation would make it necessary to have more than
100 stations orbiting in order to keep a number of lasers over Soviet
territory, according to Bethe and others. The expense would then be
very great. Moreover, critics argue, all defensive systems would need
to be defended themselves against possible pre-emptive attacks, and
this is harder to do in lower orbits.
    An alternative would be to place directed-energy stations so they
would hover over Soviet territory in an orbit that would keep them
22,300 miles directly above points on the earth.
    To put heavy battle stations in such high orbits, however, would
require very powerful rockets, Bethe said. Moreover, he said,
releasing X-ray lasers at such altitudes would require the detonation
of a nuclear device of ''at least one megaton.'' Radiation from the
nuclear explosive would cause material in a bundle of rods orbiting
some distance away to emit a powerful beam of X-ray energy.
    The Fletcher panel report placed great emphasis on X-ray lasers as
perhaps the most promising future technology to block hostile
missiles.
    But critics such as Bethe, Drell and Gottfried argue that the
enormous distance to the Soviet missiles would complicate the
daunting problem of accurate pointing and tracking of laser beams.
    Because of such problems, a great deal of attention has been given
to an alternative concept in which the antimissile systems would be
kept on the ground but prepared for immediate launching into space.
In one such ''pop-up'' plan, the rockets would be kept ready for
instant launching; in another, large mirrors for focusing laser beams
would be sent into space, where they would gather and point energy
from ground-based lasers.
    The problems that must be overcome to make pop-up weapons effective
are staggering, critics say. In a modern intercontinental missile
like the American MX, booster rockets burn for only about three
minutes. After early-warning sensor satellites flashed word that a
Soviet launching had begun, the pop-up weapons or mirrors would have
to be sent aloft almost instantaneously.
    Moreover, according to Dr. Richard L. Garwin, a noted scientist who
is a Defense Department consultant, and others, the rockets would
have to move at tremendous speed to lift the defensive devices to
altitudes of 1,000 miles or more in less than three minutes so they
could attack the Soviet boosters.
    Gottfried and Drell said the aerodynamic and physical stresses would
be difficult for the laser stations to withstand. Gottfried added
that the whole system would require supercomputers for control. ''I
doubt there could be any human intervention,'' he said. He and other
scientists worry about an ''automatic'' initiation of war in space,
leading to war on the ground.
    Further, the skeptical scientists say there is an almost unlimited
range of possible Soviet countermeasures. One would be to increase
the number of submarines with nuclear missiles, deploy them closer to
the United States and then fire them in low trajectories. This would
greatly reduce the time available for interception.
    Wood of the Livermore Laboratory said that the critics were almost
all physicists, not systems engineers, military planners or
industrialists, and that most of their objections were not in their
field of expertise. He said the ''problem of short time-lines of
three minutes or less have been considered in great detail for years,
and by the Fletcher panel, and satisfactory answers given.'' One
example, he indicated, was the possibility of ''forward basing'' in a
country such as Britain, permitting the pop-up weapons to attack
rising Soviet missiles sooner.
    The critics contend that many of the individual components of
various defensive systems under discussion seem to be technically
feasible but that putting them together in a workable system will be
very difficult.
    Teller said the objections of the critics, some of whom are his
longtime foes in the policy arena, ''do not show that all that we are
doing is useless, but only that we are not completely successful as
yet and that further improvements are highly desirable.''
    Drell and others contend that Reagan is trying to convince the
public that there is a technological solution to the nuclear ''sword
of Damocles.'' Only arms control treaties, not technology, can
provide a solution, Drell said.
    
Editors note: Art en route to picture clients for the above
story. + 
    
nyt-11-05-83 0941est
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #36
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:
				 bubbles
				elevators
		       beanstalks and space debris
			    Re: gravity waves
			    Re: gravity waves
		    Re: Exercises in Macro-Engineering
			     Re: Launch Loops
		   Coriolis Forces: gedanken experiment
		    Non-equatorial Launch Loops: OOPS!
			    Getting in to KSC
			   Re: Getting into KSC
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 14:13:34-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: bubbles

According to Clarke in (I think) View from Serendip, the experiment has been
tried with animals, and the current record was held by a dog which survived
several MINUTES! -- not to mention that he also mentions a rumor that at least
one human lab tech had also been (accidentally) exposed without serious
damage.

Also, long ago I read in National Geographic about a guy who was testing
pressure suits and lost pressure in a glove at 100,000 feet...  he got a
tremendous hickey but no embolism.

Remember that the pressure difference is only 10-33 feet of water!  The
skin can handle that for some time, so the pressure drop ismaller.

Charlie
...!duke!crm

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 14:09:01-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: elevators

The material needed is *REALLLY* strong wire cable, and there is no trouble with
the tower falling -- it would actually be under some TENSION, and the problem
would be holding it down!

Charlie Martin
...!duke!crm

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 10:29:18 EST
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: beanstalks and space debris
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Objects that were in orbits that were exact integral fractions
(or multiples) of geosynch, and were not equatorial, would continue
to miss the beanstalk if they missed it the first time.

Perhaps this, on a smaller scale, explains quantum mechanics :-) ?

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 15:14:10-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: gravity waves

  This brief note is an attempt to clarify a minor error in the NY Times
article quoted by R. Goldman.  It is a reflection on the intended audience
for the original article.
  
>   Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts the existence of
> gravity waves, but....

  The instructor for my general relativity course claimed that Einstein's
unadulterated theory does not permit gravity waves.  As originally formulated,
general relativity is a nonlinear theory which does not permit waves to
travel far from the source.  A linearized version of general relativity, which
is also easier to work with, does allow gravity waves.
  These comments were made in light of the claims by J. Weber that he had
detected gravity waves.  Einstein's full theory does not permit the generation
of gravity waves, so Weber's observations were considered very interesting.
Since then (1978), other experimenters have constructed equipment similar to
Webers in an attempt to repeat his findings, but none of the other trials have
detected gravity waves.

                                    Patrick Wyant
                                    AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                                    *!ihuxm!gjphw

------------------------------

Date: 10 Nov 83 11:48:51-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!astrovax!mwe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: gravity waves
In-Reply-To: Article <690@ihuxm.UUCP>

RELATIVISTIC JET ON!

I don't know who your instructor was, but hopefully it was you who misunderstood
him, not him making an unforgivable error. 

But because we seem to be quoting authorities here...

My general relativity instructor was Kip Thorne. He said that Einstein's field
equations could describe the propogation of gravity waves. In fact, any change
in the curvature of space time is caused by such waves. He also said that the 
waves are non-linear (because gravity waves carry energy => mass; a similar case
would be if the photon carried electric charge). This means that the equations
can't be easily solved, but it doesn't mean that Einstein's theory doesn't
predict the waves. The linearized equations you saw are the weak-field limit,
which make the approximation that the energy carried in the waves is negligible.
These can be solved, and they represent very closely what happens in Einstein's 
theory in this limit.

					CRAWLING BACK INTO MY BLACK HOLE
					web ewell
					astrovax!mwe

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 83 13:05:20-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!judd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Exercises in Macro-Engineering

having put up such a large loop of iron and got it spinnig et al - what hapens
if something large hits it and breaks it or even distorts it enough to contact
the ground??

				Judd Rogers
				(judd@umcp-cs)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 14:09:10-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: Re: Launch Loops

Setting aside for a second the question of flexing in the launch path
due to non-inertial forces, would it be possible to have the launched
vehicles "select" their own terminal velocities?

If a vehicle is coupled to *both* tracks, it should be possible to
adjust the amount of acceleration from each track to the right
value for NEO, LEO, geostat, cis-lunar, or even interplanetary (if
the loop is travelling fast enough).



			<--- 15 km/sec
===============================================================
                     -------------------
		  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
		  +			     +
		  +			     +
		  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
		     -------------------
===============================================================
			15 km/sec --->


This would offer a clear advantage, as not all traffic would want
to travel to geostat, and speeding up/slowing down the loop would
be a major task.  The loop could be kept near its operational peak
speed, and thus heavy traffic could use it without degrading the
system by their heavy demand on the stored energy.


The problems I see (at first glance) are:

<1>:  Will the loop be heated beyond its Curie point?

<2>:  Will the torque created whenever a vehicle is using both
      segments degrade the system, or can it be "absorbed" locally.

<3>:  Alternately, could this torque be used to "aim" the loop,
      thus permitting orbital inclinations?

<4>:  Or would it just be easier to only partially use the one
      loop segment when a lower orbit is desired?

Comments?
			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 13:36:45-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: Coriolis Forces: gedanken experiment

I have been informed that the Coriolis force only acts upon moving
objects, and that this signficantly alters my conclusions.  I main-
tain, however, that the Coriolis force is just one aspect of a more
general pseudo-force which is the result of a planetary surface being
a non-inertial frame.  Hopefully, the following gedanken experiment
will at least make my argument sound reasonable.  (Translation -- I
don't want to have to submit a more rigorous proof:  it will run into
hundreds of lines.)

======================================================================

Imagine that you are at the south pole, inside of a large, transparent
geodesic dome.  Directly over the pole is a large concrete basin, with
mercury inside of it.  Floating upon the mercury is a large concrete
raft.  Finally, above the basin is hanging a Foucault pendulum.



		  ////////////////////////////////////
		  ------------------------------------
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				    |
				   / \
				  <   >  pendulum bob
				   \_/

	==============+ ------------------------- +==============
	//////////////| |     concrete raft     | |//////////////
	//////////////| ------------------------- |//////////////
	//////////////=============================//////////////
	/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


At 6:00, you enter the dome and paint a large black line on the con-
crete raft in the direction of the sun (if it summer, at A. Centuri
in winter...).  You then start the pendulum bob such that its ground
trace is over the black line.

Being a lazy person, you leave the dome until noon.

When you come back, the sun has moved through the sky by 90 degrees.
When you look at the ground trace of the pendulum bob, you see that
it is still pointed at the sun.  What about the black line on the
concrete raft?  I claim that the earth has rotated underneath this
raft, and so the black line is still pointed at the sun!

When you come back at 18:00, the same thing has occurred.
When you come back at midnight, the same thing has occurred.
.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of the severe case of frostbite you recieved in Antartica,
you decide to visit Kenya.  While there, you take your trusty con-
crete raft and Foucault pendulum to the summit of Mount Kenya (??).

At day break, you paint a line on your concrete raft toward some
landmark, and start the swing of the pendulum bob as described above.

At noon, the pendulum bob has not changed the direction it is swinging
in.  What about the concrete raft?  Once again, I claim that the forces
acting on the raft are identical to those acting on the pendulum, so
it has not rotated either.

The next day, you come in and find the same thing.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, you go home and in your back yard set up your trusty concrete
raft and Foucault pendulum.  What happens?

======================================================================

Clearly, these are distinct physical systems.  One is moving, dynamic.
The other is stationary, static.  Yet they have the same response.

The best analogy I can think of for this force is in general relativity,
using differential geometry.  When you try to translate a vector from
one point in space to another, an extra term must be added due to the
curvature of space.  In Euclidean space, this term is identically zero.
But on the surface of a sphere, it definity is not.  I claim that this
is what is known as the Coriolis force, and that for a moving body the
vector could be its velocity.  For a stationary body it could be any
arbitrary reference direction.  After all, by Newton's laws of motion
if a body is initially at rest it will tend to remain at rest.

Hopefully, this has cleared up some questions concerning what I meant
by the Coriolis force/ pseudo-forces in my original article.

			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 12:54:23-PST (Fri)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: Non-equatorial Launch Loops: OOPS!

			>>>BLUSH<<<

I have just finished carefully reading the original article in the
December issue of *Analog*, and to my great embarrassment found that
I misunderstood the geometry of the loop.

I had thought that the side view of a Launch Loop was:


			   --> (motion)
		 ------------------------------		(space)
	       /				\
	     / 					  \
	    ----------------------------------------	(ground)
			  (motion) <--



The geometry discussed in the article was actually:


			 <===> (motion)
		 ===============================	(space)
	       //				\\
	     // 				  \\
	    (_)					   (_)	(ground)



This clearly eliminates the need for concern over the gyroscopic
properties of the loop.  Similiarly, there should be no problem
with coupling to the earth's magnetic field (at least to a first
approximation).

However, I still maintain that the Coriolis force, or a related
pseudo-force, will still distort the space-borne segments of the
loop.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Sidenote:  Bill Jefferys @ utastronomy -- I tried to respond to
	   you but decvax kicked back my mail. (It didn't recog-
	   nize utastro, error code 101 ???).  Alas, that means
	   that my responses will get to you via USENET before
	   I can get ahold of the right person here to clear up
	   the problem.  (Veterans day ....)
---------------------------------------------------------------

			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 12:41:13-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!akgua!psuvax!psuvm%rak @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Getting in to KSC

Can anyone tell me how to go about getting tickets or what the procedure
is for gaining entrance to Kennedy Space Center to get a front seat view
of a shuttle launch?  Please either post to net.columbia or send me mail
to the bitnet node psumvs userid rak.  Thanks for any help I may get.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 83 20:02:32-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting into KSC

                                                     13 November 1983

     There are several ways to get access to the Kennedy Space Center
during a shuttle launch.  I am assuming you want to get as close as
possible, and are therefore not satisfied to be 5-6 miles away around
the periphery of the Center.  One of the best places to watch from is
the press grandstand.  To get there you have to get press accreditation
from NASA, which is a lengthy process.  You have to convince them you
are there for some news organization.  In my case I was with my college
radio station for STS-1.  You write the Public Information Officer at
KSC and ask for accreditation.  The press grandstand is a good place
to watch from since it is 3.5 miles from the pad.  In front of the
grandstand is an area for still and movie photographers, and forward
of that is the countdown clock and the barge turning basin.

     You will be able to hear and see the 'NASA feed' over televisions
set up around the area, and there will be a press building with lots
of handouts and representatives of whatever payload is flying available
for questions.  Bring industrial strength mosquito repellant.

     The next best place is the VIP grandstand.  It is near the VAB,
about the same distance from the pad, but lacks all the nice information
flow.  It holds more people.  You have to know someone to get there.
Without knowing your individual situation, I would guess your congressman
would be your best bet.  It also lets him know someone is interested
in space.  Good luck!

                                                   Dani Eder
                                                   Boeing Aerospace

 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Nov-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #37
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Space Solar Power- -Cheap Stuff.
			     Apollo 11 trivia
		  ion pump for fetching gasses for space
			  Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes
			 Re: SRB failure recovery
			    PV Cell efficiency
			      Death of IRAS
		  Astronomical Journal reference wanted
			    re: IRAS recovery
			     Re: Launch Loop
			   Shuttle Information
			      star catalogs
				net.astro
			    Re: Death of IRAS
		       Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)
		       beanstalks and space debris
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 November 1983 08:27 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power- -Cheap Stuff.
To: BollenG.ES @ PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

There's a problem with using a simple barrier with sunward and
darkward sides to drive a heat engine, rather than focussing the
sunlight. If you focus the sunlight, you can approach the temperature
of the Sun, i.e. 3000K, but if you merely face sunward you average the
teensy Sun with all the black space around it and achieve only about
"room temperature" of around 300K. On the dark side of course you get
about 3K. But there's a temperature drop, analagous to the voltage
drop in an electric circuit, because you are drawing (thermal) current
between these two points, and there's not a direct contact between
those points and the reference temperatures of 3K and 300K (or 3000K
with focussing). Thus the sunward side may drop to 200K (or 2000K with
focussing), while the darkward side may rise to 100K. The result is
you're trying to run a heat engine with only a 3:2 ratio in
temperatures, which gives a low conversion of energy-flow to useful
power, in this case 3 units of incoming energy give 1 unit of useful
power and 2 units of waste heat dumped out the darkward side. (The
general rule is heat flow is proportional to temperature, and the
difference is what you draw out in the form of useful power.) This is
hardly what I'd call "very efficient". By comparison, with reflectors,
and 2000K:100K = 20:1, you get 95% of your input energy converted to
power instead of only 33%.

Reflectors should be cheaper to build per unit area than conversion
material, and the energy you produce doesn't have to be collected from
a wide area if all light is focussed on a small convertor. The only
main problem with reflectors is you have to carefully aim them toward
the Sun all the time rather than just letting them face the general
direction of the Sun. But all in all it seems reflectors are better
than large conversion units. - Rebuttal anyone?

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 10:46:46-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!daemon @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Apollo 11 trivia
Forwarded-From: Ed Featherston  HL01-1/P06  225-5241 <roll::featherston>

>From : DVINCI::FISHER
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.

The computer overload was what caused the "Program Alarms" quite a bit
earlier in the landing sequence.  Armstrong took manual control over the
landing because the computer was pointing them toward an area full of
large boulders.  (This is made clear in the transcript a few minutes after
the small window we have been seeing here).  I don't know if the manual
landing affected what was said just after touchdown, but it sound to me
like just a checklist that Aldrin is reading (is it really Aldrin?...the
NY Times attributed the "Houston, Tranquillity Base here..." speech to
Armstrong.

Does anyone know any inside details on the computer alarm problem, why it
never showed up before, and how it was fixed on later flights?

Burns
		Mail address : ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 12 November 1983 17:45 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: ion pump for fetching gasses for space
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC
cc: POURNE @ MIT-MC

Here's an idea I came up with this morning. If it's new, please let me
know so I can file for patent. If it's old, please tell me whether the
idea will work, what others have thought about it before, whether
there are any plans to implement it.

This is an alternative to a ramjet for scooping gasses out of the
atmosphere of planets for use in space. Suppose we hang a tube from
low-planetary-orbit into the atmosphere of that planet, and attach a
scoop at the bottom to collect some gas. Inside the scoop we strip
electrons from the atoms by a corona discharge with positive charge.
We have a negatively-charged corona discharge up higher to attract the
ions and to neutralize their charge and to provide the current return
for the other electrode. We thus use an electric current to pump
material from the bottom end to the top end of this tube.

Unfortunately gravity isn't linear whereas charge mostly is, so if we
use a single stage pump we'll have ions just barely starting their
trip at the bottom and then encountering more and more net force as
they reach te top, reaching relativistic speeds and emitting gamma
rays as they strike the top. So what we do is break up the pump into
segments short enough that along each segment the force of gravity is
close enough to linear that by carefully adjusting the
charge-difference along each segment we can avoid relativistic speeds.
Alternately we can use the principle of the synchotron (I think that's
the right one) which packs the ions into batches, using an alternating
current, attracting a batch from above as it approaches a charge point
then repelling it from below just after it passes that point, or using
alternating magnetic fields to induce a pseudo-electric-field.

In any case, with the device set to just barely capture the lightest
ions, it'll get mostly Hydrogen, no matter which planet we fetch the
gas from. Hydrogen just happens to be one of the elements we need most
in space, because it isn't available in moon rocks in any reasonable
quantity, so this is a "win". If we use Venus as our supplier, and we
increase the charge so lots of different ions can be collected, we'll
get lots of carbon dioxide and sulpheric acid in the scoop, supplying
Carbon which is also in short supply on the Moon and of great use, and
Sulfur. (We can discard most of the Oxygen since we'll be getting it
in surplus from the Moon.)

Of course this whole device will be powered by the Sun, using the
derived electricity both to run the ion pump itself and to forcibly
discard Oxygen and other waste as reaction mass to counteract
atmospheric drag.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 83 2:06:02-EST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!zehntel!dual!fair @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes

If memory serves, the vast majority (70+%) of Soviet ICBMs are land-based,
in the USSR, and the kind of defensive weapons discussed in the article
would (presumably) be effective against that.

But what about SLBMs and perhaps even a Soviet equivalent to the Cruise
missile?

	wondering,
	Erik E. Fair	{ucbvax,amd70,zehntel,unisoft}!dual!fair
			Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 83 14:05:07-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SRB failure recovery

                                                   11 November 1983

     If one SRB fails to light on the pad or, alternatively, the holddown
bolts on one side are not released, the results are catastrophic.  In both
cases the External Tank is immediately sheared (ripped in half the long way).
The reason is there is a thrust beam inside the tank which crosses between
the SRB's.  It connects the forward ends of the SRB's to each other and
to the skin of the ET.  It is there to distribute any thrust imbalance
between the SRB's equally among the vehicle components.  The nozzles of the
various engines are steerable to correct for this possibility.

     The thrust beam is sized for about a 10% difference in thrust.  If
one engine runs and the other doesn't, or one is freed from the pad and
the other not, the ET will be ruptured.  The ET is .1 inch aluminum, while
the SRB's are more like 1 inch high strength steel.  The tank goes first.

     During flight there is no way to shut down an SRB intentionally or
accidentally short of destroying it.  This is because the solid fuel
contains both fuel and oxidizer.  Once ignited, the combustion is self-
sustaining.  The combustion RATE is dependant on pressure.  The only
way to slow it down is to lower the pressure by blowing the nozzle out
the rear end (which is not designed in), or by splitting the motor case
with an explosive charge (which is).

     Pity the poor astronauts, since they will almost certainly die in
any of these accidents.  If you go to see a launch in person, be aware
that the press and VIP viewing areas (3.5 mi from pad) are within
shrapnel range should the vehicle explode on the pad.  They told us this
AFTER STS-1 (I was in the press area).

                                                Dani Eder
                                                Boeing Aerospace Company
                                                ssc-vax!eder

              

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 83 22:16:52-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: PV Cell efficiency

As I understand it another advantage of GaAs cells is their ability to
operate in concentrated sunlight so that part of a GaAs collector can be
cheap mirrors directing sunlight to a smaller active region. Does this
work with these combined Si-GaAs cells?

Jose Torre-Bueno
decvax!duke!phs!jtb

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 83 21:58:22-PST (Sat)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: Death of IRAS

Is there any way to "recycle" IRAS?  I seem to recall reading that
IRAS is in orbit 500 miles up, within range of the Shuttle.

Since we have been receiving such excellent data, it seems a shame
we will have to wait nearly a decade for the next satellite.
Especially since the satellite's death will be due to loss of LHe.

I know that NASA requires that a satellite be "alive" before it will
risk an orbiter to retrieve it.  How soon is it until IRAS loses power
and/or control in addition to LHe?  Does it have a docking pin?  Could
NASA add a trip to IRAS onto the end of an existing orbiter mission?

Should we be forming a "SAVE IRAS" mini-pac?

			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Nov 83 22:07:57-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Astronomical Journal reference wanted

I'm wondering if someone with access to the "Astronomical Journal"
(circa 1973) wouldn't mind too much looking up an article by S. J. Goldstein,
Jr. , J. D. Trasco, and T. J. Ogburn reporting their reevaluation of
Ole Roemer's speed of light measurement. They took 40 timings of disappear-
ances and reappearances of Io and fit them to predictions based on modern
orbital data. Specifically, I would like to know their best fit "c" value,
and most importantly, their estimation of the probable error.

This article was mentioned in the "News Notes" column of the June '73
Sky & Telescope, but the specific AJ issue wasn't given. Please mail to
me or post to the net. Thanks.

	Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 83 7:31:38-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re: IRAS recovery

On a tv interview with one of the IRAS team I heard it said that it will
take approximately 10 years to analyse the data from IRAS. This might be
one reason why recovery of the device is not a top priority.  I believe
that there are two more IR astronomical satellites planned, though, but
do not know when they are to be launched.

dgd.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 1983 10:33-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: judd@umcp-cs
Subject: Re: Launch Loop

  Having put up such a large loop of iron and got it [spinning] - what
  [happens] if something large hits it and breaks it or even distorts it
  enough to contact the ground??

If the launch loop fails the energy has to be dissipated somehow.  The
biggest part of the loop, the part at 120 km, is travelling faster than
escape velocity and is outside the atmosphere; it will go into orbit
around the sun.  The parts on the circular tracks can either be
directed into the air (where they vaporize) or be shot up the ramps
into solar orbit.  Alternately, the loop could be broken at one point,
and the strip then fed into some energy dump (which could be nothing
more than a large pile of dirt).  The biggest problem is recovering the
magnets and electronics suspended below the loop. Equip them with
parachutes, maybe?

The energy storage loop would have all the expensive parts (magnets and
control) to the inside of the moving metal;  any failure causes the
loop to fragment and fly out tangentially.  Some sort of energy
absorbing material will have to interposed between the loop and the
vacuum chamber wall (gravel? plastic? armor?).  Energy could be dumped
from the loop at one point, again by breaking the loop and feeding the
strip down a pipe into an energy dump.

 

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 83 11:26:43 PST (Monday)
Subject: Shuttle Information
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Gobbel.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
From: Randy Gobbel <Gobbel.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>

Does anyone know who to contact, and how, to get information on shuttle
flights - schedules, how to get in to see launches, etc.?  I'm
specifically interested in going to Edwards to see a landing.

-Randy

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 13 Nov 83 22:09:40 CST
From: Mike Caplinger <mike.rice@Rand-Relay>
Return-Path: <mike.Rice@Rand-Relay>
Subject:  star catalogs
To: sky-fans@mit-xx, space@mit-mc
Message-Id:  <mike.165@Dione.rice>

Does anyone have a machine-readable copy of either the SKYMAP or SAO
star catalogs?  SAO only seems to come in 556 bpi 7-track, and I can't
get the author of the SKYMAP paper to respond to me.  Anyone have
better luck?

Please respond directly to me as I am not on these lists.

				Thanks,
				Mike Caplinger
				mike.rice@rand-relay (Arpa)
				mike@rice	     (CSNet)
				lbl-csam!rice!mike   (UUCP)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 83 14:47:35-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!wls @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: net.astro

I would like to propose the establishment of net.astro.  This group would be
for topics in and relating to astronomy.  It would NOT be about the space
program, which is the territory of net.space.  In a sense I am proposing to
split the discussion of purely astronomical topics from net.space.  There is
much excitement going on in astronomy and many people with access to the net
who could contribute information on what is currently happening (indeed many of
those people are making it happen). Many (perhaps, judging from the people at
Princeton, I could even say most) of these people keep silent because they are
not very interested in the contents of net.space (and often, not very interested
in the contents of the rest of the net itself).  I am proposing a news group
for these people, to bring them out of the woodwork.  And I think that news of
what is happening in astronomy is exciting enough to be of interest to the
general public.
  Perhaps what I am really proposing is a net.astro.wizards,  in analogy with
net.unix-wizards.  Just plain net.astro would then be for questions of the
order of "Why does the moon look larger at the horizon?" which would be
unwelcome in net.astro.wizards.  If amateur astronomers wished to establish a
group to discuss topics of interest to them they could call it something like
net.astro.amateur.
  Comments?  Please feel free to mail comments to me or post them to this
group on the net.  This article been posted after consultation with the members
of the Department here, as well has some of the astronomers at the Institute
for Advanced study.
-- 
Bill Sebok	Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,knpo,princeton}!astrovax!wls

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 83 19:58:59-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!hao!kpno!grandi @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Death of IRAS

Unfortunately, IRAS is in a near polar orbit (actually a sun synchronous
orbit) and was launched from Vandenbergh Air Force Base, not Cape
Canaveral.  Therefore, until Shuttle launches from Vandnbergh start to
happen (at least several years), IRAS could not be reached.  In any case,
I'm sure that IRAS would be very difficult to reach in orbit; probably
won't fit in the shuttle bay; and the expense of such a mission would no
dobut be better spent on engineering the successor missions.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 83 23:22:37-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uok!dswankii @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)

Do areas like, say, Death Valley reflect energy (heat) in such a 
way that it can escape into space? Obviously light can get out else
you couldn't see the land masses from space but heat is a much longer
wave than visible light. My reason for asking is: if sunlight comes in
a window, more energy comes in than escapes by reflection. If this is true
in the case of Death Valley then you wouldn't increase the heat load
of the planet. Please; no flames. If I'm wrong send me a letter telling
me why.

				David Swank II
				ctvax!uokvax!uok!dswankii

------------------------------

Date: 15 November 1983 05:22 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: beanstalks and space debris
To: JoSH @ RUTGERS
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Aha, you're right, thanks for correcting me, and let me correct you
slightly. If the period of the stalk and the random other satellite
are commensurable, and if they don't collide within LCM(p1,p2) where p1
and p2 are the two periods, and if they remain locked in that same
period and also remain locked in the same inclination, then they'll
never collide. If the stalk is massive enough, perhaps it'll
gravitationally-purturb all the other sattelites enough to lock them
into such commensurable orbits, so all we have to do is calculate the
present orbits of all satellites and debris currently existing and
then plan the stalk to be in the right spot to miss everything long
enough for everything to be purturbed into such locked commensurable
orbits. Is any existing computer capable of that calculation?

Imagine after we go extinct our stalk remains, and some alien
civilization observing our planet from far enough away they can't see
the stalk itself notices the strange resonance orbits of all the
debris and wonders what unseen moonlet could possibly be purturbing
everything into that strange pattern.

(In case you missed my slight correction, I changed "multiple" to
"commensurable" and changed "one period of lesser satellite" to "LCM
of periods of stalk and lesser satellite", a generalization of your
obsrvation.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Nov-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #38
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
			 BC-X-RAY ZAPSAT 2takes  
				  Truax
		  IEEE Spectrum Sept. 83 articles - (nf)
		      "An Evening with Robert Truax"
			    re: IRAS recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 83  2046 PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: BC-X-RAY ZAPSAT 2takes  
To:   space@MIT-MC, arms-d@MIT-MC

n048  1253  14 Nov 83
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - A top candidate has emerged in the Reagan
administration's quest for a technology to defend the United States
from assault by enemy missiles. It would be smaller, cheaper and more
powerful than other futuristic devices put forward in response to the
president's ''Star Wars'' speech, an appeal eight months ago for the
nation's scientists to develop what he called defensive shield in
space. At the core of the leading candidate to perform that task is a
small nuclear bomb.
    Known as an X-ray laser, the device takes the power of a nuclear
explosion and channels it into laser rods that emit lethal bursts of
radiation in space. According to scientists at the Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory in California, the birthplace of the device, clusters of
X-ray lasers could, for example, stop the entire force of strategic
Soviet missiles, currently some 1,500 strong. The lasers would
literally pound the rockets apart with powerful X-ray beams.
    A presidential panel recently called on the government to devote
$895 million over the next five years to develop the X-ray laser -
more than it recommended for any other technology uncovered in its
search, as President Reagan put it, for the means of rendering
nuclear weapons ''impotent and obsolete.''
    But skeptics abound. Will the device really work? Can systems to
locate speeding booster rockets and to aim lasers at them be accurate
and fast enough? And would deployment of X-ray lasers tip the balance
of terror that has kept an uneasy peace between the superpowers for
nearly a third of a century?
    Even defenders of the X-ray laser say it poses serious questions.
''There are very few technologies in the history of warfare that have
been either totally offensive or totally defensive,'' said Dr. Paul
L. Chrzanwski, head of military evaluation and planning at Livermore.
''If you can shoot down boosters, it's equally plausible that you
could shoot down satellites.'' The Livermore atomic scientists, add
however, that an examination of the device, to the extent permitted
by rules of government secrecy, reveals a unique technology that is
ideal for protecting the West.
    What makes lasers so attractive for defense is their tight,
pencillike beams of coherent radiation, waves of electromagnetic
energy that move in step with one another. Laser beams can bore
through metal and bounce off the moon. In contrast, a flashlight
produces a jumbled beam of incoherent radiation that spreads out
quickly and disappears in the night.
    X-ray lasers, moreover, can efficiently tap the titantic energy of a
nuclear bomb. The energy released in a single atomic reaction is
millions of times greater than in a single chemical one. According to
Livermore scientists, this makes X-ray weapons many times more
effective than chemical lasers, such as ones studied by the
Department of Defense that combine hydrogen and fluorine in a violent
reaction that can be made to create flashing beams of light.
    The atomic potential is tapped when nuclear fire strikes the laser
rods - whose composition and design is secret - filling the rods with
energy and exciting their electrons so that they spin around the
nuclei of the atoms in expanded orbits. The fall of the electrons
back to their normal orbits - almost in a cascade - then creates a
beam of coherent radiation. If these electrons convert just
one-millionth of the energy of a megaton bomb - a minimum figure
often cited by the scientists - then each laser beam that emerges
from the device packs the punch of a ton of TNT, or about the energy
that recently leveled the Marine compound in Beirut.
    X-rays would move toward their target at the speed of light. In the
split second before they hit, a missile would travel at most a few
yards. The burst of radiation would explosively evaporate the
booster's skin, launching a shock wave that destroys electronic
controls, rocket fuel and engine parts.
    The distant rumble of the X-ray laser has been heard on at least
three occasions at the government's underground test site in Nevada,
starting in 1980. The beam from the first test was reportedly so
strong that it knocked out equipment meant to measure the radiation.
    One of the inventors of the X-ray laser, Dr. George F. Chapline Jr.,
is a theoretical physicist who, sporting a corduroy coat with an open
collar, looks like the college professor he used to be. Every so
often his eyebrows come together in a look of puzzled wonder, as if
some apparently ordinary part of the universe holds secrets just
waiting to be uncovered. Last February the Department of Energy,
which finances the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories, gave him
its highest award, citing his ''highly creative applications of
atomic, nuclear and statistical physics to important national
security problems.''
    An attraction of the X-ray laser, according to Dr. Chapline, is that
it can be used only in the vacuum of space and ''not against cities
and people.'' This is because X-rays, whose wavelengths are extremely
short, are quickly absorbed by individual atoms in the earth's
atmosphere.
     But impenetrability is also a flaw, according to such critics as
Dr. Richard L. Garwin, an IBM researcher and Pentagon consultant. To
outwit the laser, he said in an interview, the Soviet Union needs
only to increase the rate at which its boosters burn fuel, so engines
are turned off and less vulnerable by the time they leave the earth's
atmosphere. The Livermore scientists dismiss this kind of criticism,
saying the precise power of the laser and the small divergence of
beams as they shoot through space - both measurements are top
national secrets - insure penetration deep enough into the thin upper
atmosphere to foil such tactics.
    A key factor in favor of the X-ray laser, according to Dr. Lowell L.
Wood, a Livermore physicist and co-inventor of the device, is its low
price. He said each one might cost $2 million, half for the nuclear
bomb and the rest for hardware. In contrast, an MX missile costs
about $100 million. Low cost also lessens the competition's allure,
Wood said. Some of the large battle stations on the Pentagon's wish
list would cost between $2 and $5 billion, and boosting them into
space would cost an additional $100 million.
    What all this means, according to Wood, is that the X-ray laser
would be smaller, cheaper and more powerful than other exotic
technologies. Small size is important, he added, because during an
attack the device could be launched into space at a moment's notice.
In contrast, bulky systems such as particle beams, chemical lasers
and electromagnetic rail guns often would need to be launched in
advance, and thus vulnerable to sneak attack while orbiting the Earth.
    Praise for the X-ray proposal is anything but universal at
Livermore. Dr. Hugh DeWitt, a physicist who works on classified
projects, said X-ray advocates are biased because huge infusions of
money are at stake. ''There's lots of hype in the group,'' he said.
''The basic physics of the X-ray laser is O.K., but it's quite likely
that difficulties of system integration will defeat it.''
    Moreover, some experts are skeptical on historic grounds, saying the
United States to date has spent about $25 billion in a futile quest
for an invulnerable defense. According to Dr. Herbert York, the first
director of Livermore, ''one of the outstanding delusions of recent
times has been the notion that a technological means for defending
the nation against a general nuclear attack is just around the
corner.''
    Finally, critics say even a perfect defense would be a threat to
world stability. An aggressor might use X-ray lasers to knock out key
military satellites or, after a massive pre-emptive attack, to brush
aside a victim's feeble response. Indeed, that possibility worries
scientists at Livermore. ''Anything this country is doing along these
lines would be characterized as a defensive,'' said Chrzanwoski, head
of evaluation and planning. ''But I think that if the Soviets came up
with the same technology, I would be a little bit nervous about
possible offensive uses.''
    The Soviet Union once had a large number of research groups that
published extensively on the theory of X-ray lasers, according to
Wood. But the reports suddenly dried up in 1977, leading to
speculation among atomic scientists that the Soviet program is now
highly classified.
    Wood, a key spokesman at Livermore for the X-ray laser, is clearly
unmoved by the skeptics. He is a large, energetic man with a quick
smile and a steady eye. He answers objections with a patience that
bespeaks great confidence. The world is approaching a watershed, he
said. One X-ray laser, costing a few million dollars, will be able to
knock out a trillion dollars worth of boosters, radically changing
the economics of nuclear deterrence. He further insists that the best
way to avoid political instabilities - and, in fact, the ultimate
goal of the whole program - is for the superpowers to destroy their
offensive nuclear arsenals and replace them with defensive shields.
''The offensive approach to geopolitics is intrinsically unstable and
unsatisfactory and thus doomed to fail,'' he said. ''I'm worried that
when failure occurs, it will be catastrophic.''
    
nyt-11-14-83 1558est

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 83 01:02:49 EST
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Truax
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

I'm wondering if anyone knows any more about the following project.
This is a condensation of an article that appeared in Commercial
Space Report and in Claustrophobia:

The subject is a launch vehicle called Seadragon (and the 20-year
development program Truax plans to culminate in it).  The basic
idea is to make it super huge, 40 million pounds, so that the
efficiencies of scale allow it to be built with ordinary 
(shipbuilding) construction techniques and materials.  

The design is unconventional.  Liquid fuel, low pressure, single
engine rockets.  First stage LOX and RP-1 (what's RP-1?) operating
at 300 psi (!), second stage LOX/LH 60 psi (!!).  The second stage
has a large umbrella-like extension for the nozzle which is wrapped
around the first stage before separation.

Sea-launched.  Both stages sea-recovered.  Payload to LEO of 1.5
million pounds.  They are shooting for $20/lb.

Sounds intriguing.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 83 20:04:09-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!notes @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: IEEE Spectrum Sept. 83 articles - (nf)

The September 1983 issue of IEEE's Spectrum has an interesting series
of articles on space `commemerating' NASA's 25th anniversary.
They are well worth reading.
	Dave Olson, Fortune Systems {harpo, hpda, ihnp4}!fortune!olson

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 83 23:39:05 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: "An Evening with Robert Truax"
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
Reply-To: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Los Angeles Space fans:

OASIS/ L5 General Meeting, free and open to the public

TIME:  7pm this Saturday, 19 November 1983

PLACE:  Kinsey Auditorium
	California Museum of Science and Industry
	Exposition Park (just SW of Exposition and Figueroa)

ABSTRACT:  Imagine a rocket so huge that its launch weight can only be
supported by sea water.  It is towed to its launch site and roars into
space, placing 1.5 million pounds (750 tons) into Earth orbit.  Sea
Dragon, as this rocket is called, is the dream of Robert Truax.  Truax,
a true rocket pioneer, designed the rocket that powered the X-1, the
first plane to break the sound barrier.  He also helped develop the
Polaris and Atlas rocket engines.  Come and hear Robet Truax on this and
other topics.

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 16 November 1983 04:14 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: re: IRAS recovery
To: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Ten years to analyze IRAS data?? Let's get funding to put more
computers to work analyzing the data!! Then when we expect it to be
all analyzed within a year, let's revive IRAS!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Nov-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #39
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:
			  Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 83 13:18:37-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes

     In answer to the question about SLBM's and cruise's,  SLBM's would get 
picked up in the boost phase and cruise's can be detected in the infrared
from a satellite.  The ABM system can get the SLBM's and the Air Force (or
Air National Guard) can presumably get the cruise's.

                         els[Eric Strobel]
                         pur-ee!Physics:els

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #40
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 83 18:40:36-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)

The landing computer was not 'overloaded', it was taking them into
a large field of boulders.  Armstrong voluntarily took over flight
controls to land in a safer area.  

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Nov-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #41
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
			  Air Force, Space Force
		      1984 SPace shuttle schedule  
			 Cosmonauts returning    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 83 10:47 PST
From: SWigdor.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Air Force, Space Force
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Reply-To: SWigdor.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Some interesting topics I ran across in the DOD Small Business Innovation
Research Program FY 1984 solicatation.  It is alway nice to see how the
Air Force wants to militarize the conquest of space.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE: Trans-Atmospheric Launch of Boost Glide Vehicles

Descripition:  Boost Glide Vehicles (BGV) possessing high hypersonic L/D
(>3.5) offer several potential strategic, long range operational
capabilities useful in future systems.  Current effors are underway to
evaluate the utility of BGVs in the ground and air-launch modes not only
for application in future systems but also as a research vehicle to
explore lifting reentry technologies.  This approach would couple with
that effort.

What is needed is the conceptual analysis of applying boost glide vehicles
to launch from a vehicle in orbital and suborbital flight.  The
aeromechanics and dynamics problems associated with launch and atmospheric
flight of the BGV need to be understood.  The advantages of conducting
high-speed research technology development and demonstration for this
class of vehicles should be examined.  Initial velocitites of the BGV will
range from M 15 to orbital speeds.  Its high energy will provide it with a
ground impact footprint over a significant area of the earths surface.
This suggests unique approaches to test range requirements for a research
vehicle and highly flexible strategic operational capability.  The
exploitation of these unique flight characterictics must be understood and
taken advantage of in any conceptual investigation.


TITLE: Take-off Augmentation Devices for SSTO Reusable On-Demand Launch
Sortie Vehicles

Descripition:  Operational requirements for on-demand single
stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicles strongly suggest a horizontal take-off,
horizontal landing vehicle.  Rapid turn around and improved logistics are
two of the benefits of this concept approach.  However, The technology
demands of a SSTO concept places it in a high development risk category
with a relatively far term development time.  To lower risk and
development time and minimize gross-lift-off-weight (GLOW), the use of a
sled like device on take-off has been suggested.  Some limited evaluation
of this concept has taken place.

These earlier investigations indecate that SSTO vehicle feasibility exists
through elimination of on-board take-off gear, and impacting high SSTO
lift off velocites.  Several devices that have been suggested include a
rail-launcher, a multi-wheeled towable and steerable launcher, and an
air-cushioned launcher.  Survivability demands strongly suggest the launch
concept include the capability to flush the empty SSTP vehicle to another
base on warning and provide launch capability after flushing.  this
suggests a flyable launch device.

Concepts for SSTO ground launch assist are needed for vehicles in one to
one- and-a-half million pounds gross ligt-off weight class with lift-off
velocities of appoximately 300 knots.  Conceptual data required for such
devices include propulsion system, aerodynamic performance capabilities,
alternate base of ferry capability, runway and basing requirements, and
rapid turnaround capability.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting stuff, sounds like a fighter plane/shuttle which performs like
a X-20 class vehicle and which could perform missions as a ground or air
based vehicle or as a orbital based vehicle.

Its hard to imagine how much they are going to get on these subjects from
a research program (SBIR) which only funds up to 1 man-year for companies
of under 500 employees.  But if the Air Force thinks it can get good
proposals from this what is to stop us from doing this type of R&D either
for them or privately.  I always felt that a private space shuttle would
have to be of the X-15, X-20 type air dropped from a cargo type plane.
This is probably the best approach to utilize present technology in a
reusable space system.  Gee a privately funded shuttle and if we can
purchase the NASA external tanks we could have a space station too in
probably the same time frame as NASA and its fancy station.


If anybody is interested in discussing this you can message me via the net
and if that doesn't work here is the rest of the info:

SWigdor.es@Parc-Maxc.Arpa

Sheldon Wigdor Xerox 701 S. Aviation Blvd ms A2-34 El Segudo Ca 90245
213-536-7477

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 83  1825 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: 1984 SPace shuttle schedule  
To:   space@MIT-MC

a033  0132  18 Nov 83
PM-Astronauts,330
Ten Shuttle Flights to Make 1984 NASA's Busiest Year
    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - NASA is planning its busiest year ever
in 1984, with astronauts on 10 space shuttle flights to launch
satellites, monitor experiments and test rocket belts that let them
fly in space unattached to the shuttle.
    Commander Robert L. Crippen, who has flown the most shuttle missions
so far, is scheduled for two more missions, and six women will be
among the 50 astronauts to go into orbit next year, the space agency
said Thursday.
    The first flight - Mission 41B scheduled for Jan. 29 - will include
a spacewalk by Bruce McCandless to test the rocket belt, called the
Manned Manuevering Unit. If that test is successful, the unit will be
used by George D. Nelson on Mission 41C to repair a broken satellite.
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration identifies
missions by code, such as 41B. The ''4'' designates the fiscal year of
the flight - 1984. The ''1'' is the launch site - Kennedy Space
Center. And the ''B'' indicates the sequence.
    More than a dozen satellites will be launched, while Mission 41E on
July 14 is to carry a secret Defense Department cargo and an
unidentified cargo specialist from the department.
    Sally K. Ride, who was America's first woman in space, will be
joined by Kathryn Sullivan, Crippen and two other astronauts for
Mission 41G, set for launch Aug. 30.
    Ms. Ride's husband, Steven Hawley, is scheduled for Mission 41D, set
for launch on June 4.
    Two other husband-wife teams are also on the 1984 roster. Dr. Rhea
Seddon will fly on Mission 41F on Aug. 9, while her husband, Robert L.
Gibson will fly on 41B. Dr. Anna Fisher will fly on 41H in September
and her husband, Dr. William F. Fisher, will fly on 51C in December.
    The launch standby crew will be Karol Bobko, commander; Ronald J.
Grade, pilot; Richard M. Mullane, Robert L. Stewart and David C.
Hilmers, mission specialists. They will fly if a flight not now
scheduled is later planned.
    
ap-ny-11-18 0430EST
**********

------------------------------

Date: 19 Nov 83  0107 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
Subject: Cosmonauts returning    
To:   space@MIT-MC

    MOSCOW (AP) - The official Soviet news agency Tass says two
cosmonauts aboard the orbiting Salyut 7 space station for nearly five
months will return to Earth in a few days.
    ''The cosmonauts will start preparations in the coming days for
their return,'' Tass said Friday. ''They are to mothball the Salyut 7
station, (and) carry into and stack in the transport ship Soyuz T-9
materials on research conducted in orbit.''
    U.S. intelligence sources have said the Soyuz T-9 has weak batteries
and its fuel is nearly evaporated, making the the cosmonauts' return
possibly risky. The Soviets have denied there have been any problems.
    Cosmonauts Alexander Alexandrov and Vladimir Lyakhov began their
mission June 27 aboard the Soyuz T-9, which docked the next day with
the space station.
    
ap-ny-11-19 0347EST
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #42
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
			      Space Station
			  Science Digest - (nf)
		 A Bibliography of Mathematical Astronomy
			  Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes
		     Re: ukc.3929: The Great Silence
			    re: IRAS recovery
			South Atlantic Anomaly (?)
			  Re: IRAS running down
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 83 17:41:11-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Station
In-Reply-To: Article <2367@hp-pcd.UUCP>, <3701@umcp-cs.UUCP> <3799@lanl-a.UUCP>

Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 15

     In an interview with WPRB radio station here, representative Don Fuqua
(chairman of the House committee on Science & Technology, which oversees
space programs) has said that "reliable information" he has indicates
that the president is planning "to include funding for, and a commitment
to" a permantently manned space station in low Earth orbit in the fiscal
1985 budget.  The figure he quoted was $200 million for the initial year, 
going up in successive years.
     NASA administrator Dr. James Beggs, who we interviewed for the same
radio program, was not as definite about this.  Fuqua did not give a
date for when this decision would be announced.  Fuqua made his statement
just over two weeks ago.

					 Karl Stapelfeldt
					 Frank Lemoine
					 WPRB news & Princeton SEDS

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 83 0:23:32-EST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uok!lllenoir @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Science Digest - (nf)

#N:uok:7900002:000:199
uok!lllenoir    Nov 14 10:04:00 1983

I've seen an awful lot of stuff
on the net about 'Space Digest'.
I'm new on the net.. could some
one please explain? It sounds
quite interesting..

                 Lionel

                 U. of OK

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 83 11:56:47-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxh!rjh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: A Bibliography of Mathematical Astronomy

(-)
 
Practical Astronomy with your calculator
Author: Peter Duffett-Smith
Publisher: Cambridge University Press @ London, New York, Syndey, et al.
Published: 1981
Comments: Contains good explainations easily worked on a calculator.
 
Mathematical Astronomy with a Pocket Calculator
Author: Aubrey Jones FRAS
Published: 1978
Publisher: David & Charles @ Newton Abbot and London
Comments: Contains many programs for HP 67 or HP 41 calculators.
 
Astronomical Formulae for Calculators
Author: Jean Meeus, Vereniging voor Sterrenkunde Belgium
Publisher: Willman-Bell, Inc., P.O. Box 3125, Richmond, VA 23235, USA
           (804) 320-7016
Published: 1982
Comments: The title is a misnomer unless you consider a HP-85 a
          calculator. Formulae are presented not programs.
 
          If you are interested in astronomy, you ought to get this
          publisher's catalog.
 
Astronomical Tables of the Sun, Moon, and Planets
Author: Jean Meeus, Vereniging voor Sterrenkunde Belgium
Publisher: Willman-Bell, Inc., P.O. Box 3125, Richmond, VA 23235, USA
           (804) 320-7016
Published: 1983
Comments: This book is 'companion volume' to the previous book giving
          computed results.
 
Low-Precision Formulae for Planetary Positions
  in 'The Astrophysical Journal'
Author: T.C. Van Flandern and K . F Pulkkinen
Publisher: The American Astronomical Society by University of Chicago Press
           5801 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Published: November 1979                                                ess
Comments: A how-to-compute 'cookbook'.
          'This paper gives low-precision (1') formulae for geocentric
          and heliocentric positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets,
          which are valid for any epoch within 300 years of the present.'
 
Textbook on Spherical Astronomy
Author: W. M. Smart, revised by R. M. Green
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (see above)
Published: 1980 (1st ed. 1931)
Comments: Textbook. Good for a beginner. College freshman math.
          Considered a classic reference.
 
Computational Spherical Astronomy
Author: Laurence G. Taff
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons @ New York, Chichester, Brisbane, et al.
Published: 1981
Comments: Textbook. Good for a beginner. College freshman math.
          Intended for engineers and other such users.
 
Almanac for Computers (numbered by year)
Publisher: Nautical Almanac Office,
           United States Naval Observatory, Washington, DC 20390
Published: yearly
Comments: Very high precision Chebyshev short term (e.g. 1 month)
          formulae suitable for hand calculator (programability is
          nice but not really necessary).
 
American Practical Navigator (2 vols)
Author: originally Nathaniel Bowditch, LL.D. 1773-1838
Publisher: (United States) Defense Mapping Agency Hydrographic Center
Published: 1977 (1st Vol) 1975 (2nd Vol)
Comments: Textbook. Very good for a beginner. Elementary school math.
          Intended for seaman with about 8th grade education.
          Teachs the why's, how's and needed mathematics to work
          astronomical problems associated with navigation.
          The second volume contains the necessary tables.
 
The Astronomical Almanac (numbered by year)
Publisher: Nautical Almanac Office,
           United States Naval Observatory, Washington, DC 20390
         & Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office,
           Royal Greenwich Observatory, East Sussex, BN27 1RP, England
Published: yearly
Comments: Reference tables with some text.
          Can be ordered from:
          1. Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office,
             Washington, DC 20402
          2. Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
             P.O. Box 569, London SE1 9NH, England
 
Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris and the American
Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac
Publisher: Nautical Almanac Office,
           United States Naval Observatory, Washington, DC 20390
         & Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office,
           Royal Greenwich Observatory, East Sussex, BN27 1RP, England
Published: 1961
Comments: Reference. Title describes relationship to The Astronomical
          Almanac described above.
          Can be ordered from:
          1. Pendragon, 2595 E. Bayshore Road, Palto Alto, CA 94303, USA
          2. Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
             P.O. Box 569, London SE1 9NH, England
 
I did not list those books which I commonly find in city public librarys
There are many other good reference books.

	Randolph J. Herber, Amdahl Systems Engineer,
	..!ihnp4!ihuxh!rjh,
	c/o IH 1C220, AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL 60566,
	    (312) 979-6554 or AT&T Cornet 8-367-6554,
	 or Amdahl Corp., Suite 250, 6400 Shafer, Rosemont, IL 60018,
	    (312) 692-7520

------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 83 17:15:42-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes
In-Reply-To: Article <13399@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <148@dual.UUCP>, <1108@pur-phy.UUCP>

Eric Strobel observes, in connection with intercepting SLBMs and
cruise missiles:

	...and the Air Force (or Air National Guard) can presumably
	get the cruise's.

Surely you jest.  The USAF long ago gave up any serious capability to
defend the continental US against air attack.  The resources allocated
to strategic air defence are adequate to keep snooping reconnaissance
planes out and that's about it.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 83 15:44:11-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccs6! @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ukc.3929: The Great Silence
In-Reply-To: Article <2132@phs.UUCP>

    Yes, the David Brin who wrote StarTide Rising is the same
David Brin who wrote about The Great Silence.  David is a member
of University of Californa space program, or CalSpace, which is
California's own little space program.  It is based here at UCSD.

    It was started by Gov. Brown( thats where he got the nickname 
'governer moonbeam').  It is quite active in the field of the
external tank, with all sorts of far out applications, with things
like kelvar cables and the such.  It is my understanding, from david,
that NASA farms all of its 'far out' research to CalSpace.  I have
been quite impressed by the people that I have met who are involved
in the organization.

     As an aside, I saw the 'RIGHT STUFF' with david and a group from
CalSpace,  we all seemed to enjoy it a lot.  CalSpace sponsers a
series of lectures here at UCSD.  Anyone wishing to be placed on
there mailing list can contact them here at UCSD, or drop be a
note and I have you added to it.

	Yours,
			Don Coleman
			sdccs6!iy120 { UCSD }

------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 83 16:57:36-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!astrovax!elt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re: IRAS recovery
In-Reply-To: Article <13699@sri-arpa.UUCP>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with reducing IRAS data is almost certainly *not* computer
time.  The limiting resource in almost all such scientific problems
is the human brain time (i.e., attention by some competent researcher)
needed to understand the results.

------------------------------

Date: 19-Nov-83 15:18 PST
From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc.  Cupertino CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: South Atlantic Anomaly (?)
To: space@mit-mc, physics@sri-unix
Cc: menlo70!johnston@ucbvax
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-3L11M>

Could someone please send me a note as to what the south atlantic anomaly is?  
If anyone have any recommended reading...I would appreciate that also.  

Thanks,  --Bi<<

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 83 16:19:35-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: IRAS running down
In-Reply-To: Article <13681@sri-arpa.UUCP>

IRAS probably needs to be refilled *before* it runs out completely,
or there is some risk of damage to its detectors from thermal shock
in warming up and then cooling down again.  There was some sort of
problem during its development -- I forget just what -- and there was
a big debate at the time about whether they should risk warming it up
to fix it.  Given this difficulty, it probably doesn't make much sense
to try to refill its liquid-helium tank unless it can be done within
the next couple of months, which is probably impractical.

I would also suspect that it is not designed for an in-space refill,
and possibly not designed to be refilled at all.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Nov-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #43
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
				ion pumps
			      Re: net.astro
      Non-equatorial Launch Loops / opposing-parallel configuration
		      Pravda report on cosmonauts  
			  Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes
			    re: IRAS recovery
	  Re: CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO GO ABOUT GETTING TICKETS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Nov 83 14:17:18-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: ion pumps

This ion pump thing sounds like a great thing, but if we're looking for
hydrogen, why go anywhere?  Isn't the interplanetary gas mostly H and He?

Is the density enough to make this worthwhile?

(If this is a really dumb idea, be gentle; I know I know almost nothing
about this stuff...)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 83 23:36:18-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!mce @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: net.astro
In-Reply-To: Article <124@astrovax.UUCP>

Yes to net.astro!  As I see it net.space should be
sufficient for less technical discussions.

------------------------------

Date: 20 November 1983 21:25 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Non-equatorial Launch Loops / opposing-parallel configuration
To: "sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP " @ CCA-UNIX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Having the loop flattened into two parallel tracks with a small
turnaround loop at each end means there'll be no net sidewards or
rotational motion due to gyroscopic, magnetic or Coriolis force,
providing the two tracks handle exactly equal and opposite momentum
transfer. But each individual track will suffer large Coriolis force,
causing the two tracks to bang against each other or pull apart or
even worse shear away causing a strong torque on the whole system.
Thus the two tracks must be carefully braced against each other to
prevent both banging and pulling away, and must be oriented so as to
minimize shear/torque.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 83  2207 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
Subject: Pravda report on cosmonauts  
To:   space@MIT-MC

n507  2201  20 Nov 83
BC-SPACE-11-21
     EDITORS: The following is from the London Telegraph and is for use
only in the United States and Canada.
    
     By Nigel Wade
     Daily Telegraph, London (Independent Press Service)
     MOSCOW - The Soyuz space capsule that will soon return two
cosmonauts to earth from the Salyut 7 orbital station has not
exhausted any of its resources, Pravda said Sunday.
    Some Western space experts have suggested that the batteries and
other fuel resources of the Soyuz may be running dangerously low.
    A launching pad accident in October prevented three other cosmonauts
visiting Salyut 7. They were to have returned in the Soyuz, leaving a
fresh Soyuz capsule attached to the space station.
    The failure of that mission means the orbiting cosmonauts, Alexander
Alexandrov and Vladimir Lyakhov, will use for their return the same
capsule in which they arrived at the space station June 28.
    A spokesman for the Soviet Academy of Sciences has denied there is
anything wrong with the capsule and Pravda made a special point of
rejecting such speculation again Sunday.
    It quoted Valery Ryumin, a former cosmonaut and now mission control
chief, as saying, ''All systems of the capsule were and are in good
technical condition or, in other words, they have not exhausted their
resources.'' No return date has been announced but the cosmonauts are
already busy mothballing the space station to await its next
occupants.
    While in orbit, they have fitted two extra solar batteries to Salyut
7. Soviet reports emphasized that this work had been planned from the
beginning of the mission and was not a response to any unforeseen
problem.
    END
    
nyt-11-21-83 0056est
***************

------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 83 22:44:46-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!wivax!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS 3takes
In-Reply-To: Article <13399@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <148@dual.UUCP>, <1108@pur-phy.UUCP> <3336@utzoo.UUCP>

Something the unwashed masses don't seem to understand is why
we don't have ABMs and why they were abolished.  Anti-ballistic
missles seem like a great idea don't they?  Purely defensive
weapons used to protect the country from a first strike rather
than initiate a nuclear exchange (actually Moscow still has some).
Simple, huh?

Turns out, however, that with ABMs there's more of a likelyhood
of a world leader saying to himself, "Well, I'm protected by
MY ABMs so I'll try to cream my opponent with a first strike."

Without ABMs everyone lives under the threat of anhialation...
and supposedly with this arrangment no one will attempt
to start a nuclear war.  In other words, we give everyone
very very sharp swords and no shields.

But then there's this talk of a winnable nuclear war...
-- 

					- Speaker-To-Stuffed-Animals
					speaker@umcp-cs
					speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 83 20:46:56-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: re: IRAS recovery
In-Reply-To: Article <3988@ukc.UUCP>

I also heard that comment about how long a *full* analysis of the data
will take, but all in all, I would prefer to have a warehouse full of
unanalysed data spanning a few continous decades than just a few 1-2
year "bursts" fully analyzed.  After all, in a few hundred years (or
sooner) we may *desperately* need good base-line astronomical data which
is just "interesting" today.  One good example is the sun's output: is it
really 4% variable (source unknown); is it pulsating because it switches
between thermonuclear and gravitational collapse for its power (neutrino
paradox), ....

As I said, these are just matters of curiousity for a few scientist now;
but if we are ever at the point where we will have to consider macro-
engineering the earth itself (such as if the antartic icecap starts to
slid into the ocean), we will need then to ensure we do not choose the
worst of two evils.  (re: example -- macroengineering the earth so
that the mean temperature drops by 4 degrees C, then discovering that
it was only a solar "burb" as we enter a severe iceage aggravated by the
macroengineering.)

Of course, this implies long-term planning; something definitely lacking
in the last few administrations.  (Proof: look at the Federal Deficit.)

Unfortunately, if IRAS is in polar orbit I can't see any way to save it
either.  Also, your subject heading is definitely less ambiguous.  I did
not realize how ambiguous mine was until after submission.  Sorry for any
severe shocks it may have caused.


			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 83 14:30:27-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: Re: CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO GO ABOUT GETTING TICKETS
In-Reply-To: Article <404@psuvm.UUCP>

For non-press passes to KSC for a launch, contact:

NASA Public Affairs
PA-VIC
John F. Kennedy Space Center
Kennedy Soace Center, Fl 32899


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning for launches:  For STS-1, it took me 5 hours to travel as any
		       miles the day of the launch.

		       Things are better now, but still allow *PLENTY*
		       of time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

General information for travel to Central Florida:

<1>:   TRAFFIC:  Our roads are designed for the *local* population load,
       not peak tourist loads.  So expect major traffic jams.  During
       a launch Titusville's population can more than *double* easily.
       Similiarly for Orlando, the metro population is ~750,000 normally,
       but can approach 1 million during the summer and Christmas, with
       most of the increase on I-4 heading toward Disney (==> 5 mile
       long traffic jams on the interstate).


<2>:   WEATHER:
       (a): Expect rain any time of the year.  During the summer (April
            to September) expect severe afternoon thunderstorms. In the
	    winter, expect rains at least 3 days out of the week.  How-
	    ever, the rain is normally over in an hour, and the sky
	    clears up again.

       (b): From October until March, bring a good variety of clothing.
	    The afternoon temperatures will generally be up into the
	    70's even if the morning low is near freezing.  Because of
	    the Gulf and Atlantic, the humidity is high year round, so
	    the cold is *COLD*.  A generally good idea is to layer your
	    clothes from beach cloths underneath to long-sleeved shirts/
	    jeans and a heavy sweater.

       (c): From May to August wear loose light-colored cloths. Forget
	    about anti-perspirsant(?), however; it is a lost cause.
	    Sun-tan lotion is *highly* recommended for anybody from above
	    the M-D line, especially for a day at KSC or Disney.


<3>:   AIRPORTS:  The nearest *major* airport to KSC is Orlando Int'l,
       which is about 40 miles west.  There are several smaller ones
       in Titusville itself, but there are far fewer flights into them.
       The major corridors from Orlando to Titusville are the Bee-line
       Exwy (toll road) and State Road 50 (4-lane divided except for a
       10 mile 2-lane stretch).


<4>:   BEACHES:  If you have a chance, visit the Canaveral National Sea-
       shore.  It is on NASA property *just* north of complex 39.  If you
       arrive a week early, the beach is inside of a security perimeter
       but you can still drive to it; and the shuttle on the pad is only
       a couple (I think <2) miles away -- you can get a *very* good view
       of it.  From ~ T-3 days until touchdown the south end of the beach
       is completely restricted.  However, the north end of the seashore
       is still open, and can be reached from New Smyrna Beach. (CNS is
       approximately 20 miles long).  Anyway, it is also one of the few
       remaining natural beaches in the state.  No condos.  No hotels.
       No merchants. No driving on the beach. (Limited bathrooms). Hence,
       you can frequently find crabs, fish off-shore (both meanings),....


<5>:   INSECTS:  Yes, the mosquitos are a problem at KSC.  More serious,
       at least during their peak seasons (which have slipped my mind)
       are LOVEBUGS.  You have not lived until you drive into a swarm of
       lovebugs at 60 mph and your windshield, radiator, headlights, ...
       are *COVERED* with their remains.  Not only can you not see through
       them, they are very good paint remover, *and* at the normal temps
       when they are around, dry to a nearly irremovable cement within a
       few hours.  Why are they called lovebugs?  Ask Hugh Heffner.



I hope this is the information you needed.  Sorry about the travelog style.


			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Nov-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #44
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
			     Practical Books
	      Re: uiucdcs.3825: Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)
	Re: Re: CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO GO ABOUT GETTING TICKETS
			 Space PR (long message)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 21 Nov 83 00:48 EST
From: Charles Weems <weems%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
Return-Path: <weems%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@CSNet-Relay>
Subject:  Practical Books
To: space@mit-mc

Add to the list of books that give practical information on astronomical
computations:

Title:  Celestial Basic
Author: Eric Burgess
Publisher: Sybex Inc., Berkely CA
Abstract: A collection of Apple BASIC programs for astronomy.  These include
time and date conversions, transits and elongations of Polaris, RA and Dec
of Moon and planets, lunar phases and eclipses, rising, setting and transit
times of sun, moon and planets, positions of Galilean satellites of Jupiter,
skymaps of constellations and planets, dates and radiants of annual meteor
showers, and photo exposure calculations for the planets.


A note on the reference "Low-Precision Formulae for Planetary Positions,
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 41:391-411, 1979 November"
that was mentioned in a recent note:  These computations are not simple
to implement on most microcomputers.  A 32 bit integer word (minimum
integer precision) is required.  These are excellent formulae and I've
had little trouble implementing them on a Cyber 175 -- on the other hand,
my 16 bit micro does not handle them well at all.  Unless you like writing
extended precision arithmetic packages, I would recommend the algorithms
from the above book for use on micros.

chip weems

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 83 10:00:46-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: uiucdcs.3825: Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)

In reply to your question about the reflection of heat:
All electro-magnetic radiation carries energy we call infra-red light
"heat" because we can feel the heat when it strikes our skin but we can't
see it.  Actually on a per photon basis visible light has more energy than
infra-red.  The energy traping which occurs in a room with a window or a
planet with an atmosphere occurs because some of the sun's light is absorbed
and the energy is re radiated as long wave infra-red if the glass or atmos-
phere is not transparent to this infra-red the energy will be traped.
That fraction of the light which is reflected however will pass out of the
window or atmosphere as easily as it came in.  Since most of the sun's
energy is in visible light or near(short wave)-infra red the visual reflectance
of a surface is critical in determing how much energy it will absorb.
Jose Torre-Bueno
decvax!duke!phs!jtb

------------------------------

Date: 15 Nov 83 21:23:21-PST (Tue)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: Re: Re: CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO GO ABOUT GETTING TICKETS

I meant to mention this in the other article, but it was missed
somehow:

<1>:    NASA recommends you allow at least 4 months to obtain passes
	to a launch.  Thus, the next launch you could get passes to
	would be in March, if not later.

<2>:	Although no widely known (as far as I know), the SRB/Sound
	Suppression System forms a *LOT* of acid rain.  I have heard
	stories of plants having holes in all of their leaves up to
	1/2 mile away, the gantry being severely corroded, ....

	So -- if you have a pass it would be a good idea to take
	along some protective clothing just in case.  A list
	follows:

	(a):  Windbreaker -- to protect your clothes.
	(b):  Hat -- to protect your head, face.
	(c):  Decongestant/antihistamine -- in case you inhale
	      any of the vapors, they are very irritating.
	(d):  Hankerchief/face mask -- to protect your lungs.
	(e):  Baking soda solution -- to protect the paint on your
	      car in case the cloud is unusually heavy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sidenote:
	According to one of my professors, (who was already doing some
	work in air studies at KSC) when the engines ignited for the
	first launch, they made a loud sound.  Big deal.  Except there
	was a large concrete slab under the shuttle.  Hence, almost
	immediately after ignition, **WWHHAAMM**  the shuttle is hit
	by the echo of its engines.  Appearently the only damage was a
	bent rod in the nose of Columbia, but it was (about 2 months
	after the flight) considered the single most dangerous point
	during ascent.  If this was related to the shuttle *walking*
	across the pad (also documented both on film and in pad damage),
	I don't know.  The solution was to dump tons of water between
	the engines and the concrete slab right after ignition, and
	it seems to work.  I think it has something to do with con-
	converting the acoustical energy into mechanical energy by
	splitting the water drops into water mist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 83 09:58 PST
From: SWigdor.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Space PR (long message)
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Reply-To: SWigdor.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

A interesting letter to the editor from James Arnold, the director of
CalSpace, that appeared in the November 18th edition of the LA Times.
Interesting to see how we who belive in space sell the idea to the rest of
the taxpayers in this country.  Apologies to anybody who gets the Times
and to Professor Arnold since this was reproduced without premission.

Sheldon Wigdor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SPACE IS OUT THERE WAITING FOR US TO TRY NEW IDEAS

By James R. Arnold

We have just been celebrating the 25th anniversary of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and ther is a lot to celebrate.
Space exploration has been one of this country's moust succesful
enterprisies.

Still, taxpayers these days are in amood to question all forms of public
spending.  In real dollars, NASA's budget is now about one-third the size
that it was in the glory days of the first Apollo moon landing in 1969.
It is appropriate, all the same, to question whether some of NASA's
activities are ready to be transferred private industry.

The public may not be aware of how close we came a few years ago to
turning off the U.S. planetary-exploration program altogether.  For
several years the Galileo mission to Jupiter was the only one being
prepared for launching, and its launch date had a nasty habit of being
delayed one year each year.  Planerary scientists such as myself were
forced to think very hard about the costs of our program.  We are now
seeing the results.

NASA's Solar System Exploration Committee, of which I am a member, has
just issued its report.  It identifies major possible savings in at least
three areas.

First, ther now exist assembly lines for some satellites that are needed
in large numbers, such as for weather or communications needs in Earth
orbit.  It will be much less expensive to buy one of these, put
instruments on it and send it to Mars or the moon, for example, than to
build a new, custom tailored spacecraft for each mission.  Second, the big
"mission control" teams of the past can be replaced by much smaller teams
backed by computers.  Finally, we scientists can learn to simplify our
needs and procedures, again aided by computers.

There are intial signs that this approach will be accepted by the White
House and Congress, and that we may be back on track.

But a much larger issue, at least in dollar terms, concerns NASA's plan
for a space station-or, as President Reagan puts it, a "permanent human
presence in space."  Most of NASA's budget for the last 10 years has gone
to pay for the space shuttle.  The shuttle is basically a reusable
spaceplane that carry people and machines into low Earth orbit-thus far,
for periods of six days or less.  A space station would provide a focal
point for space activities in the 1990s and beyond, and NASA now hopes to
start this big new project in the next fiscal year.

Is this a good idea?  Some space scientists are doubtful.  They have seen
the space shuttle go over budget in the '70s, threatening, delaying or
cutting out important scientific projects that the shuttle intended to
serve.  They fear that it might happen again.

At the California Space Institute we have been working with NASA's space-
station task force to find low-cost paths to a space station that really
helps scientists, industry and the public to benefit from the promise of
space.

For example, the object in the center of the shuttle system when it is
launched is the shuttle external tank.  This carries the fuel for the main
engines.  On each flight one of these goes nearly into orbit (as it must
to carry the fuel), and is then ditched in a carefully selected area of
the Indian Ocean.  Each is the size of a 10 to 15 story building and costs
more than $10 million.

At the institute, and at several major aerospace companies, scientists and
engineers are studying the best ways to use these giant pieces of hardware
to build, expand or upgrade space stations as space factories, habitats
and fuel- storage depots-among other uses.  They show great promise, and
in the next decade NASA will buy hundreds of them.

Given large and massive facilities in orbit, there are new methods of
propulsion that have great promise for moving things around in low Earth
orbit.  The most faccinating of these is the use of (very) long ropes,
called tethers, in the gravity field of Earth.  Briefly, whar can be done
is to take energy and momentum from an object that needs less and give it
to one thats needs more.  For example, the astronauts must come home at
the end of a shuttle mission, which means firing retro-rockets to slow
down.  With tethers the energy could instead be given to the space station
to boost it to a higher orbit.  The rocket fuel that is saved could be
kept in station tanks to sell to another customer.

There are other new ideas in the wings that may be even more promising.
Indeed, in our view the main use of a well designed space station will be
to learn how to do major work and test new ideas in space quickly and
cheaply.  At present a new space project may take 10 years from the first
discussion to completion.  On that schedule even a genius can solve only a
few problems in a lifetime.  In a space station the occupants would have
spare time to try things and fool around.  That's how people really learn,
and that's exciting.

We can make access to space possible for many more people with many
different skills.  The full power of new technology that we've developed
here on Earth can be used out there.  These are the challenges of space in
the next 10 years.  We live on the surface of a small, crowded planet.
Space is everywhere else; its out there waiting for us.

	James R. Arnold is professor of chemistry and director of the
	California Space Institute at UCSD

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #45
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:
		       Re: re: IRAS recovery - (nf)
	   Re: Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)
			       X-ray lasers
			    More TDRS Troubles
	      Re: uiucdcs.3825: Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Nov 83 15:49:27-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!krueger @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: re: IRAS recovery - (nf)

And while more computer resources are being obtained, let's not forget to
acquire more astronomers to interpret what the computers spit out.  To me,
"analysis of the data" would not be complete without a thorough set of
hypotheses to explain the data.  Perhaps this is what is going to take 10
years, and it might be best not to rush it, for the capabilities of the
next IRAS-like endeavor might be enhanced by understanding as much as
possible the data currently available.

				J.W.Krueger
			...!ihnp4!uiucdcs!krueger
			at the U of IL, CS Dept
			(Not an astronomer, just interested)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 83 14:43 EST
From: Sewhuk.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

The story I heard about the landing computer is that is was overloaded.  A
ranging radar was left on during the landing that has nothing to do with
landing, this caused a stream of interrupts that caused a non-trivial
amount of the processors time to be wasted in servicing this unwanted
data.  The computer was minutes behind "real" time about the time he took
manual control.  A fix was to include a "shut off the extra radar"
instruction in pre-landing check list so the machine could play "lunar
lander" OK.  If you listen to the some of the landing you will here a
reference to a ""..blah blah alarm" went off.  That is the point they
noticed what was wrong but it was too late for the computer to catch up,
so he went in on manual.

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 22 Nov 1983 19:58 MST
From:  Kevin Kenny <Kenny@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  X-ray lasers
Reply-To:  Kenny.OSNI%PCO-Multics@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
To:  Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <831123025846.634745@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>

Having seen several transactions regarding the development of space-based
X-ray lasers, I've got a few questions of the group.

The description of the device mentions that the driver is a megaton-size
nuclear device.  Is the altitude at which the device is deployed
sufficient to obviate EMP effects?

How transparent is the atmosphere at X-ray wavelengths?  Could the device
be used against ground targets?  What about aircraft at altitudes of, say,
10,000 meters?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 83 13:30:42-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: More TDRS Troubles

The second of two antennae on the TDRS-1 is in trouble, but NASA is going
ahead with STS-9 as planned.  The difficulties will force the astronauts
and ground to communicate over one circuit instead of two.

------------------------------

Date: 23 November 1983 04:15 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: uiucdcs.3825: Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)
To: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 15 Nov 83 10:00:46-PST (Tue)
    From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax

    All electro-magnetic radiation carries energy we call infra-red light
    "heat" because we can feel the heat when it strikes our skin but we can't
    see it.
This is a matter of terminology (as contrasted with fact), but I
believe the accepted terminology is that only energy with a wavelength
longer than red yet shorter than microwave is considered infra-red,
despite the fact that all energy absorbed by the skin will warm it to
some extent. Thus all electromagnetic radiation carries energy, but it
isn't called infra-red unless it's in the correct wavelength band. For
example, spectrally-pure light from a visible-light laser contains NO
infra-red whatsoever (of course any practical laser emits some thermal
radiation in all directions, some of which happens to be going in the
same direction as the laser light, but the coherent light carries NO
infra-red at all). Thus I think your statement is wrong/misleading.

The rest of your explanation is reasonable, so let me offer a
replacement for the erroneous part:

All electromagnetic radiation contains energy, and when absorbed by an
object causes it to get warmer. Warm objects then emit electromagnetic
radiation of all wavelengths (not just the wavelength of the incoming
energy that heated it in the first place), the so-called "black-body
radiation". At Earth temperatures, most of the radiation given off is
in the infra-red, and planetary atmospheres tend to block infra-red
even if they allow light to come in, allowing the planet to get warm
from the light but making it difficult to cool back off by emitting
infra-red, causing the planet to be warmer than if it was exposed to
space directly where it could both absorb light and emit infra-red freely.

P.s. this blocking of infra-red radiation, causing the inside (the
planet in this case) to get warmer, is called the "greenhouse effect"
because the first practical use (other than the natural environment of
the Earth and Venus etc.) was in botanical greenhouses, which can grow
plants comfortably-warm inside even when it's unconfortably cold
outside and there's no furnace or other heat source inside the greenhouse.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Nov-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #46
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
			     Re: ABM WEAPONS
				dying IRAS
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #45
			   Cosmonauts return  
		      Summary of net.astro responses
			   Any L-5ers Out There
			      Cosmonauts    
	   A Bibliography of Mathematical Astronomy - Revisited
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 83 12:54:47-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)@CCA
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS
In-Reply-To: Article <13399@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <148@dual.UUCP>, <1108@pur-phy.UUCP> <3336@utzoo.UUCP>, <3925@umcp-cs.UUCP>

[10 .. 9 .. 8 .. 7 .. 6  .. 5 .. 4 .. 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. ]

GROW UP!!!!

Anybody who seriously thinks about nuclear weapons for more than 5
nanoseconds will realize that our #1 concern is  *NOT*  Russia.
Granted, they can inflict the greatest damage to us, but they know
we can clobber them also.  But, so long as it is the best interest of
both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. not to have a nuclear war, we will not
have a nuclear war.

The serious problem is if a lunatic and/or fanatic and/or power-crazy
third-world politician gets a nuclear weapon.

After all, can you see bombing Iran or Libya completely into the dark
ages because a terrorist who *may* be associated with that country tried
to bomb New York, London, Paris, or any other western (or eastern) city?

(Granted, that may only take a single tactical warhead :-)).

This is (fortunately) not a serious problem *yet*, but I remember
reading somewhere that Quadafi was willing to pay megabucks for a
nuclear warhead.  (I think I saw that in Newsweek).

While terrorists may be able to smuggle the bomb under the ABM system,
there is still the problem of accidental launch.  After all, accidents
do happen.  For example, remember the missile that blew up in its silo
a few years ago, propelling the warhead a good distance away?

Hopefully, the side which accidently launched a missile would (1) explode
it (chemically, not nuclearily) at a safe attitude, and (2) immediately
call the other side and let them know what was happening.

However, I would feel a lot safer if I knew *each* side could destroy
the missile if the self-destruct did not work, instead of taking out
Hamberg or Kiev.

Finally, I doubt that we will ever go to the extent (read: expense) of
being able to knock out *all* incoming warheads in a *major* strike.
However, I would fully support an ABM system capable of knocking out
everything up to a moderate size attack, primarily because it would give
us more breathing room in a crisis.  After all, we would probabily
start will small exchanges in the beginning of the crisis, exactly what
this type of system is designed to quench.


[If this continues we need to move to net.nuclear.flames.]


			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 83  1039 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: dying IRAS
To:   space@MIT-MC
Date: 23 Nov 83  1810 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: IRAS 'dead'   
To:   space@MIT-MC

a051  0327  23 Nov 83
PM-Satellite, Bjt,420
Orbiting Telescope Dying of the Heat
By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - NASA has announced the imminent, untimely death of
an orbiting telescope that is rewriting astronomy books. Age, 10
months. Cause of death: At 448 degrees below zero, it's overheating.
    The focal plane on the Infrared Astronomical Satellite telescope has
to be cooled to a temperature of 2.5 degrees above absolute zero -
minus 455 degrees Fahrenheit. On Monday night the superfluid helium
used for cooling ran out and the focal plane - the point where the
image is in focus - began warming at the rate of four-tenths of one
degree an hour.
    Since its launch last January, the Infrared Astronomical Satellite
has:
    -Produced direct evidence that ours is not the only solar system.
    -Discovered five comets and recorded more than 200,000 objects in
the heavens.
    -Found three giant rings of dust in the solar system, huge dust
shells around the star Betelgeuse and a mysterious object - possibly
an asteroid or a dead comet - that passes nearer to the sun than any
planet or known asteroid.
    -Successfully surveyed 95 percent of the sky, found a ring of solid
material around the star Vega, bands of dust around the sun between
the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and taken a new look at our own
galaxy, the Milky Way.
    -Returned more than 200 billion bits of data to Earth, allowing
scientists see beyond the dust veils that normally obscure stars in
formation or in their death throes.
    As it moved through a polar orbit, 563 miles high above Earth, with
the telescope chilled properly, the telescope's infra-red detector
recorded radiation from cold masses of gas in space. From Earth, such
radiation is filtered out by the atmosphere and can't be measured.
    Useful scientific observations can continue until the temperature
rises to minus 448 degrees, early next week.
    The satellite, known as IRAS, was launched Jan. 25 carrying 165
pounds of refrigerant. Before launch, engineers estimated the helium
would last only seven months, but they revised their estimate after
seeing how much was being used, predicting the satellite would operate
into January 1984.
    However, the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratories at Didcot, England,
which operates the IRAS tracking station, said IRAS depleted its
supply at 8:30 p.m. EST Monday.
    ''Considering the uncertainties in the calibration estimates in the
flow rate of helium usage, the achieved lifetime is within about 10
percent of predictions,'' NASA said.
    IRAS is a joint venture of the United States, the Netherlands and
Great Britain. The United States contributed $150 million to the $200
million total cost.
    
ap-ny-11-23 0625EST
***************

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 83 18:16:27 EST
From: MCGRATH@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #45
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>" of 23 Nov 83 06:03:00 EST


Please remove me from the SPACE mailing list - I am reading it at another
site right now.  I am probably on as JPM@SAIL, JPTM@an ITS site, or
under this account name.  Thanks.

Jim

-------

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 83  1815 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Cosmonauts return  
To:   space@MIT-MC

a246  1608  23 Nov 83
AM-Cosmonauts,390
Return Home Safely After Five Months in Space
By ROXINNE ERVASTI
Associated Press Writer
    MOSCOW (AP) - Two Soviet cosmonauts who were in space for five
months returned to Earth safely Wednesday night and are ''are feeling
well,'' the government said.
    The announcements by state-run television and the official news
agency Tass did not specify when or where cosmonauts Vladimir Lyakhov
and Alexander Alexandrov, both 42, brought down their Soyuz T-9
spacecraft. But Tass said earlier that Soviet trackers expected the
cosmonauts to land at about 11 p.m. - 3 p.m. EST.
    A television news commentator about to read an item at 11 p.m.
picked up a telephone and then said he just had been informed of the
touchdown. In a simultaneous announcement, Tass said the spacecraft
had landed and ''the cosmonauts are feeling well.''
    The touchdown site was presumed to be in Kazakhstan near the
Baikonur space center, where other Soviet space ships have made soft
landings.
    The cosmonauts began their mission June 27 and docked with the
orbiting Salyut 7 space station the next day. Lyakhov was mission
commander and Alexandrov was on his first mission.
    Western intelligence sources have said the Soyuz T-9 that carried
the cosmonauts was approaching a time when their return aboard it
would be risky because of weakening batteries and fuel evaporation.
    There had been reports in the West that a fuel leak aboard the space
station had limited its maneuverability. The British Broadcasting
Corp. said it appeared the cosmonauts were ''drifting in space,'' but
Soviet space officials denied this.
    In September, Soviet sources said a launching pad explosion aborted
another Soyuz mission that presumably would have docked with the
Salyut 7. The three cosmonauts aboard were said to have been slightly
injured.
    Following past Soviet space practices, those three cosmonauts would
have returned to Earth in the Soyuz T-9 used by Alexandrov and
Lyakhov, who would have used the fresher T-10 for their return later.
    The world space endurance record was set last year by cosmonauts
Anatoly Berezovoy and Valentin Lebedev, whose 211-day mission ended
Dec. 10.
    Alexandrov and Lyakhov conducted numerous experiments in medicine,
biology and other areas, the Soviet press has said. Twice they
performed space walks, spending about six hours outside the Salyut
station setting up solar batteries.
    
ap-ny-11-23 1906EST
**********

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 83 17:32:05-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!princeton!astrovax!wls @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Summary of net.astro responses

About a week ago I proposed a new group, net.astro, to discuss topics in and
related to astronomy.  The configuration I favored was net.astro.wizards for
expert discussion of ideas and results, net.astro for non-expert discussion,
with possibly a net.astro.amateur if amateur astronomers wanted their own
group.  I still prefer this configuration but now would prefer to call the
expert group net.astro.expert because 1) it sounds a bit less frivolous 2)
the name is one character shorter 3) the word expert seems somewhat more likely
than wizards to be understood by someone not familiar with the jargon of the
net.  Reasons 1) and 2) seem stronger to me than 3).
  I have not yet seen any response, either posted or mailed that was opposed to
the idea of an astronomy newsgroup of some sort.  However there is a cacophony
of different ideas about configuration and names. I count 6 posted responses
and 6 Emailed responses in favor of the establishment of an astronomy
newsgroup.
  The following is a summary of responses I've received by electronic mail.
I will assume that everyone has seen the posted responses.

Doug Tody (kpno!tody) writes:
>				... I have talked about setting up an
> electronic network among the astronomy centers in the past but never got
> anywhere.  Your idea seems like a good way to do it, since there are already
> a significant number of sites on the unix network.  Perhaps even some of the
> vms sites could join, given the prevalence of unix emulators.  I hear that
> Eunice provides uucp.  Space tel has the toronto emulator (I forget the name);
> I do not know if it provides uucp, but it probably does.
> NRAO has unix running on one of their machines. .......
> I confess that I do not read the news myself, cause I don't have time to
> wade through all the garbage.  I would do it, though, if your scheme succeeded
> in keeping the volume to a reasonable and worthwhile level.  Best of luck.
> Doug.

Roger Noe (ihlts!noe) writes:

> ... I favor keeping net.space (which is about MUCH more than the manned space
> program), moving net.columbia to net.space.prog or net.space.expl
> (exploration) and creating net.space.astro.  Of course, the names may be
> different.

Gordon Watson (hou5h!gsw) writes:

>   Here is a YES for net.astro.*. I am an amateur astronomer - and
> net.astro.amateur would be wonderful. net.astro.wizards would be a very
> useful service.  I'm not so sure there are that many astronomers on the net -
> maybe I would have expected more astronomical articles in net.space.  Here is
> my vote anyway.

inuxc!fred writes:

> ... I would certainly be interested in net.astro, being a semi-serious
> amateur I read everything I can get my hands on. It would be great to
> read what the "professionals" have to say to each other on the
> lastest findings in Astronomy. I would also estimate that there are
> about 6 people here at AT&T CP Indianapolis that feel the same way I do.

And last from ukc!dgd:

> One vote for net.astro  !!
-- 
Bill Sebok	Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton}!astrovax!wls

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 83 17:07:25-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Any L-5ers Out There

.                                                21 November 1983


     I would like to find out if there are other members of the L-5 Society,
or for that matter any other space activist organizations, on the net.  I've
been asked by Joe Hopkins, L-5's New Chapters Coordinator, to find out if
there are enough folks out there to create an electronic chapter.  If there
is significant interest, I would like to propose a new topic: net.space.L5, or
for brevity net.L5.

     There is already one electronic chapter, on The Source.  Comments either
to me or to net.space.  Thanks.

                                                 Dani Eder
                                                 Boeing Aerospace
                                                 ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 83  0140 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
Subject: Cosmonauts    
To:   space@MIT-MC

a035  0115  24 Nov 83
PM-Cosmonauts,450
Laserphoto NY58
    MOSCOW (AP) - The Soviet Union said today the 150-day space mission
by two cosmonauts has opened new prospects for long term missions
aboard orbiting space stations.
    The official news agency Tass said cosmonauts Vladimir Lyakhov and
Alexander Alexandrov, aboard their Soyuz T-9, made a soft landing
Wednesday night in Soviet Central Asia and were ''feeling well.''
    The site was reported to be about 100 miles east of Dzhezkazgan, a
city in the republic of Kazakhstan where most soft landings are made.
    Alexandrov received the title of Pilot-Cosmonaut of the Soviet
Union, Hero of the Soviet Union and the Order of Lenin and Gold Star
medal. It was his first space mission.
    Lyakhov, the mission commander, was also given the Order of Lenin
and his second Gold Star medal. In 1979, Lyakhov and another cosmonaut
completed a then-record space flight of 175 days.
    Tass said the cosmonauts carried out technical, medical and
biological studies and experiments. It said there were two space walks
totaling 5 hours and 45 minutes, during which solar batteries were
installed on the orbiting Salyut 7 space lab.
    ''That unique experiment is opening up fresh prospects for the
development of manned orbital complexes intended for prolonged service
and for raising their efficiency,'' said Tass.
    Longterm manned orbiting space complexes, which could be used as
docking stations for space craft, are a main goal of the Soviet space
program.
    ''A significant quantity of technical experiments was carried out to
practice the methods of guiding orbital complexes,'' Tass said. ''New
instruments and equipment for future space vehicles were tested.''
    Tass said experiments also focused on growing crystals and plants
and ''pure protein preparation.''
    The cosmonauts, both 42, began their mission June 27 and docked with
the orbiting Salyut 7 space station the next day.
    Western intelligence sources have said the Soyuz T-9 that carried
the cosmonauts was approaching a time when their return aboard it
would be risky. The intelligence sources cited weakening batteries and
fuel evaporation as the major problems.
    In September, according to Soviet sources, a launching pad explosion
aborted another Soyuz mission that presumably would have docked with
the Salyut 7.
    According to past Soviet space practices, the three cosmonauts whose
mission was aborted would have returned to earth in the Soyuz T-9
used by Alexandrov and Lyakhov. The more recently arrived space ship
would have been used later for the pair's return.
    The Soyuz T-9 docking with the Salyut was the second attempted this
year. On April 21, three Soviet cosmonauts were returned to earth
after an unsuccessful docking attempt.
    
    
    
ap-ny-11-24 0413EST
***************

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 83 12:48:06-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxj!rjh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: A Bibliography of Mathematical Astronomy - Revisited

(-)
 
Practical Astronomy with your calculator
Author: Peter Duffett-Smith
Publisher: Cambridge University Press @ London, New York, Syndey, et al.
Published: 1981
Comments: Contains good explainations easily worked on a calculator.
 
Mathematical Astronomy with a Pocket Calculator
Author: Aubrey Jones FRAS
Published: 1978
Publisher: David & Charles @ Newton Abbot and London
Comments: Contains many programs for HP 67 or HP 41 calculators.
 
Astronomical Formulae for Calculators
Author: Jean Meeus, Vereniging voor Sterrenkunde Belgium
Publisher: Willman-Bell, Inc., P.O. Box 3125, Richmond, VA 23235, USA
           (804) 320-7016
Published: 1982
Comments: The title is a misnomer unless you consider a HP-85 a
          calculator. Formulae are presented not programs.
 
          If you are interested in astronomy, you ought to get this
          publisher's catalog.
 
Astronomical Tables of the Sun, Moon, and Planets
Author: Jean Meeus, Vereniging voor Sterrenkunde Belgium
Publisher: Willman-Bell, Inc., P.O. Box 3125, Richmond, VA 23235, USA
           (804) 320-7016
Published: 1983
Comments: This book is 'companion volume' to the previous book giving
          computed results.
 
Low-Precision Formulae for Planetary Positions
  in 'The Astrophysical Journal'
Author: T.C. Van Flandern and K . F Pulkkinen
Publisher: The American Astronomical Society by University of Chicago Press
           5801 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Published: November 1979                                                ess
Comments: A how-to-compute 'cookbook'.
          'This paper gives low-precision (1') formulae for geocentric
          and heliocentric positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets,
          which are valid for any epoch within 300 years of the present.'
 
Textbook on Spherical Astronomy
Author: W. M. Smart, revised by R. M. Green
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (see above)
Published: 1980 (1st ed. 1931)
Comments: Textbook. Good for a beginner. College freshman math.
          Considered a classic reference. Sometimes used in a graduate
          level course.
 
Orbital Motion
Author: A. E. Roy
Publisher: Halsted Press
           John Wiley & Sons @ New York, Chichester, Brisbane, et al.
Published: 1980 (1st ed. 1931)
Comments: Advanced textbook. Starts out at a low enough level that an
          advanced undergraduate can follow it.
 
Spherical Astronomy
Author: Edgar W. Woolard and Gerald M. Clemence
Publisher: Academic Press @ New York, San Franciso, London, Syndey et al.
Published: 1966
Comments: Advanced reference. Very complete discussions.
 
Methods of Celestial Mechanics
Author: Dirk Brouwer and Gerald M. Clemence
Publisher: Academic Press @ New York, San Franciso, London, Syndey et al.
Published: 1961
Comments: Advanced reference. Very complete discussions.
 
Introduction to Orbital Mechanics
Author: Franz T. Geyling and H. Robert Westerman
Publisher: Addison-Wesley @ Reading MA, Menlo Park CA, London et al.    .
Published: 1971
Comments: Advanced reference. Includes discussions of spheriod, light
          pressure and magnetic field effects on Earth satellites.
          This book is currently out of print.
 
Theory of the Motion of the Heavenly Bodies Moving about the Sun in
Conic Sections
Latin title: Theoria Motus Corporum Coelestium in Sectionibus Conicis
              Solem Ambientium Auctore
Author: Karl Friedrich Gauss, translated by Charles Henry Davis
Publisher: Dover Publications, Inc. @ New York
Published: 1963 (reprint of Little, Brown & Co. edition of 1857)
Comments: Reference book. Shows how to compute orbits from observations.
          Considered a classic reference. It is somewhat hard to follow.
 
Computational Spherical Astronomy
Author: Laurence G. Taff
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons @ New York, Chichester, Brisbane, et al.
Published: 1981
Comments: Textbook. Good for a beginner. College freshman math.
          Intended for engineers and other such users.
 
Almanac for Computers (numbered by year)
Publisher: Nautical Almanac Office,
           United States Naval Observatory, Washington, DC 20390
Published: yearly
Comments: Very high precision Chebyshev short term (e.g. 1 month)
          formulae suitable for hand calculator (programability is
          nice but not really necessary).
 
American Practical Navigator (2 vols)
Author: originally Nathaniel Bowditch, LL.D. 1773-1838
Publisher: (United States) Defense Mapping Agency Hydrographic Center
Published: 1977 (1st Vol) 1975 (2nd Vol)
Comments: Textbook. Very good for a beginner. Elementary school math.
          Intended for seaman with about 8th grade education.
          Teachs the why's, how's and needed mathematics to work
          astronomical problems associated with navigation.
          The second volume contains the necessary tables.
 
The Astronomical Almanac (numbered by year)
Publisher: Nautical Almanac Office,
           United States Naval Observatory, Washington, DC 20390
         & Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office,
           Royal Greenwich Observatory, East Sussex, BN27 1RP, England
Published: yearly
Comments: Reference tables with some text.
          Can be ordered from:
          1. Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office,
             Washington, DC 20402
          2. Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
             P.O. Box 569, London SE1 9NH, England
 
Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris and the American
Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac
Publisher: Nautical Almanac Office,
           United States Naval Observatory, Washington, DC 20390
         & Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office,
           Royal Greenwich Observatory, East Sussex, BN27 1RP, England
Published: 1961
Comments: Reference. Title describes relationship to The Astronomical
          Almanac described above.
          Can be ordered from:
          1. Pendragon, 2595 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA
          2. Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
             P.O. Box 569, London SE1 9NH, England
 
------ The following books are not directly concerned with
------ Mathematical Astronomy; but they do contain related material.
 
Algorithms for RPN Calculators
Author: John A. Ball
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons @ New York, Chichester, Brisbane, et al.
Published: 1978
Comments: Primarily a book showing how to write good tight algorithms
          for RPN calculators. It does contain several algorithms
          related to geodesy and astronomy.
 
The Christian Calendar and the Gregorian Reform
Author: Peter Archer, S.J.
Publisher: Fordham University Press @ New York
Published: 1941
Comments: Primarily a study of the Christian luni-solar calendar and of
          its Geogorian correction. This is the most complete discussion
          of the Christian calendar that I have able to find in English.
 
The Cyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
(I do not have with me a complete reference to this work.)
Comments: This cyclopedia a number of detailed descriptions of the
          various religious calendars.
 
There are many other good reference books.
 
        Randolph J. Herber, Amdahl Systems Engineer,
        ..!ihnp4!ihuxj!rjh,
        c/o IH 1C220, AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL 60566,
            (312) 979-6554 or AT&T Cornet 8-367-6554,
         or Amdahl Corp., Suite 250, 6400 Shafer, Rosemont, IL 60018,
            (312) 692-7520

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #47
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:
			 STS-9 ham phone numbers
		      Estimated STS-9 orbit elements
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 24 November 1983 16:26:16 EST
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
Subject: STS-9 ham phone numbers
Message-ID: <1983.11.24.21.20.37.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

According to Radio Nederland, Bearcat will give times and
frequencies of amateur transmissions from STS-9 on
800-722-6637.  The number will open after launch.  The same
information will be available on 213-465-1500, which should be
open now.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 83 19:06:16-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Estimated STS-9 orbit elements

Satellite: sts-9
Catalog number: 0
Epoch time:      83335.58211000
   Thu Dec  1 13:58:14.304 1983 UTC
Element set:     est
Inclination:       57.0154 deg
RA of node:       193.1900 deg
Eccentricity:    0.0007630
Arg of perigee:   355.5104 deg
Mean anomaly:       4.0830 deg
Mean motion:   16.08700000 rev/day
Decay rate:         0.0227 rev/day^2
Epoch rev:               0
Semi major axis:  6628.185 km
Anom period:     89.513272 min
Apogee:            255.190 km
Perigee:           245.075 km

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Nov-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #48
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
			     Re: ABM WEAPONS
			      Re: ion pumps
				 re:ABMs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 83 15:05:11-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!astrovax!mwe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ABM WEAPONS
In-Reply-To: Article <13399@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <148@dual.UUCP>, <1108@pur-phy.UUCP> <3336@utzoo.UUCP>, <3925@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1085@ucf-cs.UU


Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decvax.UUCP
Message-ID: <140@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Nov-83 15:05:11 EST

Lines: 23

Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mhuxl.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP
Message-ID: <140@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Nov-83 15:05:11 EST

CP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 14

I must strongly disagree with one point in Bruce Giles article.
An ABM system capable of taking out moderate strikes is exactly what
we don't need. Of course, any defensive system is destabalizing to the
current balance of terror, but from the Russian point of view, what use
could a defense against moderate strikes be put to? Why, only to shoot
down a second strike of course, and they would be very nervous (probably
to the point of being forced to the infamous "launch on warning"). 
How would you feel if you found out that the Soviets were deploying a 
defense that wasn't capable of stopping an all out strike by the US,
but could shoot down about the number of missiles we would have left after
a first strike by them?
-- 
Web Ewell	Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton}!astrovax!mwe

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 83 20:24:07-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ion pumps
In-Reply-To: Article <3758@duke.UUCP>

Interplanetary gas is so thin that current technology can't do
anything useful with it, I'm afraid.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 83 11:18:53-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihu1e!gps @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re:ABMs

Some of the statements made by Bruce Giles may be misleading.
I don't know about theirs, but our missiles have no self destruct
capabilities. The fact is, when they leave the hole there is no
way of stopping them so one had better be certain of what is going
on.

                        A former TITAN II crew member (373 SMS)
                                Greg Stephens

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #49
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:
		  Re: 1984 SPace shuttle schedule - (nf)
			       rocket belt
	    NASA Astronaut Candidate program wants YOU (maybe)
		  Re: ssc-vax.634: Any L-5ers Out There
		     Husband and Wife teams in space
		    Will Weather Delay Launch? - (nf)
		    Will Weather Delay Launch? - (nf)
				Re:re:ABMs
			  Re: Greenhouse effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 83 15:38:29-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!kenner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: 1984 SPace shuttle schedule - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1379100:cmcl2:2300001:000:192
cmcl2!kenner    Nov 23 18:38:00 1983

Does anybody know the actual schedule of all the missions for 1984?  I am
mostly interested in the dates but if you have approximate launch times and
mission durations, I would appreciate it.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 83 19:07:33-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!orca!warner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: rocket belt

Having just read the article which mentioned the rocket belt and
untethered flight, I wondered about what sort of backup recovery
system there could be. 

The first thing that came to my mind was to give the astronaut 
a spring loaded gun that would shoot a small permenent magnet on a 
thin wire. 

The next scheme I thought of would to be to have two electro magnets, 
one on the shuttle and one on the astronaut. If the rocket belt failed
then the magnets could be turned on. 

It's up to the engineers to figure out how strong a field
would be necessary to provide a recovery within the lifetime of 
the life support system.

What's the real backup system?

Ken Warner
...tektronix!warner

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 83 1:37:14-EST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sun!gnu @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: NASA Astronaut Candidate program wants YOU (maybe)

The following message was posted to the Stanford public bulletin board.
To apply, contact NASA, or the Stanford office below -- not me!
-------
From: Elyse Krupnick <ELYSE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Astronaut Program
Newsgroups: su.bboard

The National Aeronautics & Space Administration office in Washinton, D.C., has
asked Stanford's assistance in disseminating informationa nd application forms 
for NASA's Astronaut Candidate program.  The program in open to U.S. citizens
(only) with a Bachelor's degree and preferable graduate work in the fields of 
Engineering, Biological or Physical Science or Mathematics.  NASA is particularly interested in recruiting qualified minority applApplicants are being sought both for Mission Specialist and Pilot (6 new 
candidates for each; 12 individuals are expected to be added to the roster).

Further information and application forms are available in the Graduate Awards
Office, Graduate Administration Building 590, Rm. 209.  all applications must
be postmarked by Dec. 1, 1983.  If you know of individuals who would qualify who might be interested in applying, please inform th-------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 83 9:43:49-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ssc-vax.634: Any L-5ers Out There

I vote for a electronic chapter of L-5 I am also a member of the Space
Studies Institute anyone else out there? I think it would be helpful if
people would post the adresses and descriptions of the various space
advocacy organizations.  I will shortly post some info about SSI.
Perhaps Dani Eder could describe L-5 for anyone who does not know what it
is about.  I would also like to learn somthing about CalSpace.
Jose Torre-Bueno
decvax!duke!phs!jtb

------------------------------

Date: 25 Nov 83 18:25:49-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Husband and Wife teams in space
In-Reply-To: Article <13791@sri-arpa.UUCP>

I was not aware of the number of such teams.
Will there soon be a mission where both go up together?

If so, I am sure I need not detail the interesting things that are
possible.

Of course, they have to go up before the TDRS network provides round
the clock telemetry.

How long are the radio gaps now?  Do the mission specialists have
body function monitors connected to them as was the case for the
Apollo crews?  Is there telemetry still, or is it just recorded?

After all, if the team were married, I doubt even the Moral Majority
could complain about what would perhaps be one of the most fascinating
experiments of the space program.
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 83 4:58:40-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uok!bsouther @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Will Weather Delay Launch? - (nf)

#N:uok:1300001:000:403
uok!bsouther    Nov 21 07:42:00 1983

	Does anyone know if the recent storms in Florida will have
	any effect on the 28 November launch date of the shuttle?
	Also, can *someone* tell me what time the shuttle is sched-
	uled for launch?  We here in Oklahoma don't appear to be in
	the mainstream of communication on these matters, so I'd really
	appreciate any info from netland.

		Thanks in advance,
		Brad Southers
		...!duke!uok!bsouther

------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 83 4:58:30-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uok!bsouther @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Will Weather Delay Launch? - (nf)

#N:uok:1300001:000:403
uok!bsouther    Nov 21 07:42:00 1983

	Does anyone know if the recent storms in Florida will have
	any effect on the 28 November launch date of the shuttle?
	Also, can *someone* tell me what time the shuttle is sched-
	uled for launch?  We here in Oklahoma don't appear to be in
	the mainstream of communication on these matters, so I'd really
	appreciate any info from netland.

		Thanks in advance,
		Brad Southers
		...!duke!uok!bsouther

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 83 14:28:24-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:re:ABMs
In-Reply-To: Article <163@ihu1e.UUCP>

>	I don't know about theirs, but our missiles have no self destruct
>	capabilities. The fact is, when they leave the hole there is no
>	way of stopping them so one had better be certain of what is going
>	on.


We have no self-destruct capability on our missiles????? (ok -- pun
unintentional)  Quick, bring the smelling salts!

Seriously, I knew we had fools in Washington, but I find that incredibly
stupid.  Yes, I know there is the risk of the enemy using our self-
destruct code to destroy our missiles before they reach them, but compare
the potential lose from losing some of our missiles to accidently starting
a nuclear war.  
 
Besides, I am only concerned about accidental launches.  So what if the
self-destruct message takes (say) 5 minutes.  If each missile had a different
code, and they could not be addressed simultaneously we will still have an
effective deterent.

Of course, this makes my argument for an ABM system (High Frontier style, 
incidently) uncomfortably even more pertinent.

(I know right now that I shall have nightmares tonight).

Any more disquieting news out there?


			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.:  In the *Orlando Sentinel* today (26 November) there was a cartoon
       remarkably similar to my argument.  It shows a flying saucer above a
       collection of jagged rocks in space, with two aliens speaking.
       The brunt of the dialog was that immediately after the U.S. and
       the U.S.S.R. actually stopped the arms race (spurred on by *The Day
       After* et nausea)  Kaddafy blew up the world.  Hopefully it is 
       a syndicated cartoon; I only glanced at it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 83 14:45:19-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Greenhouse effect
In-Reply-To: Article <13942@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Maybe I've missed something somewhere (although some may claim it is
between my ears -- I've still fazed by that ABM discussion :-)), but
I am getting somewhat comfused by the greenhouse effect.


As I understand it, the earth's atmosphere will pass visible light.
(no problems there).

The earth (and atmosphere) absorb this light, is heated by same process,
and reradiates energy somewhat like a black body (no problems there,
either).

The atmosphere is now opaque to the IR radiation, so the energy can
not be reradiated *directly* back into space.  (I'll accept as a working
condition; I know in that Florida it is far cooler in the winter when
the sky is clear compared to when it is overcast, but there may be
other phenomena involved).

But -- What keeps the atmosphere *as a whole* from being heated by 
thermal conduction, convenction (sp?), phase change, -- whatever --,
and reradiating this energy from the upper atmosphere?  After all,
the earth *must* obey the laws of thermodynamics, and if you pour
extra energy into the earth, does not that raise the effective temp-
erature of the earth as a whole?  And will not that cause the earth
to act as a slightly warmer black body itself?

In other words, are there not indirect ways of reradiating the energy
into space, which may affect the weather distributions but *not* the 
mean tempature?

[sidenote -- there was an article in an *Analog* a few months back on
	     this topic, but I felt too many things were left out.
	     Basically, the author seemed to treat the earth as a 
	     perfect black body, and I want to see climatic effects
	     taken into account also.  Things like changes in the 
	     composition of the atmosphere due to a change in the
	     composition of dissolved gases in the seawater.]


			    Bruce Giles
			    decvax!ucf-cs!giles (UUCP)
			    UCF, Dept of Math, Orlando Fl 32816 (Snail)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #50
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:
			       Night lights
			     Countdown Begins
		      Launch Scheduled for Tomorrow
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, 28 November 1983 10:27:28 EST
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
Subject: Night lights
Message-ID: <1983.11.28.15.24.4.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

According to the BBC World Service, which cites Pravda, the
Soviets are considering using orbiting mirrors to reflect
sunlight onto their northern cities during the arctic winter.
The report gave no details.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Nov 83 11:00:59-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxl!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Countdown Begins

The countdown for the launch of STS-9 began today, and launch
is scheduled for Monday morning.  However, a low pressure system
is headed towards KSC and may threaten the launch.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 83 11:25:00-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxl!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Launch Scheduled for Tomorrow

STS-9 is scheduled to launch at 1100 EST tomorrow (Monday,
28 November), but bad weather approaching KSC may postpone
it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Nov-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #51
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
		      rocket "belt" backup recovery
			  Medals for cosmonauts
			 Weather Threatens Launch
				Launched!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 29 November 1983 10:54:50 EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
cc: decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!orca!warner@Ucb-Vax
Subject: rocket "belt" backup recovery
Message-ID: <1983.11.29.15.51.4.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

Well, if Mohammed can't go to the mountain, then the mountain
will just have to come to Mohammed.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 29 Nov 83 15:38:39 EST
From:     Will Martin (DRXAL-FD) <wmartin@brl-bmd>
To:       space@mit-mc
cc:       wmartin@brl-bmd
Subject:  Medals for cosmonauts

Reading the news item about the return of the Soviet cosmonauts
which mentioned the medals awarded to them caused me to wonder
whether the US military astronauts get any special decorations
or awards for flights. I believe that some of the earlier groups
got medals at White House ceremonies, but I don't recall any
specifics.

What about the current group? The military have things like "campaign
ribbons", awarded for serving in a certain location during a
certain time period, and "hash marks" -- uniform enhancements that
denote periods of service, such as one for each six months overseas
or the like. 

Do the astronauts get any ribbons or decorations for each flight,
or one with an oak-leaf cluster or other add-on for each successive
mission or n days in space? As more and more people spend more time
in space, it will eventually become a normal tour of duty for
certain military occupational specialities, and I think that most
specialists in hazardous duties (diving, explosive ordinance disposal,
etc.) get some sort of award or decoration denoting longevity in
the field, and another every so often (the time period varying with
the field, I believe). Anyway, I would expect some sort of "Space
Service" badge, with embellishments for each subsequent mission or
number of missions, to be awarded to military serving in space. Does
such an award already exist?

Will Martin (WMartin@Office-3)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Nov 83 22:46:12-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Weather Threatens Launch

Although weather threatens the launch of the shuttle tomorrow
morning, NASA has decided to go ahead with the external tank fueling,
set to begin after midnight tonight.  Weather at the emergency
langing sites, in Spain and West Germany, is also predicted to
be bad, with clearing expected by Wednesday.  The current launch
window expires after 5 December, when lunar reflection becomes too
bright for Spacelab experiments.  The next window is in February.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 11:03:10-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!tesla!mac @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Launched!

	STS 9 LIFTED OFF AT 11 AM !!! 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Dec-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #52
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
		   STS-9 launch and Pravda announcement
				  LAUNCH
			  Shuttle orbit question
		      Columbia landing info request
			  st9 radio frequencies
		   Re: Husband and Wife teams in space
			  Re: Spacelab Turned On
	      Re: uiucdcs.3825: Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)
			  Re: contrails? - (nf)
			    Spacelab Turned On
	Re: Re: CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO GO ABOUT GETTING TICKETS
		  Re: ucf-cs.1094: Re: Greenhouse effect
				net.astro
			material to replace tiles?
			     Shuttle Security
		 Re: STS-9 launch and Pravda announcement
			    contrails? - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 13:56:05-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxx!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 launch and Pravda announcement

I saw CBS' coverage of the shuttle launch this morning.  Kathryn
Sullivan kept Morton Dean in line.  They interrupted rather late,
at about T-5 minutes or less (i.e. 1055 EST).  For once a network
anchor did not make a complete fool of himself.  I would've liked
to hear and see more of launch control operations, naturally, but
this was some of the better coverage I've seen a network have of
any shuttle launch after the first two.  The roll seemed quite fast,
I think perhaps they got their roll program finished in the same
time as other flights, even though it was farther.  I've forgotten,
which way does 39-A face?  I've got it on a map from my last visit,
but I don't know where I put it.  Oh, they had some pretty good aerial
views of the launch as well.  SRB sep was fairly clear, considering
the weather.  What a nominal launch!

Pravda today announced Soviet intentions to construct a permanently manned
orbiting space station.  No timetable was given for this.
-- 
		Roger Noe		...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 16:34:04-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: LAUNCH

Weather was better than expected today, and the shuttle launched
on time, at 1100 EST.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 16:07:06-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
Subject: Shuttle orbit question
Forwarded-From: Ed Featherston  HL01-1/P06  225-5241 <roll::featherston>
From : DVINCI::FISHER
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.
Subject: Shuttle orbit question

Since STS-9's orbit passes north of Edwards AFB, and thus EAFB passes through
the plane of the orbit twice per day, does this mean that the STS-9 has more
landing opportunities than previous shuttles (which I understand have only
two or three possible orbits per day from which they can reach Edwards)?

Burns
		Mail address : ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 16:06:28-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
Subject: Columbia landing info request
Forwarded-From: Ed Featherston  HL01-1/P06  225-5241 <roll::featherston>
From : DVINCI::FISHER
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.
Subject: Columbia landing info request

My local (Northeastern) paper says that the landing will be December 7 at
11:10 AM.  Unfortunately it does not say what time zone they are talking
about!  Could someone confirm the date, time, and zone?

Also, I am (by coincidence) going to be in the LA area on December 7.  Do
I need anything special (other than food and water) to go to Edwards for
the landing?  Any recommendations from landing veterans?

Thanks for the help!

Burns
		Mail address : ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 14:46:13-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!sb1!sb6!bpa!cp1!hart @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: st9 radio frequencies

The Goddard Space Flight Center amateur radio club is retransmitting the
STS-9 space shuttle ground communications on the following frequencies:

1.single sideband
  3.860 mhz
  7.185 mhz
  14.295 mhz
  21.390 mhz
  28.650 mhz
2.fm
  147.450 mhz
3.amateur tv (color)
  439.250 mhz input
  426.250 mhz output

======================================================================
signed: Rod Hart (wa3mez) 
        Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co.
        Bell Atlantic Inc.
        Silver Spring, Md.
        eagle!cp1!hart - sb6!cp1!hart - bpa!cp1!hart
======================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 13:49:48-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Husband and Wife teams in space

   Well, Brad, while they haven't sent up any husband/wife teams yet,
I believe that I remember hearing that the Soviets have already
conducted "one of the most fascinating experiments of the space
program," aboard their Salyut station sometime in the last couple
of years.  Also, keep in mind that the Shuttle is >awfully< small
inside (except when Spacelab is attached), and that if there were
two mission specialists aboard (I beleive the husband/wife teams
are all airs of mission specialists), it'd be kind of hard to
find any privacy on board. I don't know if there's even a hatch
between the flight deck and the lower deck. This could present
problems, especially for upstanding, all-american astronauts who
would otherwise be willing to experiment.
-Kieran A. Carroll (...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 19:45:58-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Spacelab Turned On

     There are no plans to allow the Spacelab to free-fly out of the
shuttle cargo bay.  It is dependent on the shuttle for transportation,
attitude control, electrical power, and crew quarters.  It is intended to
be re-flown many times, however.
     Skylab was indeed much larger than the Spacelab is.  The pressurized
module for Spacelab is a mere 23 feet long, and the instrument pallet adds
only a dozen or so more.  Skylab was fabricated from surplus Saturn V third
stages (the astronauts essentially lived inside a fuel tank), and as such
was on the order of 80 feet long.  The Skylab orbital workshop was also
much more massive than the Spacelab, with a 120,000 lb vs 30,000 lb weight
comparison.  I don't claim that these numbers are exact, but they're pretty
close.  A good reference to check is Kenneth Gatland's (ed.) "Illustrated
Encyclopedia of Space Technology."

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 13:59:20-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: uiucdcs.3825: Re: Space Solar Power - (nf)

What I said about infra-red being called "heat" was meant to explain how
the common usage came about not to say that was correct usage. Of course
all absorbed radiation will heat an object it's just that visible light
and infra-red are the two forms of EM radiation that are most common
in everyday life.
Jose Torre-Bueno
decvax!duke!phs!jtb

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 19:34:43-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: contrails? - (nf)

     The effects that you saw on the nose of both SRB's during the STS-9
launch are due to the passage of the vehicle through Mach 1.  What you saw
was not smoke, but water vapor rapidly condensing out of the air in the
(complicated) shock wave structure around the SRB nose.  You can observe the
same kind of effect when supersonic aircraft pass through the "sound barrier".
The condensation should also be visible about the top of the external tank, if
you get a chance to see that video tape again.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 21:58:25-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Spacelab Turned On

As Columbia soared above the Earth today, the astronauts turned
Spacelab on and entered it, officially starting its career as
a space research center.

All is going well with the shuttle, and NASA reports no trouble.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Nov 83 15:08:39-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!microsoft!fluke!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO GO ABOUT GETTING TICKETS

                                               21 November 1983

     The sound suppression system consists of plastic bags filled with water
strung across the SRB holes in the pad, and six largest sprinkler heads you
have ever seen.  The plastic bags were added after STS-1.  They absorb the
ignition pulse of the SRB's by simply being vaporized.  The sprinkler heads
are about 8 feet tall and consist of a 40 inch pipe with an angled plate
above the open end to spread the flow.  They together throw 600,000 gallons
of water all over the pad to keep it from catching on fire and soak up some
of the sound energy.

                                                Dani Eder
                                                Boeing Aerospace
  

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 14:06:15-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ucf-cs.1094: Re: Greenhouse effect

In answer to Bruce Giles's questions: The atmosphere is an inefficent
radiator compared to the earth or because it is a gas. He is correct that
the limit to the greenhouse effect is that as the planet heats it becomes
a stronger IR sorce. Obviously an equlibrium is established which depends
on the transparency of the atmosphere to visible and IR and the
reflectivity of the planitary anet's surface in visible and IR. When the
factors are such that the equlibrium temp. is high we say that the
greenhouse effect is occuring.
  Jose Torre-Bueno decvax!duke!phs!jtb

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 83 10:24:47 PST (Wednesday)
From: lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: net.astro
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, harpo!princeton!astrovax!wls@Ucb-Vax.ARPA

How can we get distribution to us ARPAnet address people from the new
net.astro, like we have been getting space info through SPACE@MIT-MC?
Is anyone knowledgable about this willing to do it?  I would certainly
like to see it happen, and I imagine their are others listening who
agree.

Also, how about the connection the other way?  Can I send messages to
net.astro by some trivial understanding of how to address it?

Thanks,
/Don Lynn

To wls: could you place this on net.astro please? Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 15:51:55-PST (Mon)
To: space@mit-mc
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!mcnc!dunc@unc.UUCP (Laura Glass)@CCA
Subject: material to replace tiles?

My brother told me that a new material was to
replace the tiles on the bottom of future
shuttles.  This material, according to him,
was much easier to apply than the tiles.
Does anyone know anything about this?

				Laura Glass
				Univ. of North Carolina
				Chapel Hill
				unc!dunc

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 12:47:09-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Security

I was at Canaveral National Seashore on Thanksgiving, and thought many
of you would be interested in the security surrounding the shuttle 
before the launch.

In a word, there was none.

For those of you unfamiliar with the cape, the access road to the beach
passes within a few miles of the launch pads.  In fact, on Thursday I
could clearly make out the external tank and both SRBs.  (The orbiter
was under the canopy, or whatever they call it.)  It is probabily within
range of a high-power rifle, and certainly within range of a small 
ground-to-ground missile. 

When I have gone to the beach before previous launches, if the shuttle
was on the pad a security officer has always stopped each car and asked
questions.  Questions such as:

	(1) have you been here before?
	(2) are you carrying any firearms?
	(3) are you carrying any explosives?

Occasionally I have seen them turn back cars, or had them pull them to
the side.  But there was at least the appearance of active security.

Thursday, however, there was none of that.  You passed a sign stating
that you where entering a security zone, and the first 1/2 mile of the
beach was closed.  That was it.  And, the temperatures were warm enough
that I was not alone on the beach. 

Does anyone know if they have dropped all security on the beach?  I
also heard that the beach will reopen the day after the launch, instead
of the day after touchdown as before.

I admit I enjoy the freedom which CNS provides (esp. the north end of 
Playalinda; you'ld have to be here) but security for the shuttle comes
first.  After all, the shuttle does provide a very tempting terrorist
target.

Anyone else have information on shuttle security?
								      

Bruce Giles
---------------------------------------------
UUCP:		decvax!ucf-cs!giles
cs-net:		giles@ucf
ARPA:		giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay
Snail:		University of Central Florida 
		Dept of Math, POB 26000
		Orlando Fl 32816
---------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 8:49:52-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!smb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: STS-9 launch and Pravda announcement
In-Reply-To: Article <603@ihuxx.UUCP>

The Soviets have also announced a plan to orbit giant mirrors to illuminate
their northern cities during the Arctic winter (source: NBC News).

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 22:27:27-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: contrails? - (nf)

#N:uiucdcs:8500008:000:256
uiucdcs!miller    Nov 28 14:33:00 1983

Watching the launch on CNN this morning, I observed something I have never seen
before.  Smoke appeared on the top of the SRB's about 30 sec. into the launch.
I assume this was some form of contrail.  Is this usual?  (ps: it only lasted
for 5 sec. or so.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #53
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
		 Re: STS-9 launch and Pravda announcement
		  Re: ihuxf.1653: Re: Spacelab Turned On
			    Congress in Space
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
		       TRDS Failure Info???? - (nf)
			  STS-9 Orbital Elements
			  Re: Spacelab Turned On
			   Re: Shuttle Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 9:52:13-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc-c!dya @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: STS-9 launch and Pravda announcement

The only decent coverage of an American space mission was that given by
Home Box Office, for STS-1 { This was before they went 24 hours per day.}
Their coverage of the launch and reentry was simply the pool feeds that
the networks use, I guess, with the COMPLETE audio communications portion.
Our local cable company decided to do routine maintainence about 7 seconds
before landing !!!! { Fortunately, we had a semi-working earth station. }

	Why, why, WHY can't some do-gooder channel like C-SPAN; or at least
someone with idle transponder time, do this ? I'd like to see all the
uninterrupted video and hear all the audio transmissions without some stupid
announcer cutting off the good parts.  What a way to build American interest
in the space programme !

--David { decvax!duke!mcnc!unc-c!dya }

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 83 9:24:17-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ihuxf.1653: Re: Spacelab Turned On

The Spacelab is incapable of free flying operations it draws power and other
services form the shuttle. The ESA and NASA are considering a follow on
design baised on the Spacelab which would be free flying.  One reasion
it was designed to return to earth each time is that it is designed to
be rapidly reconfigurable for different kinds of research, the concept
being that it will be used mostly for short term and piolet studies.
The Skylab was large inside because it was built inside an empty fuel tank.
Jose Torre-Bueno
decvax!duke!phs!jtb

------------------------------

Date:  1 Dec 1983 12:58:46 EST (Thursday)
From: Roger Frye <frye@BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Congress in Space
To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
Cc: Frye@BBN-UNIX

    From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax
    Subject: Husband and Wife teams in space
    
    Will there soon be a mission where both go up together?
    
    If so, I am sure I need not detail the interesting things that are
    possible.

Of course sex in space has been possible all along, but I suppose you
were thinking only of sex between two people, of opposite sex, married,
and, oh yes, heterosexually oriented.

------------------------------

Date: 01 Dec 83 12:50:54 PST (Thu)
From: Martin D. Katz <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>
Return-Path: <Katz%uci-750a.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
To: David.Smith@Cmu-Cs-Ius
Cc: space@Mit-Mc, decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!orca!warner@Ucb-Vax

Although it might be feasible to match the orbit of a ship or station to
pick up a space pedestrian in an emergency, if the dV is not too high, the
pedestrian may be able to throw the "rocked belt" away from the ship and
thus maneuver toward the ship (better save something to throw for final
maneuver when approaching the ship).

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 1 December 1983 21:17:01 EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: Martin D.Katz <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>
cc: space@Mit-Mc, decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!orca!warner@Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
Message-ID: <1983.12.2.2.7.44.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

A shuttle orbiter is in trouble if its available dV doesn't dwarf
what an astronaut can get from throwing his backpack.  Anyway, that
backpack contains his oxygen supply.

	David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 22:35:34-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!notes @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: TRDS Failure Info???? - (nf)

#N:ecn-ee:21800001:000:393
ecn-ee!malcolm    Nov 29 22:04:00 1983

Can anybody tell me what happened to the TDRS?  I've only caught very
brief non-technical items on its partial failure.  Did it lose one of its
transceivers and how does it affect the entire bird?

Thanks.

						Malcolm Slaney
						Purdue EE Dept.

P.S.  The TDRS is the Tracking Data Relay Station that was put up by the 
Shuttle earlier this year and is crucial to the sucess of SpaceLab.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 12:30:46-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 Orbital Elements

Satellite: sts-9
Catalog number: 14523
Epoch time:      83333.59578650
   Tue Nov 29 14:17:55.954 1983 UTC
Element set:     MH 11-29-83
Inclination:       57.0210 deg
RA of node:       202.7920 deg
Eccentricity:    0.0008415
Arg of perigee:   275.8170 deg
Mean anomaly:      84.0300 deg
Mean motion:   16.09484667 rev/day
Decay rate:      0.00294794 rev/day^2
Epoch rev:               0
Semi major axis:  6626.029 km
Anom period:     89.469631 min
Apogee:            268.354 km
Perigee:           257.202 km

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 7:53:29-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxf!larry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Spacelab Turned On
In-Reply-To: Article <2319@alice.UUCP>

Pardon my ignorance about "Space Lab" --but is that package going to be
seperated from Columbia and left in orbit, or does a shuttle have to take it
up each time?  If it is left in orbit, will the shuttles be able to get it
high enough to prevent another "Sky Lab"?  If it is left in orbit, how do the
people get from the shuttle to the lab? (grab it with the arm and pull it in
the cargo bay each time?)  It would seem awful wasteful (and hazordous to any
delicate  equipment) to take that rough ride "up" each time Space Lab was to
be used.

As a side question, can anybody provide a size comparison between Sky Lab and
Space Lab??  There was a show on PBS the other day that had some footage of
the inside of Sky Lab --MY GOSH IT WAS **HUGH**!!  Pictures from the outside
never made it seem so big - nothing to reference it with I guess.  Too bad the
shuttles didn't get going in time to save it.
-- 


		Larry Marek
		 ihnp4!ihuxf!larry

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 14:42:10-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Security
In-Reply-To: Article <1097@ucf-cs.UUCP>

I don't understand how anyone can say that there was no security at
Kennedy surrounding the shuttle launch complex.

I was there for STS-9 starting on Saturday (T-2 days) with press
credentials.  I lost track of how many roadblocks we had to pass through
and how many times we had to individually show our badges and car
passes. Armed guards were present at all intersections in the areas
leading to the pad, VAB, landing strip, etc.  When we took the bus tours
out to the pad areas on the day before launch, we had to exchange our
badges for red hazard area passes so that they would know who was trying
to hide in the bushes.  This was true even though we were not taken
through the perimeter fence around the launch pad - only on the Saturn
Causeway running parallel to the crawlerway and around on Cape Road on
the east side of the pad.

It should be pointed out that pad 39A (used for STS-9) is the southernmost
pad at Launch Complex 39; pad B, when it becomes operational, will most
likely push the security perimeter much further north along the beach.

Despite the ubiquitous presence of security people, they were universally
courteous and polite to us, and I think everybody good-naturedly
accepted the need for at least SOME of the hassles.  Its a shame that a
realistic view of human nature makes security necessary.  I would say,
though, that concern for safety is probably a larger factor than
protection against crazies.  KSC is so large that just accounting for
each and every person's whereabouts at the time of launch, even when
they aren't intentionally trying to violate the security zones, must be
a major challenge.

After you've first seen how enormous the pad area is, and then
how fast the blast wave from SRB ignition spreads to cover the entire
area, you begin to develop a very healthy respect for the beast.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #54
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:
			     Re: X-ray lasers
			       Nasa Address
	     Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)
		      Rocket "belt" and KSC security
		 Re: STS-9 launch and Pravda announcement
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #53
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
			  Re: Spacelab Turned On
			  Re: Spacelab Turned On
			     Re: rocket belt
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
			  More on STS-9 sighting
			 STS-9 optical visibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 83 4:52:12-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!dartvax!robertm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: X-ray lasers

Another point : Since the X-rays can't go through the atmosphere, they
can't destroy low-flying (Cruise) missiles.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Dec 83 06:21 PST
From: jcastro.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Nasa Address
To: space@Mit-Mc.ARPA
cc: jcastro.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Does anyone out there know what the mailing address for NASA is?

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 3:47:38-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!jon @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Program (Semi-Trivia) Questio - (nf)

This LEM guidance computer had 32K bytes of ROM and 2K bytes of RAM.
Its easy to see how it could be overloaded (read as compute bound).

Jon B

------------------------------

Date:  2 Dec 1983 07:30:41 PST
From: CARROLL@USC-ISIB
Subject: Rocket "belt" and KSC security
To:   space@MIT-MC

   About the "rocket belt" backup: how about a mini-mass driver?
Would a standard type slingshot absorb too much energy in the rubber
part to be useful?  How about an old-fashion shepherd's sling?  The
astronaut would also carry a supply of dense pellets, say ball bearings.
They would be flung away at such high speed that it would change his
velocity a little.  This would require some erratic, quick motion by the
astronaut.  Maybe just a pistol.......of course, any thrust must be
through his center of gravity or he'll just be set spinning head-over-heels 
instead of going anywhere!

   Re security at KSC: I've not been to a shuttle launch, but I had an 
interesting experience at the Apollo launch for the ASTP link-up with
the Russkies.  I was at the "VIP" site, but a friend was able to get me
over to the press site.  I decided the angle was better from the first
place, even though further away, and since there was plenty of time before
the launch, I headed back, ON FOOT.  I was walking merrily along the road
that runs next to the VAB, and encountered two security checkpoints along
the way.  I explained, and was allowed to pass.  The third guy, though, took
me to security HQ, they checked me out with the CIA (that's what they said),
and finally drove me back to where I wanted to go.  By this time, there were
only about twenty minutes until launch.  I was pretty unnerved by the 
experience, because there had been talk about dumping me outside the front
gate!  That was in 1975, and I was 18.

Steve (carroll@ISIB)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 83 11:21:04 EST (Friday)
From: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: STS-9 launch and Pravda announcement
In-reply-to: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc-c!dya's message of 02 Dec 83 03:03 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Heiny.henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

For those of you in the Rochester, N.Y. area, one of the channels on
People's Cable (27?? I'm not sure...) is carrying what appears to be
live shuttle stuff.  Most of the time it's not very exciting, just
people sitting at desks on the ground, doing obscure things in the lab,
or reading aarcane strings of numbers and abbreviations.  Sometimes some
interesting things happen, though...


					Chris

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Dec 83 09:54 PST
From: NNicoll.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #53
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: NNicoll.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

Hey Jose, why are they using such an expensive piece of equipment as the
SpaceLab to study mountaineering ice axes (see arrows)?  {the concept
being that it will be used mostly for short term and "piolet"__ studies}

Nick Nicoll

------------------------------

Date: 02 Dec 83 09:31:42 PST (Fri)
From: Martin D. Katz <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>
Return-Path: <Katz%uci-750a.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
To: David.Smith@Cmu-Cs-Ius
Cc: "Martin D. Katz" <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>, space@Mit-Mc,
        decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!orca!warner@Ucb-Vax
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thursday, 1 December 1983 21:17:01 EST.
	     <1983.12.2.2.7.44.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>
Via:  UCI; 2 Dec 83 14:09-PST

Although a shuttle orbiter's available dV dwarfs that available to an
astronaut throwing away disabled pieces of equipment, it may not be the case
that the shuttle could afford the extra maneuvering propellant.  It also
depends on what the astronaut was doing:  if the astronaut was repairing a
satellite, the shuttle may not be able to maneuver close enough to pick up
the astronaut without damaging the satellite.

As to what to throw, I didn't suggest throwing the backpack.  If the
personal maneuvering unit uses a jet of pressurized gas separate from the
gas used in the life support pack, it could be a separate unit and could be
thrown.

Actually, the original question was about a backup for a "rocket belt."  In
a well designed system, one might use three separate nozzles, each with its
own contol valve and source of propellant.  The fact that there are three
separate systems might eliminate the necessity for an explicit backup.

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 2 December 1983 20:57:07 EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: Martin D.Katz <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>
cc: "Martin D. Katz" <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>, space@Mit-Mc, 
    decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!orca!warner@Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
Message-ID: <1983.12.2.23.24.57.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

	Although a shuttle orbiter's available dV dwarfs that available
	to an astronaut throwing away disabled pieces of equipment,
	it may not be the case that the shuttle could afford the extra
	maneuvering propellant.

I think the planners would be remiss to omit contingency fuel.

	... if the astronaut was repairing a satellite, the shuttle
	may not be able to maneuver close enough to pick up
	the astronaut without damaging the satellite.

So the astronaut could push off the satellite, or the shuttle could
wait until he drifted far enough away from it.  If he were tangled
with the satellite, another astronaut would probably have to be sent.

	As to what to throw, I didn't suggest throwing the backpack.
	If the personal maneuvering unit uses a jet of pressurized
	gas separate from the gas used in the life support pack,
	it could be a separate unit and could be thrown.

OK, but the current unit is in one piece -- which is not to say that
the breathing oxygen is used for propellant.

	Actually, the original question was about a backup for a
	"rocket belt."  In a well designed system, one might use
	three separate nozzles, each with its own contol valve
	and source of propellant.  The fact that there are three
	separate systems might eliminate the necessity for an
	explicit backup.

The current maneuvering unit does have a number of jets -- for six-axis
control, I believe.  I don't know about extra propellant tanks.

In my view, the dangerous possibility is not that a thruster could
become inoperable, but that it could be jammed on, as happened with
Gemini 8.  Without an emergency cutout, or counteracting backup,
the astronaut could be spun so fast as to be rendered unconscious.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 15:49:06-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Spacelab Turned On
In-Reply-To: Article <1653@ihuxf.UUCP>

Spacelab will be taken up in the shuttle each time it
(Spacelab) is to fly; it is never released from the cargo
bay.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 83 12:33:01-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxs!okie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Spacelab Turned On
In-Reply-To: Article <2319@alice.UUCP>, <1653@ihuxf.UUCP>

Spacelab will not be left in orbit; it has no guidance/stabilization
systems, nor any long-term orbital life support capabilities.  If it
is to be used more than once, it will be lifted by shuttle each time.

I, too, was amazed at the open feel and the size of Spacelab.  But
after thinking about it, I realized that it pretty much fills the
cargo bay of the shuttle -- and that's a goodly space to fill.  Plus
most of the space is open, to allow a group of people to move about
and work without getting in each other's way.  If you'll remember,
Skylab was much bigger, but it was more crowded -- divided into
"decks", filled with life-support and research equipment.  The only
really big open space was near the passage to the docking module;
they did the tests with the EVA mobility pack up in that space.
The specialists that work in Spacelab actually live in the shuttle's
crew compartments.

Hope this helps,

B.K.Cobb
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL

------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 83 17:01:44-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: rocket belt
In-Reply-To: Article <338@orca.UUCP> 28 November 1983

     The real world backup system is the Shuttle Orbiter.  You go after
the guy and get him.

                                                 Dani Eder
                                                 Boeing Aerospace
                                                 uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 3 December 1983 04:07 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
To: katz.uci-750a @ RAND-RELAY
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

If you throw the rocket belt in the usual way, "over" the head, much
of the momentum goes to rotation rather than translation, so the poor
astronaut is now spinning rapidly and only slowly approaching the
rescue ship. Even pitching from the waist doesn't work well, you get
angular momentun along your vertical axis. You must throw from the
center of mass. Either you press from your tummy, or you bend your
body into horseshoe and toss sideward thru the inside of the curve.
Either way, it takes considerable training to throw directly from the
center of mass of the human body, and without that training an attempt
to toss the rocket belt would probably do more harm than good, giving
a totally disoriented spinning astronaut who can't even maintain gaze
on the rescue ship as it seems to revolving around and around and
around at immense speed.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 83 23:41:09-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: More on STS-9 sighting

Some more details on an opportunity to sight STS-9 this evening (Wednesday):

At my location (northeast NJ, near New York) the shuttle will rise
at 6:34pm in the northwest, pass toward the south reaching a maximum
elevation of 29 degrees in the southwest, and set at 6:42 pm in the
southeast.  However, at 6:39:11 pm, it will enter the earth's shadow
while due south and at an elevation of 18 degrees.  I would be
interested in any observation reports, particularly exact timings of the
shadow crossing, to gauge the accuracy of the orbital elements I have.

Give it a try!

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 83 23:32:34-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 optical visibility

I see from some orbital predictions that STS-9 will be above
the horizon for some passes over the US after dusk tomorrow;
in particular, there are two passes (22:02-22:08 and 23:35 to
23:41 UTC on 11/30/83) for New York which I will try to observe
tomorrow.  This should be the first shuttle flight to be easily
observable from the major portion of the US due to its high
inclination orbit.

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #55
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
			       W5LFL Heard!
		      Re: material to replace tiles?
			  RE: Spacelab turned on
			  Updated STS-9 Elements
		     More optical sightings of STS-9
			  STS-9 May Be Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 83 0:20:37-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: W5LFL Heard!

Posted: Wed  Nov 30, 1983   9:50 PM EST              Msg: TGID-1670-3247
From:   JREYMANN
To:     AMSAT
Subj:   W5LFL, #40  

W5LFL showed up on orbit 40.  Heard the first part of his first space/
earth contact!  Problem with people uplinking on his freq was compounded 
an order of magnitude by turkeys trying to shut him up.

Much more discipline needed.  KL7GRF and I trying to get out the word
with virtually non-stop info nets on fm and ssb when Owen not in range.

Gud luk!
73, W6PAJ

Posted: Wed  Nov 30, 1983  10:58 PM EST              Msg: DGID-1670-3451
From:   VRIP
To:     AMSAT
Subj:   More W5LFL #40  

W5LFL apparently began operations from Columbia on orbit 40 this
evening.  There are sketchy reports of hearing W5LFL on orbit 35
but these are as yet unconfirmed.  According to ARRL, Columbia was
due to be flying in an unfavorable attitude on orbits 34 through
39 with the antenna pointed to the sky instead of earthward.
 
I have just listened to an audio recording of W5LFL's pass over
the northwest on orbit 40 made by KA7APJ, Jim Smith, Area Coordinator
for Washington, QTH, Seattle.  Garriott's signal was truly outstanding.
A DFQ signal with no interference whatsoever.  He was calling
CQ North America from W5LFL on the space ship Columbia.  It was
really him too.  I recognized his voice with certainty.
 
KA7APJ was not able to establish contact, however.  He had a live
TV crew on-scene for the excitement.  I think it's fair to say that
the media (broadcast and print) have glommed onto this event even
more strongly than we had hoped (feared?)!
 
Tomorrow the ultimate test.  W5LFL over Washington, Baltimore, New York,
Boston, Philadelphia, Hartford, simultaneously. 
 
Can you imagine the QRM?!?  

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 83 8:56:13-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      hplabs!intelca!omsvax!ogcvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: material to replace tiles?
In-Reply-To: Article <6329@unc.UUCP>

                                                    December 1,1983

     The material you are probably thinking of is Advanced Flexible Reusable
Surface Insulation (mercifully shortened to AFRSI, pronounced "a frizzy"),
which is being used on some areas of the later orbiters.  It is not being
used on the bottom, but rather in the coolest areas formerly covered by
tiles.  This includes the OMS pods, and part of the sidewalls.  The material
is ceramic fibers covered with a ceramic cloth.  The advantage over tiles
is that it is stronger and less expensive.

                                                     Dani Eder
                                                     Boeing Aerospace
                                                     ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 83 13:52:48-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!waltt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: RE: Spacelab turned on

------------

I was at the Smithsonian a couple of months ago and toured the
Skylab back-up that they have there.  C'mon, now.  It wasn't
that big.  Most of the livable area was divided up into very
small (about 4 x 5 ft) areas.  The largest open area was close
to the docking hatch.

                           -- Walt

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 83 9:51:26-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Updated STS-9 Elements

Satellite: sts-9
Catalog number: 14523
Epoch time:      83335.58237270
   Thu Dec  1 13:58:37.128 1983 UTC
Element set:     MH 12-1
Inclination:       57.0220 deg
RA of node:       193.3560 deg
Eccentricity:    0.0008956
Arg of perigee:   298.8020 deg
Mean anomaly:      61.0790 deg
Mean motion:   16.10962707 rev/day
Decay rate:      0.00420703 rev/day^2
Epoch rev:              47
Semi major axis:  6623.656 km
Anom period:     89.387544 min
Apogee:            262.999 km
Perigee:           251.135 km

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 83 12:22:21-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: More optical sightings of STS-9

Tired of listening to all the terrestrial interference on 145.55 mhz? 
Why not try visually sighting Columbia?  The next opportunity for the
northeastern USA (specifically my backyard in Warren, NJ) will be this
evening at 6:24:14 pm.  It will rise at azimuth 302 degrees (northwest),
moving south, and reach a maximum of 17 degrees elevation at azimuth 252
degrees before entering the earth's shadow at 6:27:31 pm EST.  Azimuth 252
is almost the same as that of the sun when it sets this evening.

A group of us may have spotted the shuttle last night on the 5:02pm pass,
but the combination of twilight and lots of air traffic may have fooled
us.  On this pass, the sun will have completely set.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 83 18:32:42-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 May Be Extended

NASA said today that Spacelab has been so successful so far that
it might extend the mission duration of STS-9 by one day in order
to gather more data from it.  The shuttle has enough extra fuel
and supplies for 2 to 3 more days in orbit if required.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #56
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
		   Seeing a shuttle landing at Edwards
		     Re: Medals for cosmonauts - (nf)
		      Re: Spacelab Turned On - (nf)
			   STS-9 element update
			Satellite Conference Call
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Sun, 4 Dec 83 15:12:25 PST
From:           Willard Korfhage <korfhage@UCLA-ATS>
To:             space@mit-mc
Subject:        Seeing a shuttle landing at Edwards

Is there anything I should know about seeing a shuttle landing at Edwards?
Things I should know or be prepared for before I go? How do I find out which
landings are open to the public?

				Thanks,
				Willard Korfhage

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 83 4:55:31-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Medals for cosmonauts - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1412400:ucbesvax:8700009:000:1431
ucbesvax!turner    Dec  2 02:57:00 1983

Re: medals for cosmonauts, what for astronauts

This is conjecture, but I think the reason that U.S. astronauts aren't
routinely decorated the way cosmonauts are has to do with attitudes
toward militarization.  May Day parades in Red Square are ominously
symmetrical: military honchos on one side of the podium, politburo flacks
on the other.  You don't see much of that here--I think there's even a
law that says that the President shall not appear in uniform, even as
commander in chief.

In the USSR, nuclear fuel and waste shipments travel under guard by
Red Army convoys.  In the U.S., even the nuclear *weapons* industry
has always (ostensibly) been a civilian outfit.  (Back when Reagan
still dreamed of axing DoE, it was thought that the nuclear weapons
programs could be transferred to the Department of Commerce.)

Perhaps the inception of the Soviet space program was marked by cooperation
among the (less divided?) branches of their military.  Here, NASA was
formed, in part, out of exasperation with the infighting, secretiveness,
and competition between branches of the armed forces who were trying to
outdo each other's space programs.  Perhaps our more civilian
administration was loathe to decide which 4-star general would do the
pinning of the medal, and simply discouraged the practice, even though
the astronauts were themselves military men.

Conjecture, as I say.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 83 8:41:54-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Spacelab Turned On - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <4247@uiucdcs.UUCP>, <432@ihuxs.UUCP>

------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 83 8:23:01-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 element update

Satellite: sts-9
Catalog number: 14523
Epoch time:      83338.55976020
   Sun Dec  4 13:26:03.281 1983 UTC
Element set:     MH 12-4
Inclination:       57.0140 deg
RA of node:       179.1810 deg
Eccentricity:    0.0004664
Arg of perigee:   287.5080 deg
Mean anomaly:      72.4560 deg
Mean motion:   16.12408909 rev/day
Decay rate:      0.0046165 rev/day^2
Epoch rev:              95
Semi major axis:  6618.016 km
Anom period:     89.307371 min
Apogee:            256.642 km
Perigee:           250.469 km

------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 83 7:14:29-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Satellite Conference Call

At 0940 EST tomorrow (Monday), a satellite conference will take
place, including President Reagan, West German Chancellor Helmut
Koul, and the COlumbia astronauts.

Meanwhile, astronaut Owen Garriot talked to Jordan Kind Hussein
on his ham radio yesterday.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #57
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
			 Shuttle orbital elements
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
			 H. G. Wells and the Tao
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 83 0:13:16-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!ajs @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)

We just saw the  shuttle  half an hour ago, after  reading  in the local
paper that it would be visible the last three days.  (The  previous  two
were  cloudy.) We had a clear view  tonight, and a watch set to WWV, but
I'm afraid I didn't get exact  times -- it was  clearly  visible  when I
first  noticed it.  It looked like a bright,  white,  steady star (point
source) moving at a rate comparable to a high-flying  jet.  Of course it
did not flash or change color, though (like the plane that distracted me
while looking for it!).

Here are my observations:

* Local sunset at 1634 MST (exactly one hour earlier).
* First seen at heading 225deg (SW), +/- 20deg, at 173430 MST +/- 20sec.
* Greatest elevation 30deg +/- 10deg.
* Greatest magnitude 1 (rough guess, comparable to the brightest stars
  visible in the twilight).
* Slowly faded and dropped to SSW, 175deg +/- 10deg, disappearing at
  173750 MST +/- 20sec about 10deg above the horizon.

Alan Silverstein, Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division, Colorado
ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcla!ajs, 303-226-3800 x3053, N 40 31'31" W 105 00'43"

------------------------------

Date:  Monday, 5 December 1983 21:33 est
From:  Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject:  Shuttle orbital elements
To:  Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <831206023306.776109@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

I appreciate the posting of shuttle orbital elements for each flight.
Now, does anyone have a program, preferably in C or BASIC, that can use
these to calculate shuttle sightings from the ground?

          Paul

------------------------------

Date: 05 Dec 83 13:55:24 PST (Mon)
From: Martin D. Katz <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>
Return-Path: <Katz%uci-750a.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
To: David.Smith@Cmu-Cs-Ius
Cc: space@Mit-Mc, decvax!tektronix!tekgds!tekecs!orca!warner@Ucb-Vax
In-Reply-To: Your message of Friday, 2 December 1983 20:57:07 EST.
	     <1983.12.2.23.24.57.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>
Via:  UCI; 5 Dec 83 17:47-PST

David.Smith@Cmu-Cs-Ius (Dec. 2)
     ... the breathing oxygen is used for propellant.

     The current maneuvering unit does have a number of jets -- for six-axis
     control, I believe.  I don't know about extra propellant tanks.

     In my view, the dangerous possibility is not that a thruster could
     become inoperable, but that it could be jammed on, ...

Thank you, I was unaware of the details of the current NASA design of
portable propulsion.  I don't think that NASA would have approved the
routine use of breathing oxygen for other purposes a decade ago.  Is this
another cost cutting measure?

Suppose that the valve on a jet sticks open, the force can be approximately
counterbalanced by opening the opposite valve.  The remaining spin can be
negated by use of the the pair of jets which are 60 degrees from the jet
used to counteract the broken jet.  I would worry more about using up all of
that oxygen -- how long before the the pressure runs down too low for the
astronaut to breath or propel himself?

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 83 13:22:26-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!elt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: H. G. Wells and the Tao

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one nights reading I came across the following two quotes, both of which
made me think of the space-o-philes of this news group.

The past is but the beginning of the beginning,
and all that is and has been, is 
but the twilight of the dawn ...
There will come a day when beings now latent
in our thoughts and hidden in our loins
shall stand upon this Earth as one stands
upon a footstool and laugh and reach out
their hands amid the stars.

     H. G. Wells


The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.

     Tao Te Ching


Ed Turner
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #58
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
			  W5LFL heard in INDIANA
			   STS-9 element update
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
			 OASIS 10 December: IRAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 83 7:33:54-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!wheatley @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: W5LFL heard in INDIANA

W5LFL was heard with a very strong signal at 10:08:15EST and 10:10 EST
in central indiana Sunday Morning.  He seemed to not follow the format
prescribed where he was to transmit for an entire minute.  He transmitted
quickly, and then allowed more than the allotted minute for ground
stations to contact him.  He gave a brief account of the view from the
spacecraft, as it crossed from Houston up over the Great lakes, and
acknowledged only one call, but he was not sure of the exact call, indicating
that he would retrieve it from the tape when he was on the ground.  At any
rate, the best chance of working W5LFL seems to be a matter of getting on his
tape, in other words, don't worry if you dont hear him acknowledge your call!

On other matters, anyone volunteer to decipher the tape he is making!!  What
a job that will be, especially if a intense effort is made to pull all the calls
out of the tape, rather than just the obvious ones.  I guess they will be listed
in some form or another in the future.

W5LFL was reported , by W5RRR and others, to have worked JY1, King Hussein of
Jordan, on the same orbit referred to above, as the shuttle descended over
Europe and Asia.  In fact, local repeater chatter indicated that perhaps a
qso occurred, not just a one way "I heard JY1" by W5LFL.

Steve Wheatley, inuxc!wheatley

------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 83 11:52:25-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 element update

Satellite: sts-9
Catalog number: 14523
Epoch time:      83339.61349018
   Mon Dec  5 14:43:25.552 1983 UTC
Element set:     MH 12-5-83
Inclination:       57.0190 deg
RA of node:       174.1650 deg
Eccentricity:    0.0004531
Arg of perigee:   313.5410 deg
Mean anomaly:      46.3590 deg
Mean motion:   16.12125940 rev/day
Decay rate:      0.0048117 rev/day^2
Epoch rev:             112
Semi major axis:  6618.790 km
Anom period:     89.323046 min
Apogee:            251.551 km
Perigee:           245.553 km

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 6 December 1983 08:48:14 EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: Martin D.Katz <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>
cc: space@Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
Message-ID: <1983.12.6.13.30.14.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

Whoa!!!  I am quoted as having said
     ... the breathing oxygen is used for propellant.

What I actually said was
	OK, but the current unit is in one piece -- which is not to
	say that the breathing oxygen is used for propellant.

I don't know what the propellant is, but I can't imagine that it comes
from the breathing supply.  My guess is hydrogen peroxide.  The little
hand-held maneuvering gun used by Ed White on Gemini 4 had its own
compressed oxygen tank.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 83 20:54:31 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: OASIS 10 December: IRAS
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
Reply-To: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

OASIS (Southern California L5) General Meeting
free and open to the public

WHEN: 10 December 7 pm

WHERE: Kinsey Auditorium
	California Museum of Science and Industry

SPEAKER:  Dr. Thomas Chester, IRAS Science Support Team Chief

TOPIC:  IRAS's Astronomical Breakthroughs

ABSTRACT:  The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) has opened up a
new era in astronomical thought and perspective.  Viewing the sky in
infrared, far beyond the limits of human sight, IRAS has uncovered
scenes that are not only remarkable astronomically, but strangely
beautiful as well.

Dr. Chester will speak on the IRAS discoveries that have been in the
news and show some of the discoveries that dazzle IRAS scientists and
non-astronomers alike.  He will talk about the ring of material around
the star Vega that might hold planets; the ring of dust around our own
solar system; the detection of half a dozen new comets; the first
large-scale infrared panoramic views of the universe, and the
never-before-seen center of our Milky Way galaxy.  This will be one of
the first public presentations of this material.

--Bruce

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #59
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
		     STS-9 equator crossing reference
		  Re: material to replace tiles? - (nf)
			    Shuttle sighting.
			   STS-9 Media Coverage
		      Re: Optical Sightings of STS-9
			       Whatta loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 6 Dec 83 10:31:13 PST
From: orca!warner@rand-relay
Return-Path: <orca!warner.TEKTRONIX@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery

Yes jets (or thrusters) stuck on is another problem for which a 
contingency plan must be developed. 

The idea of throwing objects (such as the jet pack itself) is a bit 
expensive to say the least. Probably not that effective in any case. 

As an aside, has there ever been an experiment that would support
such a hypothesis that an astronaut could actually perform this
feat effectivly ?

My original idea of a spring loaded gun shooting a magnet that
is connected by a wire to the astronaut seems more direct.

Also is there any orbital mechanics that are being over looked?
What would be the orbit of an astronaut that had projected himself
radially outward from the shuttle? Would he eventually intersect the
orbit of the shuttle at a later time?

Ken

------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 83 12:19:42-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 equator crossing reference

Sun Dec  4 00:03:12.317 1983 UTC: Ascending node at 108.8
Nodal period: 89.30857 min
Longitude increment: 22.683098 deg w/orbit
Element set MH 12-2, epoch: Fri Dec  2 16:46:55.630 1983 UTC

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 83 18:01:43-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hoyme @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: material to replace tiles? - (nf)

They have developed a blanket material that is much more resistant
to damage.  It is currently used on the payload bay doors of the
Columbia and Challenger orbiters and covers most of the white areas
on Discovery.  I am not aware of them replacing the higher temperature
black tiles with the blankets as of yet (I could be wrong). (I was
in the OPF 2 weeks ago but only saw Challenger..I was told this
information by a NASA person who had been in the other bay where
Discovery was being 'smoke tested', i.e. powered up for the first 
time at KSC).

Ken Hoyme
Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Minneapolis

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 7 Dec 83 12:12 EST
From: Charles Weems <weems%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
Return-Path: <weems%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@CSNet-Relay>
Subject:  Shuttle sighting.
To: space@mit-mc
Via:  UMASS-CS; 7 Dec 83 20:04-EST

Two friends and I watched the shuttle fly over on Saturday the 3rd.  The
paper predicted it would rise at 4:32 for Boston.  We first spotted it
about 20 degrees up from the horizon in the NW.  It appeared as a point
source about mag. -3 (much brighter than Sirius but not quite as bright
as Venus at its brightest).  It proceeded overhead with its highest point
roughly 15 degrees N of the zenith.  It disappeared to the ESE.  At about
45 degrees up from the ESE horizon it abruptly dimmed (to about mag 1) and
remained dim until disappearance. (Dimming most likely due to entering
Earth's shado, local sunset being about 4:12 EST).  First sighting was at
4:33 and the shuttle was visible for about 5.5 minutes.  UMass Amherst is
about 60 miles West of Boston.

One of my friends commented afterward that having the shuttle show up right
on time had finally made him a believer in astronomical calculations....

chip weems

------------------------------

Date: 1 Dec 83 14:48:48-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!sb1!sb6!bpa!burdvax!presby!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!louie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 Media Coverage

I was not at all pleased with the media coverage of the STS-9 mission.  I am
fortunate enough to be able to listen to the NASA audio feed being
rebroadcast on the Amateur Radio bands.  Not having to listen to the constant
babble of network news commentators when they choose to provide any coverage
at all is a major improvement.  During the launch, I just turned off the
sound on the TV...  Wait.. this isn't net.flame.  I would love to have some
cable company provide me with the the straight NASA audio/video feed, it
would be worth *money* to me.


        Louis A. Mamakos

	Internet:  louie@cvl.arpa
	CSNet:     louie.cvl@umcp-cs
	uucp:      ..!{seismo,we13,mcnc}!rlgvax!cvl!louie
        phone:     (301) 454-2946
        Snail Mail: 
                   Computer Science Center - Systems Staff
                   University of Maryland
                   College Park, MD   20742

------------------------------

Date: 2 Dec 83 11:23:03-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Optical Sightings of STS-9
In-Reply-To: Article <851@inuxc.UUCP>

Fantastic!! This is only two seconds early compared to my predictions
based on a NORAD element set from earlier in the day.  This is easily
explained by the effects of the atmosphere, etc.

When I compute further sightings, I'll post them.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 83 05:57:27 EST
From: Hobbit <AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Whatta loss
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Well, *I* never heard W5LFL at all.  All I got was an earful of ground-based
hams yelling at each other to ''shut up!'' or ''Go 600 KC down!''.  I suppose
that living in NJ has its disadvantages what with the density of people
[and therefore airwave clowns].  Unfortunately it never was made clear
[via the net] that .55 was the down freq *only*, or maybe more people 
would have understood what was happening.

KE9Q [?? -Phil?] at BTL Murray Hill, are you out there?  Send me a network
pointer.

_H*
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #60
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
				  STS-9
			   STS-9 element update
			     Re: X-ray lasers
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
	       The story of Columbia's computer glitches   
		    More on the shuttles' computers   
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 83 21:42:14-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5g!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!mat @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9

Some statistics as reported in the 12/5/83 Aviation Week and Space Technology:

	``Launch of the shuttle orbiter Columbia/Spacelab 1 mission here
Nov 28 required greater vehicle maneuvering and higher thrust than any previous
shuttle ascent to boost the heavy U.S./European payload on a northern
trajectory ...

...Following main engine cutoff and two Orbital Manuevering System (OMS) burns
to complete the launch process, Columbia was only 1.1 second off the required
5 336 second orbital period dictated by experiment requirements ...

...Vehicle liftoff weight was 4 503 095 lb., including the Spacelab 1 payload,
which weighed 16.6 tons.

	[By way of contrast, the Saturn V launch vehicle consumed 15
	tons of fuel PER SECOND.  But wait ...]

... [the] two Morton Thiokol high-performance solid rocket motors provided
about 6.24 million lb. of thrust at the 20 second point in the climb, with the
rest provided by the three Rocketdyne space shuttle main engines operating
at 104% power.

...This combination gave the Spacelab 1 vehicle at least 56 400 lb. more
thrust than any previous shuttle launch.

	At the 20 second point in the ascent, Columbia was powered by at least
7.46 million lb. of thrust, a level only slightly below that generated by the
Saturn 5 boosters during the Apollo program.''

	Remember, though, that the Apollo moon rocket's payload on the final
missions weighed over 103 000 lb (with a thrust from the first stage of
about 7 700 000 lb.)  Columbia pays for reusability and for redundancy.  Still,
the numbers are not bad at all.

	In the same issue, information about SRB ablator lining is given.
In addition, it is reported that the external tank was thought to have hit
in the same area that KAL 007 was downed.  The report was corrected soon,
with the splashdown about 1 000 miles south of Melbourne, at 56.6S and 143.2E.


						Mark Terribile
						hou5d!mat

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 83 7:00:37-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-9 element update

Satellite: sts-9
Catalog number: 14523
Epoch time:      83341.54513838
   Wed Dec  7 13:04:59.956 1983 UTC
Element set:     MH 12-7-83
Inclination:       57.0140 deg
RA of node:       164.9430 deg
Eccentricity:    0.0005229
Arg of perigee:   326.0820 deg
Mean anomaly:      97.8970 deg
Mean motion:   16.13365400 rev/day
Decay rate:      0.0051403 rev/day^2
Epoch rev:             143
Semi major axis:  6615.400 km
Anom period:     89.254424 min
Apogee:            245.399 km
Perigee:           238.481 km
Beacon:           145.5500 mhz

This thing is coming down so fast that if they just waited for a few
days, they wouldn't have to fire retrorockets! MH 12-7-83 AOS/LOS times
for the last pass this morning showed a 45 second discrepancy with
respect to MH 12-5-83, a set only two days old, and in fact I noticed
this in my tracking of W5LFL.

With each new set, the updated times show the orbiter to be running
early with respect to each old set; this means that the drag factors
must be consistently too small.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 83 12:08:57-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!mwe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: X-ray lasers
In-Reply-To: Article <13929@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <172@dual.UUCP>

The X-ray lasers currently under consideration are strictly one shot weapons.
You get one pencil of radiation for each copper bar you vaporize in the
explosion. Hopefully you could put more than one copper bar around each 
warhead, but they would all have to be locked on and tracking simultaneously.

The real problem with this approach is that Russian countermeasures will
almost certainly be much less expensive than the sattelites, and the arms
race is after all an economic struggle...

Two of the suggested couter-measures are first the obvious anti-sattelite
missile, to be fired minutes before your attack, or second a sort of
umbrella that deploys in front of each of your missiles as it leaves the
atmosphere. The MIT defense analysis group claims that there are as many
as twenty different workable counter-measures. They also claim that we don't
have the required tracking and pointing technology now to make the system
workable.
-- 
Web Ewell	Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton}!astrovax!mwe

------------------------------

Date: 08 Dec 83 09:44:36 PST (Thu)
From: Martin D. Katz <katz.uci-750a@Rand-Relay>
Return-Path: <Katz%uci-750a.UCI@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
To: decvax!tekgds!tektronix!orca!warner@Ucb-Vax
Cc: David.Smith@Cmu-Cs-Ius, space@Mit-Mc
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tuesday, 6 Dec 83 10:31:13 PST.
	     <8312070129.AA06355@decvax.UUCP>
Via:  UCI; 8 Dec 83 12:03-PST

...!orca!warner:
     The idea of throwing objects (such as the jet pack itself) is a bit 
     expensive to say the least. Probably not that effective in any case. 

As someone mentioned on the net, actually throwing something propel oneself
would be a great feat without a lot of training.  I would say that it is an
"If all else fails" alternative.  I really only suggested it because it
takes advantage of what is already there.  As to expense, in an emergency,
the cost of the propulsion unit is trivial compared to the cost of the
astronaut and suit.

     My original idea of a spring loaded gun shooting a magnet that
     is connected by a wire to the astronaut seems more direct.

The use of a spring loaded gun is probably a better alternative.  Shooting a
magnet and wire might work except that I understand that there is little
exposed ferromagnetic material on the shuttle (even with the cargo bay doors
open), and I understand that an attempt is made to limit the carrying of
magnets on the shuttle because some equipment is sensitive to them.  Thus,
there is little place for the magnet to stick.  I also think that aiming
might be a problem, and so several shots might be needed (thus, a spring
loaded unit sounds like an advantage). Would there be a problem with the
line tangling between shots?

Maybe instead of a magnet, one could use a wad of very sticky putty.  It
might even be an epoxy precurser which would react with the surface of the
tiles (much like some suit patches which have been proposed).  As to
tangling, maybe a wrapped fiber which is thin, yet stiff might help.

     Also is there any orbital mechanics that are being over looked?
     What would be the orbit of an astronaut that had projected himself
     radially outward from the shuttle? Would he eventually intersect the
     orbit of the shuttle at a later time?

As I understand it, the orbit of an astronaut who projected himself radially
outward from the shuttle would be an ellipse which (because the dV is low) is
approximately that of the original orbit.  The actual effect depends on the
direction of the shove, the dV, the original orbit, and the position in the
orbit.  Since the dV (change in momentum) is small, in most cases, the
astronaut's orbit would intersect the orbit of the shuttle.  Unfortunately,
because the orbits don't match, the shuttle might not be at the intersection
point when the astronaut is.  If the difference is small enough, the shuttle
might have moved little enough relative to the intersection point that it
will effectively still be there for the astronaut.

A problem is if the astronaut matches orbit with a satellite in a slightly
different orbit from the shuttle.  In this case, he might fall far behind
because if the satellite is in a higher orbit, its orbital period is larger.
In a one orbit EVA, this could be several hundred meters.

As to whether we forgot something in orbital mechanics of throwing or
shooting things -- definitely.  Actually, everything in orbit moves
approximately in an ellipse with one focus at the center of the earth.  A
propulsion changes which ellipse one follows, and the motion is not straight
line to the astronaut.  In fact, I understand that the most efficient way to
move into an orbit further out is to propel oneself tangentially to the
current orbit (speeding up ones motion propels one into a higher orbit).
This is why "retro rockets" work.  These effects are not large for an EVA
because the orbits are similar, but the astronaut will need training and
might need some navigational help on a long EVA.

------------------------------

Date: 09 Dec 83  0136 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: The story of Columbia's computer glitches   
To:   space@MIT-MC

n088  1802  08 Dec 83
AM-SHUTTLE 2takes
Shuttle Lands Safely After Computer Malfunctions
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - The space shuttle Columbia landed
safely Thursday, but almost eight hours late, after a cascade of
malfunctions struck and spread concern for the spaceship's critical
navigation system.
    The six-man crew rode the winged spaceship, carrying the Spacelab,
to a landing here at 6:47 p.m., EST. This brought to a successful
conclusion the longest shuttle mission, a 10-day flight, and the
first test of the European-built Spacelab as an orbital research
facility.
    At the moment of touchdown, Mission Control told the crew:
''Columbia, welcome home. Beautiful landing!''
    For a time, however, there was doubt as to when the Columbia would
be coming home, Thursday or possibly a day later. The suspense built
in the morning, the result of a mysterious sequence of failures. A
thruster firing jolted the spaceship. A computer failed and then
another computer failed. These were computers handling guidance and
navigation functions. Finally, a navigation measuring system also
shut down.
    After hours of trouble-shooting, Mission Control in Houston decided
it was safe to attempt the landing, even though engineers still did
not understand the source of the malfunctions.
    The two pilots and four scientists aboard the Columbia remained cool
through the day. The crew members were John W. Young, Maj. Brewster
H. Shaw Jr. of the Air Force, Dr. Owen K. Garriott, Dr. Robert A.R.
Parker, Dr. Byron K. Lichtenberg and Dr. Ulf Merbold of West Germany.
This is the largest crew to fly in a spacecraft.
    The descent from orbit apparently went without flaw, despite the
earlier equipment problems. But just as Young brought the nose wheels
of the Columbia to the ground, one of the suspect computers failed
again.
    When the Columbia came to a stop, John Blaha, the spacecraft
communicator at Mission Control, said to the crew: ''We've got some
good news and bad news. The good news is we've got lots of beer
waiting for you. The bad news is we drank it eight hours ago.''
    The spaceship was originally scheduled to land at 10:58 a.m. This
was a one-day extension of the mission decided on because of the
Columbia's smooth performance, until the final hours, and because the
spacecraft had ample reserves of fuel and oxygen.
    This was the first time in nine flights that a space shuttle has
failed to land on time because of mechanical problems. The third
flight, in 1982, had to stay aloft an extra day because of a
sandstorm at its New Mexico landing base. The seventh flight, last
June, stayed up a couple of extra orbits and changed landing sites
because of rainy weather at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
    The flight of the Columbia had been remarkably free of trouble until
the multitude of malfunctions struck Thursday morning. It was 5:13
a.m., EST. The Columbia was 155 miles up in orbit within radio range
of a tracking station at Cape Canaveral, Fla., where the shuttle was
launched Nov. 28.
    An automatic firing of jet thrusters in the nose rocked the
spaceship. Nothing quite so jarring had ever occurred on a shuttle.
Young, the commander, estimated that the force was 19 or 20 times
greater than the normal force of the earth's gravity.
    ''It really hit the vehicle hard,'' Young reported to Mission
Control. ''It was really an impact. It was probably as high a
magnitude type thing as we have seen.''
    At precisely the same time, the computer handling the spaceship's
guidance and navigation systems shut down. This was the No. 1 general
purpose computer, one of four identical computers on board that bear
the burden of controlling the craft's complex systems. Any one of the
four is capable of taking over for the others. In addition, a fifth,
independent computer is available as a backup system.
    The No. 2 computer immediately took over from the troubled No. 1
computer. Five minutes later, in another thruster firing, the No. 2
computer also shut down, apparently because it became overloaded. For
about one minute, the Columbia had no computer-
 operated guidance and navigation capability.
    Mission control then commanded the No. 3 computer to the rescue. It
had been turned off during the problem; the No. 4 computer was
handling the spaceship's environmental control systems and other
tasks.
    Flight controllers were mystified. They ordered the No. 2 computer
back on, and it worked. They tried to re-start No. 1, but it did not
work. It was presumed dead. The No. 2 computer resumed its guidance
and navigation duties, as the No. 3 computer was switched off; it
held the vital re-entry programs and had to be kept available for any
updating of those instructions.
    Still, no one understood the cause and nature of the malfunctions,
or whether they were linked or independent problems. Mission Control
decided to postpone the landing. Theoretically, it would be possible
to land the shuttle without the computers but it is believed that, in
practice, a human pilot could not execute commands fast enough to
make the maneuvers necessary for re-entry into the earth's atmosphere.
    ''We need time to better understand the problem before we commit to
re-entry,'' Mission Control informed the crew.
    Two more landing opportunities were available in the evening, at
5:17 or an orbit later at 6:47. Blaha, the spacecraft communicator at
Mission Control, asked Young if he had any preference.
    ''I have no druthers,'' Young replied, though he noted that the
later landing would give him a chance to take a nap. He had been up
all night at the controls.
    Young had one suggestion, though. ''I recommend we close the forward
R.C.S.,'' he said, referring to the reaction control system
thrusters, ''and not run any more of those rascals.''
    There was even a chance that the landing would have to be postponed
until Friday morning. NASA officials said the crew had ample fuel and
oxygen to stay in orbit at least two more days, if necessary. The
crew had run out of only one item: paper for the teleprinter that
brings them written operational instructions.
    While hundreds of engineers at Houston analyzed data from the
Columbia's computers, searching for clues to the malfunctions,
another gremlin struck. This time it was one of the three inertial
measuring units that failed. This system senses the spaceship's
acceleration, position and angle of attack to provide reference data
needed by the computers in issuing commands to the propulsion system.
    Shaw, who had taken over the controls while Young slept, reported at
about 9 a.m. ''fault signals'' from the inertial unit. Attempts to
re-start the system were futile.
    Soon afterward, Mission Control elected to wait and attempt the
landing on the final opportunity of the day. Even though the cause of
the problems ''is not obvious with analysis,'' Blaha told the crew,
it was decided to go ahead with ''de-orbit preps.''
    Flight engineers reconfigurated the computers so that if the No. 2
machine failed again, the No. 5 computer would take over immediately
and guide the ship home. The interconnections between the various
machines were also adjusted to ''minimize the impact'' on them if No.
2 should fail.
    And so the crew closed the Columbia's cargo bay doors, sealing in
the Spacelab, and prepared to fire the two orbital maneuvering
engines for re-entry. Closed-circuit television from Mission Control
showed the anxiety on the faces in front of the many consoles. The
voices were calm, however, as were those of the crew of the Columbia.
    In the Columbia's 166th revolution of the earth, Gary Coen , the
flight director, polled all the systems specialists in Mission
Control and, at 5:14, announced the decision to ''go'' for returning
to the earth as planned. Coen was chain-smoking.
    The crew received reassuring news 15 minutes later. Blaha, the
spacecraft communicator, reported that engineers had completed their
analysis of computers 2, 3 and 4. ''The data from the memory dumps
checked out A-O.K.,'' he said.
    The Columbia was out of radio contact when it began its return. At
5:52, while over the Indian Ocean southeast of India, the craft's two
orbital maneuvering engines ignited and fired two and a half minutes
to slow down the craft. The Columbia began falling out of orbit.
    It would be almost 45 anxious minutes before Mission Control - or
anyone other than the six crewmen - would know if the computers were
working and navigating the Columbia through the many thruster firings
and body-flap settings necessary to keep it on course. It was out of
range of any tracking stations.
    By the time word came, the Columbia had plunged into the atmosphere
over the Aleutians and was off the west coast of the United States.
Mission Control began receiving tracking data at 6:31. All was well.
    As the spaceship glided over the desert here, its thrusters vented
puffs of vapor into the blue sky. A double sonic boom rocked the
desert floor. Young took over manual control and steered the craft
into a sharp left turn and made a complete circle before heading in
for the touchdown.
    He brought the Columbia in at a shallower angle than before,17
degrees instead of the usual 19 degrees, because of its heavy load,
the 17-ton Spacelab.
    Though the touchdown was smooth, just as the nose wheels eased onto
the desert runway the No. 2 computer had its second failure.
    But the mission was over.
    
nyt-12-08-83 2103est
**********

------------------------------

Date: 09 Dec 83  0142 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: More on the shuttles' computers   
To:   space@MIT-MC

n090  1820  08 Dec 83
BC-SHUTTLE-COMPUTER
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - Balky computers have nagged the space shuttle from its
first test landing in 1977, to the countdown for its maiden flight in
1981, to its most recent mission.
    But Thursday's failure of two of the shuttle Columbia's five main,
general-purpose computers, a failure that almost kept the craft in
space an extra day, was unusual because never before in the space
program had more than one computer gone awry at a time.
    When one of the failed computers returned to service, officials of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration decided there was
little danger because the four operating computers on board could
back up one another, constantly checking for errors and providing
reserves.
    In fact, any single computer could guide the ship to a safe landing,
operating wing flaps and other spaceship control surfaces during
re-entry. If all the computers somehow failed, it is unlikely that
manual instructions from the crew could guide the shuttle through the
critical re-entry phase.
    John W. Young, the mission commander, suggested that Thursday's two
computer failures had been caused by jet thrusters that rocked the
spacecraft. NASA officials passed up two opportunities to land the
shuttle while teams of technicians and engineers looked for the cause
of the failures. Mission control gave the crew a ''go'' for landing
after engineers decided the firings did not cause them.
    An official of Rockwell International, the main builder of the
shuttle, said the failures might have been touched off by an
electrical surge. ''But there's no way to know until we analyze the
flight data,'' he added.
    Computer No.2 was back on line soon after it failed, but Young said
No.1 had apparently ''hard failed.'' He tried without success several
times to restart it, and finally the control center at the Johnson
Space Center in Houston told him to declare it dead.
    ''When you have a problem like this you can't know at the time
whether it's the computer or something leading up to it,'' said
Justin Fishbein, a spokesman for International Business Machines
Corp., which built the main computers.
    In July 1977, a hint of trouble was demonstrated to flight planners
in the shuttle's first test landing. A computer on board broke down
just as the shuttle was being released from the Boeing747 that had
carried it aloft. The remaining computers guided the shuttle down
safely.
    The five identical computers on the shuttle are modified versions of
off-the-shelf machines developed by IBM in the early1970s for use in
military aircraft. Each computer consists of two55-pound boxes about
the size of small suitcases.
    The use of extra equipment to enhance reliability is common in the
space program, in military aircraft and in some other applications,
such as the telephone system, where reliability is crucial.
    In April 1981, a computer failure delayed the maiden flight of the
space shuttle Columbia for several days. Engineers at the Johnson
Space Center in Houston identified the problem as a timing fault in
one set of spaceship computers that disrupted communications with the
backup computer.
    Two years later, on the maiden flight of the Challenger in April
1983, astronauts in space were awakened one night by alarms warning
that a computer had broken down. The problem was quickly fixed and
the computer worked perfectly through the rest of the flight.
    In its September flight, one of the Challenger's main computers
began producing garbled data. Mission Control shut the computer down
and sent it some new instructions, which corrected the problem.
    NASA officals say more expensive, reliable computers have sometimes
been used in past programs. In the Apollo program, the command module
relied primarily on one computer, with a less sophisticated model as
backup. The main computer was painstakingly designed, handmade and
very expensive. In contrast, the five computers in the shuttle are
not the most up-to-date and are not quite so expensive, but their
ability to back up one another allows less attention to be paid to
making each individual machine reliable.
    
nyt-12-08-83 2112est
**********

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #61
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
			TV news mangling (flame!)
			      STS-9 Landing
		    Shuttle heard in Livermore, CA    
				 LANDING
		      Re: TV news mangling (flame!)
			    Get Away Specials
		      Re: TV news mangling (flame!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 83 16:14:47-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: TV news mangling (flame!)

Now I'm really mad. On the 6pm news, Channel 7 (WABC) here in New York
ran an opening story saying that "when the Columbia astronauts tried to
fire their rockets to return to earth, the Columbia shook violently and they
couldn't return to earth...They'll try again to return to earth this
afternoon..."  Then they went on to show a little clip of Apollo 13,
comparing this incident to it!!

It's bad enough that the media selectively reports only the bad news.  Its
totally inexcusable when they distort the news beyond recognition in order
to create a "life-threatening crisis" as they have in this situation.  If
I had not already been familiar with the situation through other means
(like listening to the un-talked-over mission audio via amateur radio
station WA3NAN) I would have been very worried, thinking that the OMS
fuel tanks had exploded or something.  Furthermore, they didn't consider
it worthy to interrupt their "important scoop" on steel animal traps to
carry the landing live until about 1.5 minutes before landing!!

I would urge anyone who also saw this miserable piece of yellow journalism
to write WABC and protest.  I certainly am.

Phil Karn

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 83 13:46:05 PST (Friday)
From: hoffarth.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: STS-9 Landing
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: RTCC^.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, hoffarth.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Reply-To: hoffarth.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

I arrived at the East Shore Viewing area at Edwards just about 6am and
was ready for the 8am landing.  Upon entering the base we were informed
that the landing had been delayed till 2:30pm.  After having driven 2
hours I wasn't about to turn around, so I found a parking space, proped
up my pillow, and went to sleep.

After awaking, I decided to take a walk to see what the latest new was
and to my disappointment found that the landing had been delayed again,
this time till 3:52 pm.  By now the desert had warmed up from its mid
30's low so I picked a spot near the north corner of the viewing area
and set out my blanket.  The high for the day must have gotten into the
mid 70's and I noticed several people had taken their shirts off to
enjoy the sun.

The Air Force put on a spectacular show for us.  I managed to see the
following aircraft during the day:

C-130
KC-135
F-16
F-111
A pair of F-15's
A pair of A-7's
F-5
Several NASA T-38's
NASA Gulf Stream Shuttle Simulator

I ended up sitting next to a real hardcore.  This was his 7th landing!
He was quick to point out that the two he had missed were at White Sands
and Edwards (STS-8 night landing which was closed to the public).

I brought my Minolta XD-11 with a noname 400mm telephoto and a 2X
converter.  I saw quite a few Celestron telescopes with camera mounts.
As the time drew near we all turned our equiptment to the north and
waited.  Our first tip was a beautiful vapor trail and several seconds
later it came into view.  I was able to view the shuttle for almost 15
seconds before the double sonic booms.  The shuttle then preformed a 309
degree head up alignment turn to place it on runway 17. There was one
T-38 chase plane present.


Rich

------------------------------

Date: 09 Dec 83  1649 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: Shuttle heard in Livermore, CA    
To:   space@MIT-MC

We got an unexpected treat here in Livermore yesteray 6 minutes before
Columbia's touch down.  Listening to the 3PM CBS network news for the
latest update, we noted that the shuttle would be comming in from the
north, crossing the coast 80 miles north of San Fransisco.  A quite check
of a map showed that the most likely shuttle track passed almost directly
over Livermore.  A few calculations suggested that some 10 minutes before
landing time we should get the sonic boom, if it was loud enough to hear.
It was more like six or seven minutes but we heard a well defined double
boom.

Did any one else hear it?  I'd be interested in find out how wide a track
it was audible over.  Also any idea how high it was over Livermore, we are
about 250 nm from Edwards?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 83 18:28:43-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: LANDING

Despite a failed computer and navigation instrument,
Columbia landed today, after 10 days, 7 hours, and
47 minutes in space.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 83 18:28:49-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!cbosgd!mark @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: TV news mangling (flame!)
In-Reply-To: Article <2080@allegra.UUCP>

On the other hand, I watched the landing live on CBS tonight, and I
was impressed.  The commentators both seemed to be making a point of
not talking while there was direct audio coming out - they would even
stop in mid sentence to let you hear.

Also, the photography was spectacular!  The chase plane had the shuttle
in site, filling the picture, which was rock steady, for about a minute
before the landing.  Wow!  Of course, I assume the other networks had
the same picture.

Did Young wait until the last minute to bring down the gear on purpose,
or was that controlled by a computer?  Is there some aerodynamic reason
for waiting so long?

Our local TV station said that "a belligerent computer refused to allow
the Columbia to land".  Now THAT I resent.  If an athlete hurts his knee,
we're all concerned about his injury.  But if a computer gets fried
by a jet flame, then it's the computers fault!  And it's not just person
vs machine - you know if the jet had fried a tile or some other part of
Columbia, they'd all be concerned about Columbia.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 83 4:58:58-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Get Away Specials

 I would be interested to hear from anyone out in netland who is
 planning to fly an experiment on the Space Shuttle Get Away Special
 program in 1984.

 Regards, dgd.

 dgd@ukc.UUCP
 ...!vax135!ukc!dgd

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 83 23:19:25-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: TV news mangling (flame!)
In-Reply-To: Article <2080@allegra.UUCP> <722@cbosgd.UUCP>

I wouldn't know about the audio being talked over on the networks.
I turned the TV volume down and listened instead to the un-talked-over
audio being retransmitted by the club amateur radio station at the
Goddard Space Flight Center.  Until the local stations pre-empted their
shocking steel animal trap exposes and vital football score reports to
bring us their extensive coverage of the landing (all 2 minutes of it)
this was the only way to follow Columbia's progress short of paying
$.35/minute to the phone company.

By the way, any of you out there who did listen to WA3NAN's
retransmissions should definitely send them a reception report.  It must
have gotten very lonely running the station 24 hours a day over the past
10 days, and the only reward a bunch of volunteers can get is the
satisfaction that their service was appreciated.  I would certainly like
to see it continue on future missions!

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #62
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
			TV news mangling (flame!)
		    Shuttle heard in Livermore, CA    
		 SHUTTLE TOILET PROBLEMS of past flights
			 STS-9 and the Sonic Boom
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 December 1983 06:32 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
To: katz.uci-750a @ RAND-RELAY
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

The standard technique on Earth for tossing a weight on a string and
reeling it back in repeatedly until you catch ahold of what you're
trying for, is a fishing pole. In space you'd spin momentarily while
casting, but mostly stop spinning as soon as you reached the end of
the swing. The only residual spinning would be due to the sinker and
hook (the part that actually kept moving). In space probably the pole
wouldn't be needed, a simple reel held in your hand would get enough
momentum to make the tackle drift across to your spacefish (the STSh
orbiter). Perhaps we should suggest somebody actually experiment with
this device on some upcoming flight?

------------------------------

Date: 10 December 1983 21:15 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: TV news mangling (flame!)
To: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I agree with you, that was truly shoddy journalism.

By the way, here in the SF bay area there was no mention of coverage
on TV, so I turned on radio and happened upon KGO radio 810 KHz which
said on their talk show they'd break early to cover the landing at 45
minutes after that hour. They indeed broke about that time and covered
the landing. Several minutes later KPIX channel 5 TV finally
interrupted their programming to cover the landing, only about 2
minutes before landing. The other network stations didn't start their
coverage until about 1 minute before landing, but still better than
the shoddy station you are forced to watch. I suggest you send a
letter to the station and to the FCC advising them of the shoddy
journalism you noticed and saying you're opposed to renewall of their
broadcasting license until and unless they apologize and adopt a new policy.

------------------------------

Date: 10 December 1983 21:22 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Shuttle heard in Livermore, CA    
To: OTA @ S1-A
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

About ten minutes before landing there was a news advisory (I think it
was on KGO radio; I was listening to both that and KPIX-TV.) that we
in the SF bay area might hear a sonic boom two minutes before landing.
I think somebody goofed, since by that time it was already within
sight of EAFB, 400 miles from the bay area.

------------------------------

Date: 10-Dec-83 18:37 PST
From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc.  Cupertino CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: SHUTTLE TOILET PROBLEMS of past flights
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-3P80J>

Does anyone know what the toilet problem were on past flights?  I had heard that
NASA was very concerned about the problem...I just don't know what the problem 
was.  Thanks,  --Bi<<

------------------------------

Date: 10-Dec-83 19:01 PST
From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc.  Cupertino CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: STS-9 and the Sonic Boom
To: space@mit-mc
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-3P81P>

I just read hoffarth.wbst@PARC-MAXC's message.  I drove 6 hours from the SF bay 
area and I couldn't afford to stay the extra 8 hours so we had to drive back.  I
did make it to my TV here in Palo Alto with 5 minutes to spare, to see the 
landing.  I heard the sonic boom here in Palo Alto.  It was very noticable.

--Bi<<

p.s.  I was at the night landing.  Did anyone else remember hearing the shuttle 
cutting thru the air just before it landed?  

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #63
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
			 Getting off The Rock...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 December 1983 16:40 PST
From: Tom Wadlow <taw@s1-a>
To:   space@S1-A  
Subject: Getting off The Rock...

I've heard from the L-5 Society that the President is seriously thinking
about funding a Lunar Base as well as just a space station.  I've seen
several space station suggestions in the pages of Aviation Week and Space
Technology but nothing at all concrete about a lunar base.  Does anyone
know what the parameters of the proposed Lunar Base are or what time frame
is being considered?

Apparently, the three options under consideration are:

	1) Nothing new
	2) A manned space station
	3) A manned space station and a Lunar base

though I gather that Reagan feels that public support is small for (2)
and even less for (3).  I hope he is proved wrong.

In any case, the decision will be made, one way or the other by Reagan and
the Cabinet shortly after Christmas.  More detailed information is
available, but is probably not appropriate to this public forum.  If you
are interested, contact me directly.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Dec-83  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #64
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:
			   Reagan space station
		    Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery
			       space mopeds
			Moons in our solar system.
		     Shuttle problems, space cruiser
			 Explosion During Landing
			 Computer question - (nf)
		     Re: Medals for cosmonauts - (nf)
			    Re: VAFB Questions
			    Re: VAFB Questions
		      Re: Moons in our solar system.
			     Columbia at KSC
			  Re: 1984 Shuttle Plans
				  bones
		     Time to start writing poetry...
	       Re: illiterate submitter's to the net - (nf)
		      Enough of Illiterates Already!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 83 9:42:24-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sytek!blk @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Reagan space station

I hate to be gloomy, but does it bother anyone else to think what
Reagan wants with a space station?  Or maybe we should call it a
base or an 'outpost'?

B<

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 83 15:10:16-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: rocket "belt" backup recovery

                                                    9 December 1983

     I thought it would be useful at this point in the discussion to
quote from the Flight Data File, which is the set of data the astronauts
carry with them and the Houston folk refer to.  One volume is the "Crew
Activity Plan", which details the timelines for the crew.  The particular
one I am looking at is for STS-13, which includes the Solar Maximum Repair
Mission.

[Section 7: Notes, page 7-8]

G. PAYLOADS

     1. LDEF (Long Duration Exposure Facility)
          . . .
     2. SMRM (Solar Maximum Repair Mission)

     The SMRM includes the SMM observatory presently in orbit and the
Flight Support System (FSS) for berthing the SMM and return of the SMM
to the ground if it cannot be repaired in orbit.

     The STS will launch from KSC and will rendezvous with the SMM 
observatory.  . . . 

     Retrieval and repair of the SMM will be made using the Remote
Manipulator System (RMS) in conjunction with Extravehicular Activity (EVA)
which includes the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) operations.  The first
of two scheduled EVA's starts with the Orbiter stationkeeping near the
SMM.  The MMU crewman will fly over to the SMM, attach to one of its
trunnion pins, and null the SMM rates ((comment: that means stopping any
spin)).  The orbiter will then close, and the SMM will be grappled by
the RMS and berthed on the FSS.  After berthing, the SMM is powered down
and the MACS module ((the broken part)) is replaced.  . . .
 
                                                      Dani Eder
                                                      Boeing Aerospace
                                                      ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 83 9:37:59-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sytek!blk @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: space mopeds

National Public Radio has been playing a short piece about a plan for
small, cheap excursion vehicles.  The idea is that a space runabout
could be lightly built (not having to take off/re-enter), might use
off-the-shelf, inexpensive, proven components, and carry suited
astronauts all over; out to a half dozen satellites for a little
maintenance (or to pick up top secret data), maybe carry something up
to a high orbit, perhaps even off to the moon with an oversize gas tank.

What do the wise and wonderful net readers think of this idea?
The man claims the buggies would only take up 10% of the cargo area!
Hey, take two or three!  And while you're out, grab me a beer, ok?

B<

------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 83 11:25:56-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!james @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Moons in our solar system.

Please post as complete a list as you can come up with off the
top of your head of planets of our solar system together with the
number and names of their moons.  If you can think of famous asteroids,
throw them in as well.  Thanks.

  --Jim

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 1983 15:50-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Shuttle problems, space cruiser
Via:  Usc-Cse; 14 Dec 83 16:46:13

First tiles fell off, then the SRB nozzle almost burned through, and
now there's a hydrazine fire/explosion right after touchdown!  Anyone
want to lay odds that a shuttle is going to prang in the next couple of
years?

On another subject:  NPR's All Things Considered (a daily evening
news/current events program) had a piece a few days ago on "space
cruisers".  They interviewed some DOD types who talked about the Air
Force's proposed one-man mini-shuttle, and some other person who is
proposing to build fairly cheap "space cruisers" capable of being
carried aloft by the shuttle (up to 10 per shuttle bay) and reaching
any point in cislunar space.  The primary mission of the space cruiser
would be delivery, maintenance and repair of sattelites in GEO.  Each
would carry one crew member.  The design sounded suspiciously like some
recently proposed orbital tugs that use aerobraking in the upper
atmosphere to make radical braking/orbital plane change maneuvers with
low fuel expenditure.  The interviewee thought that private enterprise
could finance the things if NASA didn't want to, since they would not
be as technically sophisticated as vehicles capable of reaching orbit
from Earth.  I sure hope so.  An immediate spinoff of any orbital tug
technology would be greatly improved prospects for further lunar
exploration, since the energy needed to go to GEO from LEO is about the
same as to low lunar orbit.

The space cruiser and a LEO space station would compliment one another
rather well.  The space station would become a kind of orbital
hanger/fuel-depo/hotel/warehouse, while the space cruisers would carry
workers to build and maintain new generation sattelites in GEO.  These
new sattelites would be much larger and more complicated than current
sattelites, so some repair capability would greatly reduce their cost.

 

------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 83 19:14:26-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Explosion During Landing

NASA said today that an apparent hydrazine leak in the APU compartment
ignited and exploded during the reentry of STS-9, but that the fire (or
its effects) was not noticed until the day after landing.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 83 15:43:08-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!isrnix!akp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Computer question - (nf)

What caliber of computer do the shuttles use? Are they comparable to VAXen?
PDP-11? Cyber 855? Apple?  Relax, be vague.
						-- Allan Pratt
				...decvax!ihnp4!iuvax!isrnix!akp

------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 83 19:32:29-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Medals for cosmonauts - (nf)

But the Mercury astronauts did get Distinguished Service Medals from
the Commander-in-chief.  See Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff.

Which of our armed forces were engaging in infighting, secretiveness, etc.
against one another in their pre-NASA space programs?  The Manned Rocket
program was run by the Air Force (formerly Army Air Corps).  Starting 
with the X-1 in the late 40's through the X-15 all military space research
and testing was done at Edwards under Air Force auspices.  The Navy and
Marines contributed pilots, but nothing else as far as I know.  What
secretiveness there was aimed not at other military branches, but at
the Soviets.

Moreover, the successor to the X-15, the X-20 Dyna-Soar, was moving along
nicely until the wave of Sputnik hysteria, which really crested when the
Soviets orbited a man before John Glenn, rendered the winged rocket approach
political unfeasible, and gave NASA carte blanch to (literally, as it turned
out) go for the moon.  McNamara canned the X-20 just as Chuck Yeager was
taking off in his final NF104 test flight.  No convincing technical reason
was given that I know of; politics dominated.

Brendan Eich
uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich

------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 83 21:18:45-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!denelcor!lmc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: VAFB Questions

Part of the reason for the Vandenburg launch site is security; the major
reason is that it is the only place in the US where a high-inclination
launch can be performed without crossing some other countries' air space or
a sizeable city before orbit is achieved (i.e., over the water).  A lot of
reconn satellites require high inclinations to cover the desired high
latitudes.

			Lyle McElhaney
			...(hao,nbires,brl-bmd,csu-cs)!denelcor!lmc
			(303) 337-7900 x261

------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 83 12:21:04-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!sb1!sb6!bpa!burdvax!psuvax!lewis @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: VAFB Questions

I think Vandenberg was chosen because of certain safety criteria--NASA doesn't
want the SRB's or external tank to come down on land. Apparently, a launch
from Vandenberg allows a greater range of orbital inclinations, which would
be desirable for military payloads such as reconnaisance sattellites.

-Jim Lewis
 psuvax!lewis

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 83 15:09:28-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!eneevax!spam @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Moons in our solar system.
In-Reply-To: Article <4441@umcp-cs.UUCP>

Planets:
	Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto, Neptune

Moons:
	Luna, Phobos, Deimos, Japetus, Europa, Io, Ganymede, Titan

Asteroid:
	Ceres

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 83 12:36:07-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Columbia at KSC

The Columbia landed atop a 747 at KSC today, where technicians
will begin examining all the problems that occurred during STS-9.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Dec 83 10:54:49-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!sb1!sb6!bpa!burdvax!psuvax!rznowski @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: 1984 Shuttle Plans

  About the astronaut testing the jet pack....

  This seems very uncharacteristic of NASA.  What happens if the jet pack
stops working when the astronaut is 300 feet from the shuttle and still
drifting??  (I myself would prefer to have a tether attached to me for 
safety reasons.)  Remember the Spacesuit problems......

  Stephen Roznowski

    (rznowski@psuvax1)

P.S.  I guess it the jet pack fails, the astronaut could always test to
see if Newton's third law really works. (By throwing the jet pack)

------------------------------

Date: Sun 18 Dec 83 16:07:49-PST
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BILLW@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: bones
To: space@S1-A.ARPA

a544 13-Dec-83  03:42
BC-SPACEHEALTH-12-13
    EDITORS: If you are interested in obtaining a drawing to accompany
the following story, please call (312) 321-2034 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Central Time, weekdays.
    
    By Brent Staples
    (c) 1983 Chicago Sun-Times (Independent Press Service)
    A U.S. space station by 1990, moon colonies by the middle 1990s, and
a manned expedition to Mars by the year 2000. This is the timetable
NASA would like to follow. As ready as technology is for these
ventures, it's clear the human body is not.
    Though the flight of Space Shuttle 9 presented no threat to the
astronauts' health, National Aeronautic and Space Administration
biomedical researchers say an extended space flight would leave the
traveler's body in terrible condition. He would develop kidney
stones. Calcium deposits would line his blood vessels, raising the
specter of stroke, heart disease and other complications. The
traveler's bones would be so severely weakened that upon returning to
Earth, even minor stress could precipitate fractures of the feet,
legs, hips and spinal column.
    All these complications would arise from severe calcium loss, a
problem caused by the effect of weightlessness on bone-manufacturing
cells. The first hint of the calcium loss came in 1965 with the
relatively brief flight of Gemini VII. Though Alan Lovell and Frank
Borman were in orbit for only two weeks, post-flight analysis of
their body wastes showed that the vital mineral had begun to leave
their bodies.
    In 1974, the 84-day mission of Skylab IV furnished the first
estimates of the calcium loss that could be expected after an
extended stay in space. Two of the three astronauts showed
significant losses - one of them lost 7 percent of his total body
calcium. On the basis of the Skylab figures, NASA's biomedical
researchers estimated that in 1 1/2 years - the time needed for a
round-trip to Mars - the body could be robbed of up to 40 percent of
one of its most vital minerals, causing a serious decrease in bone
density.
    NASA has been groping for a solution to the calcium-loss problem for
the better part of two decades. Dr. Victor Schneider, chief research
scientist for NASA's bed-rest project, says NASA has kept subjects in
bed as long as 36 weeks in search of a means for preventing calcium
loss.
    Schneider's experiments have included treating subjects with a
half-dozen calcium and phosphorous-related compounds - with no
success. Calcium and calcium-luring hormones were ineffective and
massive doses of phosphorous caused leukemia in some patients. It has
been demonstrated elsewhere that estrogen forestalls bone loss in
post-menopausal women, but there is no equivalent hormonal treatment
for men. Schneider is optimistic about an ongoing study in which
osteoporotic women are being given fluoride, a mineral known to
induce bone growth in adults. But results of that study may not be
known for five years.
    Comparisons of bed-rest subjects and astronauts in space indicate
that exercise may be a slight hedge against calcium loss. The
greatest calcium loss among the Skylab IV crew was 7 percent, but
earthbound bed-rest subjects who remained in bed for the same period
lost 11 percent of their total body calcium.
    Don Young, a senior researcher with NASA's biomedical research team,
suspects that the space crew's isometric exercises, bike rides and
rigorous research schedule made the difference.
    Treatment with electrical impulses has induced growth of bone cells
in children afflicted by non-union bone, a disease in which breaks
and fractures are extremely slow in healing. This suggests that
electrical current might help in treating calcium loss in astronauts,
but Young is skeptical.
     ''Those studies were done on young people who have a lot of growth
potential,'' Young said. ''But we at NASA are working with men and
women, many of whom will be in their 40s and older. It is unlikely
that the procedure would work with them.
     ''We don't know whether bone loss would reach a plateau and stop,
or whether it would continue throughout the duration of an extended
flight,'' said Young. ''If we use the 7 percent bone-loss figure from
Skylab missions and extrapolate forward to six or seven months or a
year in space, we begin to see that the astronauts would lose enough
bone to be at serious risk of fractures and breaks. Assuming that the
loss continued, eventually the men would risk injury from undergoing
even non-traumatic activities.''
    Even if replacing lost calcium was a viable alternative - which it
is not - there are other effects to be considered.
    ''When that much calcium is mobilized in the body, other
complications arise. The kidneys develop stones from trying to pass
the calcium out of the body, and the calcium would deposit itself in
places throughout the body, most likely in the veins and arteries,
presenting another series of problems,'' said Young.
    Nor do possibilities seem hopeful for recovery after return to
Earth. The Skylab IV crew had not regained its pre-flight calcium
levels after 95 days on Earth, at which time NASA ceased to keep
records on the crew members. Animal studies have compounded concern
about whether the effect is permanent. Animals still show diminished
levels of the mineral three to four years after calcium loss was
experimentally induced.
    Thus, astronauts who took off now on an extended space voyage almost
certainly would develop problems like osteoporosis.
    END
    
nyt-12-13-83 0633est


***************

-------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 83 6:31:45-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!decwrl!daemon @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Time to start writing poetry...

From: Burns.Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, 231-4108 <dvinci::fisher>

I heard on National Public Radio this morning that it is now official:
NASA will be carrying some "communicators", i.e. poets, newsfolk, writers,
etc. into orbit in 1985.  Anyone have confirmation or more info?

Burns Fisher
{decvax or ucbvax or allegra}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 83 12:14:05-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!gatech!ofut @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: illiterate submitter's to the net - (nf)

-- So some people aren't so hot at spelling, and don't care to use a 
-- spelling checker. So what? I understood what he meant, didn't you? 
-- Besides, if you want to nit-pick, you mispelled "grammar" in your 
-- third paragraph. 

It's a sad fact that computer scientists are known as the worst abusers
of the english language both in mistakes and writing style.  Let's not
criticise those who make valid criticisms of us.  If someone offers
valid critical remarks we should take them to heart, even if we've heard
them before.  
-- 
Jeff Offutt
School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA
CSNet:	Ofut @ GATech		ARPA:	Ofut.GATech @ Csnet-Relay
uucp:	...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ulysses,ut-sally}!gatech!ofut

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 83 6:42:21-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Enough of Illiterates Already!
In-Reply-To: Article <142@pucc-k>

Enough!  Enough!  This is a newsgroup for discussions, bulletins,
and queries on the space shuttle, not for flames about someone
who doesn't write like you like him to!  If you want to blast
someone for that, do it in net.flame, where it doesn't bother
anyone.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #65
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:
			    Re: VAFB Questions
			Re: shuttle posters - (nf)
			       Space Travel
		      Space Art & Tourists in Space
				Space Logs
	       Re: illiterate submitter's to the net - (nf)
			   SPACE Digest V4 #64
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 83 10:54:30-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: VAFB Questions

The reason for two launch sites for the Shuttle is safety.  The Shuttle is
not allowed to fly over inhabited areas.  This limits launches from KSC to
low inclinations (up to 57 degrees).  Any more northerly would cause the
vehicle to overfly Newfoundland (I think).  Launches from Vandenberg will
be southerly, over the Pacific.  That will allow polar type orbits.  As
for landing, the Maps and Charts book I have (from the set of data the
astronauts carry with them) show Vandenberg, Oxnard, LAX, Long Beach, and
other fields as potential emergency landing sites, based on having a long
enough runway, >10,000 feet.

                                                 Dani Eder
                                                 Boeing Aerospace

------------------------------

Date: 15 Dec 83 20:39:57-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!security!genrad!wjh12!n44a!ima!haddock!stevel @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: shuttle posters - (nf)

There is a series of three posters called "Working in Space" sold
by the goverment. I am told they have other ones too. The one I
have is number wal-106.  The address to write to is

Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Goverment Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402

Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ucbvax|ihnp4}!cbosgd!ima!stevel

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Dec 83 06:30 PST
From: JCastro.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Space Travel
To: space@Mit-Mc.ARPA
cc: JCastro.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

If I wanted to be a passangers in future space shuttle trips not as a
poet, writer or anything else other then just a person taking a trip.
Now if I wanted to do this who would I have to write to ? Or can I just
go to my local airport and buy a ticket..

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 83  1113 PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: Space Art & Tourists in Space
To:   space@MIT-MC

a015  2238  15 Dec 83
PM-Space Art, Bjt,430
Artist Plans High-Altitude 'Light Show'
    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - Taking the sky for his canvas and colored
gases for his brush, an artist plans to paint the heavens next spring
in a three-minute high-altitude light show - with a little help from
the space shuttle.
    The work is the product of six years of effort by Joseph Davis, a
fellow at the Center for Advanced Visual Studies at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
    Davis' plan involves creating artificial versions of the Northern
Lights with the use of a number of components including an electron
gun, gas and a radio frequency shield.
    ''I became aware of some experiments on auroral phenomenon over the
past 30 years. So with the help of a large amount of data and people
here, I figured what specific power and light relationship we would
need to do it from the space shuttle,'' Davis said Thursday.
    Davis, 33, has paid the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration $10,000 to carry a 200-pound, five-cubic-foot capsule
that will open at the right moment and begin discharging into the
ionosphere.
    He's dubbed the project ''New Wave Ruby Falls'' after bumper
stickers he saw as a child urging people to ''See Ruby Falls,'' a cave
at Lookout Mountain in Chattanooga, Tenn.
    ''I began in about 1977 to negotiate with the NASA Space
Transportation Systems headquarters in Washington,'' Davis said.
''They didn't really know what to think at first.''
    What colors will be visible in the sky will depend on the kind of
gases and the amount of energy, Davis said.
    ''We expect to do a sequence of 60 discharges per minute, one per
second, to create an aurora,'' Davis said. ''They will stretch over
several horizons. The shuttle's trajectory will affect how we see it
on earth.''
    Davis said he expects the aurora to last about 190 seconds.
    ''But if we're really lucky, and if there are enough particles in
the ionosphere, it will last a lot longer. It all depends on the hour
of the day.''
    Davis said when he first began talking with NASA about his project,
it was mainly talks over the telephone. But he said things became
serious once some money was put on the table.
    ''Then it was a matter of submitting plans. So I sent them so many
proposals that they couldn't just get rid of me,'' Davis said. ''They
found some problems, but they never totally rejected anything.''
    In fact, Davis was so involved in negotiations that he helped NASA
develop its policy for dealing with parties interested in sending up
payloads aboard the shuttle.
    ''We could go up as early as January, that date was given to us a
while ago,'' he said. ''But we have a lot of work to do, and a spring
date is more realistic.''
    
ap-ny-12-16 0139EST
***************

a026  0009  16 Dec 83
PM-Space Passengers,460
Tourists in Space a Possiblity by 1985, NASA Says
By WARREN E. LEARY
AP Science Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - In a couple of years, a space shuttle could be
orbiting Earth with an odd passenger who won't be flying the craft or
conducting an experiment. Essentially, that passenger will be a
tourist.
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration said Thursday it
is finishing plans to send into space the first person who is neither
an astronaut nor a scientist.
    The first flight of a shuttle with a space tourist aboard could come
as soon as 1985, said NASA Administrator James M. Beggs.
    NASA expects to publish regulations in the Federal Register next
week on carrying non-astronaut passengers aboard the shuttle. Before
the proposed rules become official, there will be a 60-day comment
period followed by another two months to incorporate any changes
resulting from the public comments, the agency said.
    ''I hope that by the spring of next year, we will begin the
selection process for the first passenger,'' Beggs said after a
Washington Press Club speech.
    Beggs said the first non-scientist, non-astronaut aboard the shuttle
probably would be an author, artist, or journalist. In the jargon of
NASA, such passengers would be called Citizen Observers-Participants.
    ''Astronauts who've been in space say the pictures they've brought
back don't do justice to what they've seen,'' Beggs said. ''Perhaps we
need someone who can better describe the experience.''
    Beggs said he expected the first such flight within three years, but
added that it may come ''as early as 1985.''
    The citizen observers selected will go through a three-month
training period before the flight, he said.
    The regulations provide for putting these persons on the NASA
payroll during training so that candidates would not be restricted
because of their personal financial condition. This is to make sure
that access to space is not restricted to the wealthy, he added.
    Beggs said passengers would be more than sightseers. Although not
expected to do major experiments, the travelers would have some duties
aboard the shuttle.
    ''We will try to make practical use of them in assisting the
astronauts,'' he said, ''even if that means being assigned from time
to time to clean the galley.''
    The move to eventually get some ordinary people into space follows
the recommendation of a task force of NASA's Advisory Council.
    In its report to the agency, the task force said ''NASA should take
the next step in opening space flight to all people by flying
observers...''
    The proposed regulations would establish an evaluation committee
within NASA to manage the selection process and set up basic
guidelines for applicants, including health and training criteria.
    Applicants would be evaluated by a NASA-designated outside review
panel, but the agency would retain authority to make the final
selection.
    
ap-ny-12-16 0308EST
***************

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 19 December 1983 20:50:51 EST
From: Kevin.Dowling@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Space Logs
Message-ID: <1983.12.20.1.29.52.Kevin.Dowling@CMU-RI-ROVER>

At a recent convention I picked up some older
volumes of the TRW Space Log for a quarter. It is essentially
a publication by the PR department of TRW, but it is packed with information
on Spacecraft details (satellites, manned vehicles etc)
Several issues have comprehensive lists of ALL space launches up to that 
point with this information on each:
(Name, international designation, country, launch data: date, site
and launch vehicle, weight, orbital data: period, perigee, apogee,
inclination, and status <launch history>)

I called and later wrote TRW and got several back issues, the most
spectacular of which is the latest with Shuttle information (25th
anniversary of space exploration, NASA) I guess it would be accurate
to describe the Space Log as "a record of mankind's accomplishments
in space". They only had the last few years still in stock, however,
and didn't have the older issues.

Does anyone in net-land know where I could get even older issues
specifically ones from the sixties? (they weren't really annual
as there was a 70/71 issue and a 78/79 issue). I'd appreciate any pointers
or direct information. Thanks.

			Kevin Dowling
			Arpanet:  nivek@cmu-ri-rover
			Snail  :  Robotics Institute
				  Schenley Park
				  Pittsburgh, PA 15213
			MaBell :  (412) 578-8830  [office]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 83 1:02:58-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!rpw3 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: illiterate submitter's to the net - (nf)

#R:tekecs:-334100:fortune:2600002:000:317
fortune!rpw3    Dec 19 00:47:00 1983

i deli-bur-ate-ly uses sometime this hear 'stroph mark (') 'tween
made up words like RAM's an' ROM's 'cause it jes' don' look rite
without 'em sometimes, y'here? But i likes to lern.. so tell me...
wha's a plural of:

	O/S ?
	TV ?
	LOX ?
	EVA ?
	UNIX ?
	MOS ?
	VAX ?
	"Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!" [The King...]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1983  03:05 EST
Message-ID: <MINSKY.11976923430.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
To:   Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Cc:   SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #64
In-reply-to: Msg of 19 Dec 1983  06:04-EST from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>

I wonder if anything can be done about NASA and the press in general, re.
the gravity-calcium-"I guess Man just isn't going to be able  to exist in
space" syndrome.  

Presumably, all this goes away with a centrifigual-tethered
crew-quarters attached to any space station or mission.  The public
should be informed that although zero-G is promising, it isn't the end
of the space age if people are not perfectly suited to it.

Hmmm.  Well, has any poor astronaut been made to spend several months in
some slowly rotating environment?  It would serve me right if, somehow,
there turned out to be bad effects from mild-to-moderate Coriolis forces.
Seems unlikely, but. . .

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #66
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
			 Space shuttle computers
				Lunar Base
		  Re: Space Shuttle Communications Info
		    Space Shuttle Communications Info
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 1983 1328-EST
From: James R. Paradis <SE.PDQBACH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Space shuttle computers
To: space at MIT-MC

As I remember, from hearing all the discussion about shuttle computers
at the time of STS-1, the on-board computers are supposed to be
equivalent to IBM 360's.  They are, in fact, manufactured by IBM.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 1983 15:22:19 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Lunar Base
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

FROM AW&ST, DECEMBER 19, 1983, PAGE 17.

Initiative  calling for the next US space goal  to 
be  a lunar base -- not an orbiting space  station 
-- is  being led by Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin,  who  was 
lunar  module pilot on Apollo 11,  the first lunar 
landing, and George Mueller, former NASA associate 
administrator for manned space flight.   They  are 
trying  to  coordinate  support for a  lunar  goal 
among aerospace organizations and the White House. 
A lunar base would force expansion of US transport 
capability  to geosynchronous orbit and the  Moon, 
providing more defense, commercial, and scientific 
user  options  than a  single  low-orbit  station, 
Aldrin   believes.    "The  solar  system's   most 
desireable  space station already has six American 
flags  on it -- let's use it and not turn it  over 
to the Soviets," he said.

     
-------

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 83 16:54:39-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Communications Info
In-Reply-To: Article <2123@allegra.UUCP>

Oops, make that Transactions on COMMUNICATIONS.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 83 16:51:30-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Shuttle Communications Info

An increasing number of people have been asking for details on the
communications systems in use on the shuttle.  I came across a back
issue of the IEEE Transactions on Computers that is devoted to this
topic: November 1978, Part I.

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #67
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
       NASA to announce opportunity for civilians on Space Shuttle.
			 Private Space Enterprise
			Re: USENET L5 Chapter News
				 Script?
	     'von-neumann probes' and clarke's sequel to 2001
			   Re: Columbia at KSC
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 83 11:22:35-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
Subject: NASA to announce opportunity for civilians on Space Shuttle.
Forwarded-From: Ed Featherston  HL01-1/P06  225-5241 <roll::featherston>
From : MOSES::FOSTER
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.
Subj: NASA to announce opportunity for civilians on Space Shuttle.

Yes, I heard the same broadcast on NPR.  I think they said that NASA
will issue a formal "Announcement of Opportunity" next spring some
time.

	(UUCP)  {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!rhea!moses!foster

	(ARPA)  decwrl!rhea!moses!foster@Berkeley
	        decwrl!rhea!moses!foster@SU-Shasta

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 83 3:09:07-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sun!qubix!idi!kiessig @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Private Space Enterprise

	I read an article some time ago about "Starstruck, Inc" -
one of the first companies in the free enterprise space race.
It was founded by Mike Scott (a former Apple Computer president).
They hope to steal away some commercial satellite launching business
from NASA.  They're based in Redwood City (south of San Francisco),
and have as a major investor Steve Wozniak, among others.

	Has anyone heard anything about these people recently?
I know they were scheduled to try a test launch this fall off
of Point Conception, using a Dolphin Rocket.

Rick Kiessig
decvax!sun!idi!kiessig  or  ucbvax!sun!idi!kiessig

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 83 8:55:30-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!wivax!apollo!eric @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: USENET L5 Chapter News

For some reason, I have not seen a message describing L5, its constituency,
its goals, its requirements for membership, etc. on the net.  I caught a
little of the early discussion of starting a USENET chapter, but nowhere
have I seen a description of the organization.

So, if I missed it, would someone please mail me the information, or, if
it hasn't been posted (in the last month or two), then please take this
opportunity to tell everyone what L5 is!  It sounds interesting.  (Does
"L5" stand for something?)

Eric Peters   (...decvax!wivax!apollo!eric)

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 21 December 1983 09:20:06 EST
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
Subject: Script?
Message-ID: <1983.12.13.18.1.12.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

The following caption appears under a photograph on page 23 of the
12 December 1983 Aviation Week & Space Technology.  The photograph,
taken from a television monitor, shows Owen Garriott with his hands
over his eyes, Robert Parker with his hands over his ears, and
Brewster Shaw with his hands over his mouth.

"White House Edict Annoys Shuttle Participants

"Johnson Space Center---Shuttle managers, astronauts and many
Europeans in the Spacelab program here were annoyed by instructions
from the White House on how the live television discussion among
President Reagan, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and the Spacelab 1
crew was to be conducted Dec. 5.  The White House wrote a detailed
script that was transmitted to Columbia to insure the crew would
know what to say and when to say it.  The White House edict drawing
the strongest criticism was that only payload specialists Byron
Lichtenberg, Ulf Merbold and mission commander John Young were to
appear in the Spacelab on camera with the President.  Banished
crewmembers Owen Garriott, Robert Parker and USAF Maj. Brewster
Shaw expressed their view on the matter by staging a monkey `hear
no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' scene on the middeck during a
television test before Reagan and Kohl appeared.  Shuttle
management appealed the language of the script and the decision to
exclude half the crew.  The appeal was rejected.  Some Europeans
expressed concern the language was weighted toward Germany's
contribution to Spacelab at the expense of the other ESA states."

No wonder they ran out of teleprinter paper.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 1983 1012-PST
From: WATERMAN%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Subject: 'von-neumann probes' and clarke's sequel to 2001
To: space@MIT-MC

Some time ago, i read 2010, clarke's sequel to 2001.  He uses the
'von-neumann-probe' idea as the denoument for the odyssey.  I thought
that his 2010 was a base and anachronistic trivialization almost as rank
as the first star-dreck film where the great,exalted mystery of the universe is
reduced to an andy wharhol soup-can!  Anyway, Clarke goes on and on about
these g.d. 'von-neumann' probes as the meaning of the obelisks etc. and he
makes all kinds of anachronistic use of terms like 'teselation automata' etc.
jeeeeezuuuuuz hhhhhhh chiiiiirrrriiiist ! It sounded like going into the
'science section' of a used bookstore and choking on the dust of some dusty
tome describing advanced buggy-whip-technology.  Probably any 'really'
advanced stage of space-time-differentiation has already dispensed with the
explicit use of 'technology' (the 2001 movie handled that well)....
...flame out of fuel....

------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 83 10:58:54-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihldt!stewart @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Columbia at KSC
In-Reply-To: Article <2402@alice.UUCP>

>  The Columbia landed atop a 747 at KSC today, where technicians
>  will begin examining all the problems that occurred during STS-9.

I always wondered how they got the shuttle on top of the 747, but I
didn't know they could land with such precision!!  I think they should
take it down before examining it, though.

Bob Stewart

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #68
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Medals for cosmonauts - (nf)
			     Space, cable tv.
			  give me enough rope...
	       Re: illiterate submitter's to the net - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 83 19:30:26-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Medals for cosmonauts - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1412400:uiuccsb:15700009:000:342
uiuccsb!eich    Dec 17 10:12:00 1983

>>/***** uiuccsb:net.space / denelcor!lmc /  8:25 pm  Dec 16, 1983 */
>>The Army claimed that they could have launched a satellite any time during
>>1957, but congress awarded that to the Navy and their Vanguard program.

Was that Army project called MOUSE?  Can anyone recommend references on
the details?

Brendan Eich
uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich

------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 83 13:17:09-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!eagle!mhuxl!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!pyuxhh!kurt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space, cable tv.

<
<	Perhapps one day a cable tv co in ny-nj area will promise a 24 hour 
<	broadcast (without anoying anouncers) of whatever nasa is sending out, as a part of there service
<	the day they do, im sold.
-- 
Kurt Gluck HP 1c273a Bell Laboratories 6 Corporate Place	Piscataway NJ, 08854
           ..!pyuxi!pyuxhh!kurt
           (201)-561-7100 x2023
                   or  hp x2023

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 1983 1019-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL>
Subject: give me enough rope...
To: space@KESTREL

	I've spent my whole life in a slowly rotating environment and it
doesn't seem to have done me too much harm so far.

	The only question is how MUCH rotation we can stand.  If 2RPM is too
fast we get a longer tether (but NOT a stronger one) and try 1RPM.

	A 3.7 KM tether will give you 1G at 1RPM, with cable length
inversely proportional to the square of the rotation speed.  This cable
hardly seems too long, in that missions are now on the drawing boards with
cables tens of KM long.  This 1G/1rpm system requires a delta-V of 100 MPS,
but it can be done by something like an ion rocket since low gravity won't
hurt people quickly.

	One problem for LEO is variations in the strength of the
pseudogravity due to two factors; the direct effects of the tidal force, and
the indirect effect that the tidal force makes this bolo spin fastest
exactly when the tides reinforce the pseudogravity.  This effect is
exacerbated by slow rotation rates.  I will give further calculations on
this later.

-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 83 6:26:33-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxs!okie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: illiterate submitter's to the net - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <2049@fortune.UUCP>

I use the "n" key in net.flame to avoid this silly argument.  I don't
like to use the "n" key in net.columbia to avoid the *same* silly
argument.  Take the hint, guys, and MOVE OUT!  You're not welcome here.

Now on to something designated for this newsgroup...

Has anyone heard what the final determination of cause was for the flames
the shuttle experienced during landing?  I've heard not a word since the
statements made immediately after the landing.

Thanks,
B.K. Cobb

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #69
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
			  STS-10 to Land at KSC
			 GEO vs lunar delta-vees
		    Shuttle Fire, SRB explosive bolts
			    1984 STS schedule
		       Want to Ride on the Shuttle?
		     Debris, shuttle woes tied (FYI)
			       calcium loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 83 17:14:02-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-10 to Land at KSC

NASA said today that STS-10 will be the first mission to
land on the 15,000 foot concrete runway at KSC.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 83 21:18:20-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: GEO vs lunar delta-vees

Someone mentioned the relative delta-vee requirements needed to get to
geostationary orbit as compared to to the moon.  I did some research
and calculations to get some real numbers.

Apollo 11 (a representative moon trip) started with a 192 x 190.6 km
parking orbit. Trans-lunar injection required 3182 m/sec from the S-IVB,
while lunar orbit insertion required only 889.2 m/sec.  However, landing
required 2,065 m/sec and liftoff 1,850; you can see the advantage of the
separate LM approach.  The return to earth required 999.4 m/sec.

Here's the numbers for a typical geostationary satellite launch from the
shuttle.  Assume a 28.5 deg inclination 300 x 300 km parking orbit.
The PAM (payload assist module) perigee kick motor produces about 2579.7
m/sec to put the spacecraft into a 23.5 deg elliptical transfer orbit.  About
170 m/sec of this burn is used to reduce the inclination by about 5
degrees. (I don't know why they do this, it should be more efficient
to change the plane out at apogee.)

At one of the following apogees, the kick motor on the satellite itself
produces 1879 m/sec.  Most of this circularizes the orbit at
geostationary altitude, while 231.6 m/sec goes toward making the
inclination zero.  Now when comparing these figures you have to take
into account the different initial parking orbits, but this is enough to
give the general idea.  Note the big difference, though, between getting
to lunar orbit and getting to the lunar surface.

192 km LEO to lunar orbit: 4071.2 m/sec
192 km LEO to lunar surface: 6136.2 m/sec
300 km LEO to GEO: 4458.7 m/sec

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 1983 7:23-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Shuttle Fire, SRB explosive bolts
Via:  Usc-Cse; 23 Dec 83 07:38:20

AW&ST reported that the shuttle fire was caused by a hydrazine leak
somewhere in the aft compartment near two APUs.  The leak could have
occured in space, where the hydrazine would have frozen as it leaked
out.  Upon returning to the atmosphere the hydrazine could have
vaporized and ignited.  The APUs' hydrazine valves are spring loaded
and shut themselves automatically when their power failed (this was
some minutes after landing).  Heat buildup caused some components in
the fire area to explode.

Another interesting thing happened on this flight.  Parts of the
devices that thrust the SRB's away from the shuttle after separation
were found embedded in the SRB casings.  There was concern about
possible damage to the shuttle's thermal protection tiles.  And, I
imagine, possible catastrophic punctures of the external tank on future
flights.  Boom!

 

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 23 December 1983 13:17:19 EST
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
Subject: 1984 STS schedule
Message-ID: <1983.12.23.18.16.41.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

Launch       ID  Crew Days Orbiter  Mission
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 Jan 1984  41-B  5   8   Ch       Manned maneuvering unit, rendezvous balloon
				    deployment, Palapa B-2, Westar 6, SPAS
 4 Apr 1984  41-C  5   6   Ch       Long-duration exposure facility,
				    Solar Maximum repair
 4 Jun 1984  41-D  6   7   Di       Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology
                                    Satellite OAST-1, Large format camera,
				    Syncom 4-1, Anik
14 Jul 1984  41-E          Ch       DOD (classified)
 9 Aug 1984  41-F  5   7   Di       Shuttle-pointed autonomous research tool
                                    for astronomy (Spartan-1), SBS-D, Telstar
				    3C, Syncom 4-2
30 Aug 1984  41-G  5  10   Co       Office of Space and Terrestrial Application
                                    Satellite OSTA-3, Earth Radiation Budget
				    Satellite (ERBS)
28 Sep 1984  41-H          Ch       DOD (classified)
24 Oct 1984  51-A  6   6   Di       Materials Science Lab (MSL-1), Anik, Gas
                                    Bridge (fluid transfer experiment)
21 Nov 1984  51-B  7   7   Ch       Spacelab 3
17 Dec 1984  51-C  5   7   Di       TDRS-B, MSL-2

Ch = Challenger, Co = Columbia, Di = Discovery.  Mission ID code: first digit
is last digit of fiscal year; second digit is 1 for KSC, 2 for Vandenberg;
letter designates mission within fiscal year.  This convention is going to be a
problem in fiscal 1994, or if there are more than 26 launches from one site in
one fiscal year.

Information from Aviation Week and Space Technology, 19 December 1983, page 57.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 1983 14:16-EST
Sender: GLAUER@BBNF
Subject: Want to Ride on the Shuttle?
From: GLAUER@BBNF
To: space@MC
Message-ID: <[BBNF]23-Dec-83 14:16:28.GLAUER>

From Aviation Space (Winter 1983):

   How to select the first passengers for space flight has been the task
of NASA's "Informal Task Force for the Study of Issues in Selecting
Private Citizens for Space Shuttle Flight."  Just the possibility of an
opportunity to join in the experience of space flight has generated a
multitude of requests for passage, however, it appears that only three
to four passengers will be included in flights during the mid to late
1980's.
   Consistent with the purposes outlined in the Space Act, NASA is being
encouraged to open space flight by including observers who could:

   o  provide a comprehensive visual mission history, as well as real
      time reports,
   o  write an interpretative history covering the scientific,
      technical, and institutional achievements, and/or 
   o  teach on the science, engineering, and biological principles'
      integral to manned space flight.

   The Task Force has identified potential pitfalls in selecting
passengers for the limited number of slots.  The inclusion of civilians
should not be a publicity device, but rather a means of expanding the
level and types of expertise available to the space program.  Some Task
Force members prefer opening the selection process to all Americans with
a national lottery.  "Winners" would then be screened by NASA for those
most appropriate to the rigors of training and flight.  Others favor a
purpose-oriented approach with a peer group selection process leading
to a list of individuals highly skilled in their fields.
   The Task Force wrestled with the criteria that should govern the
suitability of all potential Shuttle passengers.  Tentatively,
candidates should be:

   o  highly motivated to ride on the Shuttle,
   o  able to undergo one hundred hours of training over two months,
   o  able to pass the medical examination designed to minimize the
      possibility of a hazard to the mission or the individual,
   o  adaptable to the living situation and working relationships
      required by mission conditions, and 
   o  willing to accept an appointment as a NASA employee during the
      time of mission-related activities with employee rights and
      responsibilities.  

   The Task Force recommends that NASA begin with a minimum program
until the demands of payload specialists, foreign astronauts, and
astronaut training are finalized.  The determinations on who will be
eligible and how they will be selected is still open, but it seems clear
that interest in Shuttle flight, and the potential gain from expanding
the ranks of flyers will lead to including passengers on upcoming
Shuttle voyages.

------------------------------

Date: 23-Dec-83 11:42 PST
From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc.  Cupertino CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Debris, shuttle woes tied (FYI)
To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc
Cc: DIA.TYM@OFFICE-2, PAMV.TYM@OFFICE-2, KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2
Cc: DEV.TYM@OFFICE-2, NCD3.TYM@OFFICE-2, weeks@ames-vmsb
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-3S69K>

From the PENISULA TIMES TRIBUNE (thursday, Dec. 22)

   LOS ANGELES -- A sliver of solder and another speck of junk floating in 
   weightlessness apparently short-circuited computer circuits on the space 
   shuttle Columbia, delaying its landing for eight hours Dec. 8, according to 
   IBM, the manufacturer of the computers.

------------------------------

Date:  23 December 1983 21:29 est
From:  Dehn at MIT-MULTICS (Joseph W. Dehn III)
Subject:  calcium loss
To:  space at MIT-MC


Is there anything in the research on calcium loss in zero-G to indicate
the long term effects of low-G (Moon or Mars)?  Does anyone have any
idea whether there is some threshold value of gravity above which the
loss is insignificant, or whether for each planet the loss would just
continue until some specific amount has been lost?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #70
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:
		     So you want to be an astronaut?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 83 20:52:41-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!cbosgd!mark @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: So you want to be an astronaut?
In-Reply-To: Article <756@cbosgd.UUCP>

Well, a few weeks ago, a note was posted to this newsgroup saying
that mission specialists were being sought.  It arrived on cbosgd
on Monday, Nov. 28.

Well, being your typical red blooded all-american boy, and happening
to have some of the qualifications, I thought "Wow!  Why not?"
I figured I'd never make it, but I knew I had to try.

So I called directory assistance in Washington DC and asked for the
number for NASA's personnel dept.  I called that number and asked
for the application form, then mentioned that I was interested in
the mission specialist position.  The woman gave me a phone number
in Houston that was handling that program.

I called the Houston number.  A woman answered the phone who sounded
like she was used to dealing with winos.  No doubt she had gotten a
whole lot of calls.  I asked for the application form.  She pointed
out that it had to be postmarked by Dec. 1st (Thursday).  I said to
send it and I'd get it to them immediately.

Well, Thursday's mail came and the application was still not there.
I figured "well, I'll send a resume and cover letter to get the
postmark by the first, and then send in the application when I got it.
But I didn't have an address to send it to.  So I called the same
phone number, and got the same woman.  She would not give me an
address.  She said if the application itself was not postmarked by
the first of December, NASA could not be bothered.  She indicated that
it takes them several days to assemble the package (must be more
than just a 4 page application form), and that I had had 6 months
to request the application and file it.  I said I'd just found out
about it on Monday, which didn't interest her.  She said they had
been advertising heavily, implying I was some kind of ostrich if I
had not seen their ads.  I asked where they advertised, she said
"radio, television, newspapers, magazines, everywhere".  End of
conversation.

To date, I have not received an application packet in the mail.

I ask, has ANYONE reading this message seen any ad in the last 7
months about this program?  Where?

By the way, I asked about physical requirements, since I understand
they are pretty strict (nobody with a weak heart is likely to survive
the acceleration, for example).  Seems my asthma would not be a problem,
and you can even need glasses if your vision is 20/100 or better,
provided it can be corrected to 20/20.  (My father in law could have
been a Navy pilot 30 years ago, had he not needed his glasses.)

	Mark

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #71
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:
			   What is L5 ? answers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Dec 83 15:44:29-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!microsoft!fluke!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: What is L5 ? answers

          WHAT IS THE L5 SOCIETY?

(reprinted with permission from the L5 Society 1984 Calendar)

     The L5 Society is a non-profit, tax exempt organization, formed with
the purpose of promoting space development.  Since 1975, the organization 
has been active in many areas advocating broader use of the tremendous
amount of resources available throughout the Solar System for the benefit
of all people.
     To achieve the goals of this organization, much more is needed
beyond technical achievements.  The socio-politico-economic struture
requires reorientation.  The expansion of civilization into space is
dependant on social attitudes, political atmosphere, and economic realities.
The L5 Society seeks to favorably alter these conditions toward the goal 
of space development.

          TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS

     Although the L5 Society is not currently engaged in space research,
the organization does issue grants to support ongoing projects.  One 
of the projects supported is the SpaceWatch Camera Project, which is
managed through the University of Arizona.  This project will couple a
computer imaging device to a high power telescope to be placed at Kitt
Peak National Observatory.  The telescope will be used to search the
skies for "Earth approaching asteroids", small objects in space that
cross the orbit of the Earth at some point during their orbit about the
Sun.  Preliminary identifications of such objects with the SpaceWatch
Camera could lead to a sample return mission from one of these asteroids.
The relative proximity of "Earth approaching asteroids" could translate
into shorter mission times and an earlier utilization of extra-terrestrial
resources than would be possible with the use of "main belt asteroids".

     The L5 Society has contributed to other projects, including closed
environment life support systems, and a study considering the building
of satellites to provide energy to Earth.  The Society also supports the
work of the Citizen's Advisory Council on National Space Policy, a small
committee of aerospace engineers, lawyers, enterpreneurs, and advocates
working to design a coherent space program plan for the next several
years to come.

          POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE

     The L5 Society participates in the legislative process to the fullest
extent allowable under Federal law.  Both through the Washington
Representation Committee and the growing metwork of individuals around
the country we have lobbied in support of space projects such as the
Space Shuttle fifth Orbiter option, the Galileo mission to Jupiter,
continued funding of space solar power systems research, and, most recently,
the establishment of a permanently-staffed space station in low Earth orbit.
The L5 Society has supported projects for both the sciences and applications,
always with a goal of a balanced space program.

     Perhaps the most notable of the L5 Society lobbying efforts was the
fight against the "Moon Treaty of 1979".  This agreement would have
effectively prevented the entry of private enterprise into space operations.
Quick action on the part of the L5 Society persuaded influential members
of the Senate, and eventually President Carter, not to sign or ratify the
treaty.  Although several countries' leaders have signed the agreement,
none have ratified it.  To this day, it remains effectively blocked.

          ECONOMIC REALITIES

     With the successful flights of the Shuttle, billed as the "space
truck", much emphasis is now being centered on commercial operations.
Experimentation onboard the Shuttle ranging from pharmaceutical manuf-
acturing to semiconductor crystal growth to new metal alloys will begin
to identify the processes that will return a profit on the investment.
As this becomes a reality, the demand for space transportation will
substantially increase.

     Combining these alomost-certainties with President Reagan's recently
announced willingness to allow private interest to operate conventional
(i.e. expendable) launch vehicles, we at the L5 Society believe that the
economic feasibilities of space enterprises are nearly defined.  We also
believe that many profitable ventures  are yet to be discovered; and,
that this increased economic activity in space will manifest itself on
Earth even more profoundly than the establishment of a colony at Plymouth
Rock.

          SOCIAL EXPANSION

     The societal realities of today's world are at the top of the list
of stumbling blocks to large scale space development.  The L5 Society,
through its network of over 100 local chapters, reaches out to people
all over the world to teach them about space.  We show them what space
technology has done to change their lives--from improved communications
and weather forecasting, to improved agricultural management techniques.
We show them what space technology could be doing for them.

     The L5 Society knows that its biggest job is educating--politicians,
engineers, technicians, doctors, lawyers, mothers, fathers, janitors,
secretaries and accountants, corporation presidents and mailroom
personnel.  We go beyond educational exhibits in shopping malls and
presentations to local groups--both of which are worthwhile and important
activities.  We go into the schools, to inspire the youth of our nation
to help us succeed.  We have sponsored musical performances in New York
City, and we attended the US Festival in California.  We assisted the
instrumental group 'The Ventures' in the production of a special
commemorative album for the 25th Anniversary of NASA.  We do these things
because we know that social change is affected bymany different factors,
particularly through the arts.

     [The origin of the name of the Society is gravitational.  A French
mathematician named Lagrange once found some solutions to the still generally
unsolved "three-body problem".  This is the problem of how to describe
the motion of three mutually attracting objects gravitationally.  The
solutions he discovered were for the special case where one of the
objects was small compared to the other two, and all three objects
maintain the same relative positions.  

     There are five such postions, called L1 through L5 after Lagrange.
The first three are unstable, meaning if you move a little away from it,
you will tend to move further.  This can be thought of as a gravitational
'hill'.  The other two, L4 and L5, are stable.   They are located in the
same orbit as the Moon, but sixty degrees behind and ahead of it
respectively.  At one time it was proposed to build a colony at L5, hence
the name of the Society.  It is still a purpose of the Society to disband
at a mass membership meeting held at L5.  ]

[If you are interested in more information, there are a number of
sources you can contact.  The office of the L5 Society is:
  
     1060 E. Elm Street, Tucson Arizona, 85719 USA

 There is a USENET L5 mailing list, which is handled by Don Coleman

     at ...!dcdwest!sdccs6!iy120

  If you have technical queries, you can contact me via USENET or
 directly.  I like answering questions.

                                                 Dani Eder
                                                 Boeing Aerospace
  USENET:  !uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder   DIRECT:     (206)773-2923
                                                 Mail Stop 8A-88
                                                 POB 3999, Seattle WA 98124]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #72
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:
			 GEO vs lunar delta-vees
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Dec 1983 10:41-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: randvax!decvax!harpo!presby!cmcl2!allegra!karn%Usc-Cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Subject: GEO vs lunar delta-vees
Via:  Usc-Cse; 26 Dec 83 12:38:37

Of course I meant going to lunar orbit, not to the lunar surface.

One figure you didn't mention is the delta-vee for returning from GEO.
Retrofire to put you into an atmosphere skimming orbit for aerobraking
will take about as much delta-vee as the orbit circularization burn
(maybe a little more).  Perhaps a better (albeit more time consuming)
maneuver would be to boost into an elongated orbit that passed near the
moon, which would then put the vehicle onto an earth-intersecting orbit.

I read somewhere that someone (Krafft Ehricke?) has proposed landing
payloads on the moon by sliding them on a flat strip of lunar soil
(sifted to remove rocks).  Energy would be dissipated by heating and
accelerating the loose sand-like material, which would be smoothed over
before the next landing.  Orbital velocity at the lunar surface is
around 1650 m/sec, so this sounds semi-plausible.  Deceleration at 10
gee's would mean a strip 14 km long.

A more refined scheme could use a solid aluminum strip for magnetic
flight.  The incoming vehicle would have magnets for repulsive magnetic
levitation.  The vehicle could be decelerated by eddy currents in the
strip, by coils in the strip (which could deliver usable power to a
launch system) or by shooting gas derived from lunar soil (oxygen or
argon) at the front of the vehicle.  After being decelerated to less
than 100 m/sec the vehicle would use wheels.  Such a scheme could also
make rocket lift-off from the lunar surface more efficient by
eliminating the need for the rocket to support the mass of the vehicle
against lunar gravity -- all thrust would go into increasing the
orbital velocity of the vehicle.  Of course, the mass of the magnets
would probably negate any advantage gained.

 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #73
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
			    Deuterium on Venus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 1983 6:20-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Deuterium on Venus
Via:  Usc-Cse; 27 Dec 83 07:36:19

One of the more intriguing discoveries in space exploration was the
finding from spectrometer on a atmospheric probe of the Pioneer Venus
spacecraft that deuterium is greatly enriched in Venus's atmosphere.
The deuterium/hydrogen-1 ratio is 100 times larger on Venus than on
Earth;  the hydrogen there is nearly 2% deuterium (by weight).

Apparently Venus has been acting for millions of years as an isotope
separator.  Sulfuric acid, water and other hydrogen compounds are
dissociated at high altitude by solar UV radiation.  Hydrogen-1 atoms
escape much faster than deuterium atoms because of their lower mass and
consequent higher average velocity at any given temperature.

Apart from making deuterium extraction on Venus attractive, this
enrichment may make terraforming Venus much easier.  Deuterium
undergoes fusion reactions much more easily than hydrogen-1.  There was
some concern back during WW-2 at Los Alamos that the first atomic bomb
would start self-propagating nuclear reactions in the earth's
atmosphere between deuterium and nitrogen.  This didn't occur (of
course);  perhaps it would have if there was more deuterium.

We can begin terraforming Venus by dropping a nuclear bomb into its
atmosphere.  If the deuterium reactions are self sustaining most of the
atmosphere will be blown off into space.  We'd probably want to blow up
Venus when it's behind the sun to avoid flash/EMP effects on Earth.

All this depends on whether deuterium/nitrogen reactions can be made
self sustaining.  The difficulties encountered in building the H-bomb
suggest that it's not possible (too bad).  If so, we can build a
mammoth fusion bomb on Venus using native deuterium.  This would make
lots of neutrons, though, so it would have to be detonated high in the
atmosphere to avoid inducing radioactivity in the crust.

 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Dec-83  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #74
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Deuterium on Venus
			    Terraforming Venus
			 superluminal objects    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 1983  8:22:30 PST
From:  <lars@ACC>
Subject: Re: Deuterium on Venus
To: Dietz%usc-cse@Usc-Ecl, space@MIT-MC

I was somewhat jolted by your suggestion that we terraform Venus by 
nuking it. If possible, I'd rather see it terraformed to a livable
pre-holocaust earth likeness.

Seriously,
1. Do we need to remove all the deuterium before building an
   atmosphere ?
2. I would expect the explosion to leave a vacuum (and no planet).
   Are you expecting to find a planet with some atmosphere ?

			Lars Poulsen <Lars@ACC>

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 1983 9:59-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: lars%ACC@SRI-NIC
Cc: space@mit-mc
Subject: Terraforming Venus
Via:  Usc-Cse; 28 Dec 83 11:36:17

  I was somewhat jolted by your suggestion that we terraform Venus by
  nuking it. If possible, I'd rather see it terraformed to a livable
  pre-holocaust earth likeness.

The first step to terraforming Venus is to remove at least 98% of the
atmosphere.  After that you can create a biosphere.  Just cooling the
atmosphere won't work unless you can find some way to lock up most of
the CO2 in carbonate rocks.

   Seriously,
   1. Do we need to remove all the deuterium before building an
      atmosphere ?
   2. I would expect the explosion to leave a vacuum (and no planet).
      Are you expecting to find a planet with some atmosphere ?

Too much deuterium is poisonous; deuterium can foul up the action of
enzymes it's incorporated in.

I don't think detonating Venus's atmosphere could fragment the planet.
The gravitational self-energy of a uniform sphere is -(.6)G(m^2)/r; for
Venus this is on the order of 2x10^39 joules.  This is the energy
equivalent of about 3.3x10^18 kg of matter.  Assuming Venus started
with an ocean 1 km deep covering the entire surface there will be on
the order of 10^16 kg of deuterium in the atmosphere; fusion reactions
will convert only a small fraction of this mass to energy, and most of
that energy will be radiated away.

Will Venus have an atmosphere afterwards?  Probably not.  On the other
hand, the upper crust of Venus would probably be severely fractured;
seismic waves could deposit lots of energy inside the planet.  Expect
massive volcanism and outgassing. With luck, lots of hydrogen will be
emitted, saving the terraformers the trouble of importing ice from
comets.

 

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 83  1214 PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: superluminal objects    
To:   space@MIT-MC

n068  1715  26 Dec 83
BC-SPEED 2takes
(ScienceTimes)
By WALTER SULLIVAN
c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - Perhaps the most fundamental theoretical underpinning of
modern physics is the conviction that nothing moves faster than light.
    But now observers have reported sighting objects far out in space
that appear to be moving at more than 15 times the speed of light.
    One of those objects, as reported recently in the journal Nature,
appears to be picking up speed.
    Various explanations have been proposed. All leave some basic
questions unanswered, though physicists remain unshaken in their
belief that the speed limit holds throughout the universe.
    One theory relates to the so-called ''motion of effects,'' such as
the moving point of closure on a closing pair of shears, or the
moving spot of light cast by a flashlight on a distant wall. The
speed limit of light does not apply to the motion of effects, as it
does to the motion of material things.
    Such an effect has been seen by astronomers on the Earth observing
the illumination of a large, spherical shell of gas by an exploding
star in its center. Light from the explosion reaches all parts of the
shell at the same time, but the part nearest the Earth is first seen
to flare up, since light from that region has the least distance to
travel to the Earth. As this area fades, light from the surrounding
regions begins to arrive at the Earth, creating the appearance of an
illuminated ring. The ring may appear to expand faster than the speed
of light until the light from the outer edge arrives.
    But radio astronomy has revealed far more distant objects that also
appear to be traveling faster than light. These so-called
superluminal objects do not fit readily into the motion-of-effects
theory. The favored explanation is that they have been ejected at
almost, but not quite, the speed of light and are coming almost, but
not quite, straight at the Earth.
    According to one calculation, they must be aimed no more than eight
degrees away from a line pointing directly toward the Earth. But rest
assured, these objects are so far away that, even if they were to
make eight-degree midcourse corrections, they would not hit the Earth
for a billion years or more.
    If superluminals are actually traveling at such high speed and
almost straight toward the Earth, their apparent speed should be
enormously exaggerated.
    To see how this could happen, suppose a Moon-gazer on the Earth sees
the flash of a rocket being fired from the darkened portion of a new
Moon. Then, a fraction of a second later, the gazer sees a point of
light, the rocket itself, far to one side of the Moon. It would
appear to have traveled there almost instantaneously.
    This could be explained if the rocket was fired at almost the speed
of light, 186,000 miles per second, and aimed at a point close to the
Earth. To an observer who is unaware that the rocket is heading
toward the Earth at extremely high speed, it would appear from the
Earth to have moved off to the side of the Moon almost instantly.
    The actual flight of the rocket, at close to the speed of light,
would be only a short distance behind the light waves from the flash
of its liftoff from the Moon. Thus the light carrying the image of
the rocket long after it was launched would arrive almost at the same
instant as that from its launching. The implication is an incredibly
fast traveling speed. But the actual speed is slower. Clearly, you
cannot see the rocket's liftoff the moment it occurs, since the light
from its blast must travel 240,000 miles to the Earth. So, the time
elapsing between liftoff and the moment you see the rocket far out in
space is greater than it seems. Therefore, the actual speed is less.
    At least seven superluminal objects or chains of objects have been
charted by networks of radio telescopes in this country and Europe.
    All the superluminal objects appear to be embedded in jets radiating
from quasars. Quasars are celestial objects that emit immense
quantities of light waves or radio waves, which are longer waves in
the spectrum. Some of the brightest quasars, or radio galaxies, eject
jets in opposite directions, but the superluminals seem to be coming
from quasars with one jet only. Astronomers suspect one-jet quasars
really have two jets, but one of them is aimed almost directly at the
Earth. The other, going in the opposite direction, would be moving
away from us so close to the speed of light that it could not be seen.
    For some reason, these jets do not spread out like the jet from a
hose, but instead remain narrow over distances of thousands of
light-years. A problem no less deep is what generates the jets in the
first place.
    It is widely suspected that the energy source, or ''engine,'' in the
heart of the quasar is a rapidly rotating object of enormous density,
such as a black hole, in which matter is so concentrated that nothing
can escape it. The jets are thought to be directed along the spin
axis of this object. The single jets tend to curve, and the
superluminal objects seem to be traveling along the same curved paths.
    As reported in Nature, however, a fourth object has now appeared in
a procession of three previously tracked superluminal features flying
out from the quasar 3C-345. This, unlike the others, seems to be
moving in a straight line. The manner in which such objects are
ejected has been mapped with increasing detail as technology
improves. The circular region of intense radio emission, defining the
quasar, develops a bulge, which then pinches off as a separate
structure and moves away.
    The observing method, known as long baseline interferometry,
requires several stations to observe the target area simultaneously,
using atomic clocks to keep a highly precise record of arrival times
of the radio waves. The recordings can then be meshed to produce a
map of the source region. The more widely separated the antennas, the
greater the detail that can be detected.
    The apparently straight path of the newly found superluminal object
does not lead back into the core of the parent quasar. If its source
were indeed the quasar core, it must have flown a sharp curve before
it was observed.
    According to Dr. Marshall H. Cohen of the California Institute of
Technology, who has played a leading role in the observations, the
paths flown by the first three superluminals may not be curved as
much as they appear. If they are coming almost straight at the Earth,
the curvature, which may be a response to some form of pressure along
the path of the jet, could appear exaggerated.
    The apparent velocity of the fast-moving components depends on the
assumption that they are extremely far from the Earth. That
assumption, in turn, is based on the shifting of quasar light waves
toward the red end of the spectrum, taken by most astronomers as
evidence that they are receding at large fractions of the speed of
light and therefore must be very far away in the expanding universe.
    Cohen's co-authors in one of the two reports in the Nature article
were J.A. Biretta and S.C. Unwin of Cal Tech, and I.I.K. Pauliny-Toth
of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn. The other
paper, by R.L. Moore and A.C.S. Readhead of Cal Tech, and L. Baath of
Onsala, Sweden, describes an apparent acceleration of the newest
component from 6.8 to 11.2 times the speed of light.
    In a recent telephone interview, however, Cohen pointed out that an
appearance of acceleration could be produced, without any actual
increase in velocity, if the source's spiraling trajectory increased
its motion across the line of sight from the earth.
    
nyt-12-26-83 2010est
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #75
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
      Medals for cosmonauts - (nf) --> Army could have beat Sputnik?
		      Re: 1984 Shuttle Plans - (nf)
			Re: give me enough rope...
			 superluminal objects    
			     Re: space mopeds
			     Shuttle Tourists
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 December 1983 02:23 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Medals for cosmonauts - (nf) --> Army could have beat Sputnik?
To: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

From what I heard, the story may be essentially true. Our government
underestimated the USSR space program, and took a glamorous course
instead of a crash effort. Sputnik jarred them into a crash effort and
they eventually switched from what they had been working on to the
other one (I forget which is which; Vanguard or Redstone?) which
worked nicely although the payload was tiny.

(Pardon tardy reply, I've been without terminal for 1.5 weeks until today.)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 83 18:02:32-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hoyme @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: 1984 Shuttle Plans - (nf)

#R:alice:-237400:umn-cs:3800007:000:737
umn-cs!hoyme    Dec 21 17:59:00 1983

Wait a minute...If the jet pack fails we can assume the shuttle could
manuever to pick up the stranded astronaut.  Think before you write.

The jet pack user will have to 'fly' in patterns that could make a
tether very ackward.  To recover the Solar Max the astronaut will
have to first start spinning to match the satillite, attach himself
to it and then despin so the manipulator arm can grab it.  A tether
would not work.  Also, a tether might have to be too long since there
may be situations where the jet pack will be used to get away from the
environment around the orbiter which is filled with contaminents due to
the thrusters (and the toilet for that matter).

Ken Hoyme
Honeywell Systems and Research Center
Minneapolis,MN

------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 83 10:57:18-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!usenet @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: give me enough rope...
In-Reply-To: Article <14880@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Regarding the effects of tides on spin-induced simulated gravity --
Slowly varying gravity doesn't bother most people for more than a day
or so.  The effects of the most common form are called 'sea-sickness'
and usually pass away after a period of acclimatization.

Rick Thomas
ihnp4!abnji!rbt

------------------------------

Date: 30 December 1983 04:34 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: superluminal objects    
To: ARG @ SU-AI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

If most of the energy emitted by a jet is sent in essentially the
"forward" direction, that is nearly the same direction as the jet
itself is moving, which is reasonable for some methods of emitting
energy, then jets not aimed nearly directly at us wouldn't emit energy
we could see, thus a high percentage of jets would show the
superluminal effect compared to if we sampled all directions of jets
fairly. Thus I'm not much surprised that we've observed many of these
things, and I accept that they are all sub-cee-speed objects in
reality until proven otherwise. One test would be blueshift in the jet
compared to the quasar itself. If the jets are observed only at radio
wavelengths, spectral lines might be difficult to identify. Anybody
have info about blueshift or not blueshift of apparent-superluminal
quasar jets?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 83 17:11:38-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space mopeds
In-Reply-To: Article flairvax.290, <340@sytek.UUCP>

[warning -- the first 30 lines are heavy satire, followed ]
[by a reasonable proposition.  So don't hit 'q' too fast. ]

I have a couple questions for the folks at NPR:

1:     How do the astronauts know where they are?
       Do they by roadmaps at the 267 km alt. Shell Station?

2:     Speaking of Shell Stations, what do they do when nature
       calls?  After all, these are not short interorbital hops
       (if they where, why not move the entire shuttle?)

3:     How do they communicate with the Shuttle?  A Radio-Shack
       walkie-talkie?

4:     Will the space moped have an air-conditioner?  heater?

5:     What happens if they have a flat?  (O.K. -- my sarcasm is
       getting too severe, I will get somewhat more serious.)

6:     Who do they change direction?  Tilt the thing (of course, 
       with gyroscopes ...)

7:     Are there rest stations out there, so the astronauts can
       get off and stretch?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now that that is out of my system, time for a rational comment:

Unless they want to send crews out with very little life-support
equipment, it seems that any 'moped' is still going to be *very*
large.  As a quick estimate, I would say at least the size of a 
Gemini capsule.  Now I know that the equipment size has shrunk, 
but human nature is to put more stuff into the newly opened space,
resulting in no net change.  Since Gemini was before my time, I 
don't have a good handle on how many you can fit into a shuttle
cargo bay, but it can't be that many.

Of course, once a *permament* space station is up, then I think
several such 'mopeds' moored to the station is an excellent idea.

One possibility would be to build a few more shuttles, leave off
the tiles and wings, put in a long rod (for the control jets that
are on the ends of the wings), or possibily replace the wings (in
space) with a wire mesh platform, and upgrade it so that it can
handle longer duration missions.  Launch it, remove the main
engines for use in launching the next 'moped', and trim the thing.
Wa La (sp?) -- a proved, spaceworthy, somewhat economical 'space
moped'.
 
Or, for that proposed lunar base, retain the main engines and ET.
I recall seeing (somewhere) that the energy required for LEO to 
Lunar orbit is approximately the same.  (or was that to Mars?)
Anyway, we once again have a deep-space manned vehicle which is
derived from the shuttle, and hence somewhat economical & proven.

Finally, we would have the shuttle and the station/'mopeds' 
complimenting each other.  For higher orbit satellites, the
shuttle takes the satellite to the station, sticks it on the 
'loading dock', the 'moped' loads it up, and deposits it in the
correct orbit. (say, up to geosync).  Then we wouldn't have 
successful operations/dead patients like the TDRSS/Booster
combination.  (Remember the beautiful launch on Overnight?).

Either way, it would certainly not be a very small vehicle if
it is to have man-rating.


Bruce Giles
---------------------------------------------
UUCP:		decvax!ucf-cs!giles
cs-net:		giles@ucf
ARPA:		giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay
Snail:		University of Central Florida 
		Dept of Math, POB 26000
		Orlando Fl 32816
---------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 83 10:22:39-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ixhte!sjacks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Tourists


	Clean the galley? Heck for a ride I'd wax the decks, wash the
windows, throw out the trash....

	How about it NASA, do you need a SHAME (Shuttle Housework And 
Maintenance Engineer)?


						Steve Jacks
						AT&T Bell Laboratories
						..!ihnp4!ixhte!sjacks

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Dec-83  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #76
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:
			     Re: calcium loss
		    Re: Space Art & Tourists in Space
			      Halley Manual
			   Astronaut Candidates
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 83 18:42:53-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: calcium loss
In-Reply-To: Article <14905@sri-arpa.UUCP>

I think the fast answer about calcium loss in low-G (not free-fall)
environments is "insufficient data".  It is very hard to simulate
a low-G environment realistically on Earth.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 83 18:41:03-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Art & Tourists in Space
In-Reply-To: Article <14765@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <795@cvl.UUCP>

Before you object to the "artificial Northern Lights" notion on the
grounds of environmental damage, please explain what environmental
damage it will do that will persist for longer than a few minutes.
The amounts of material that will be put into the upper atmosphere by
such a project are utterly negligible compared to what's already there;
it doesn't matter which particular material you are thinking of.  The
only reason there is any noticeable effect at all is because the
material ejected from the shuttle is concentrated in one small area.
It doesn't stay that way.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 83 5:47:59-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Halley Manual

	I received my copy of International Halley Watch
Amateur Observers' Manual for Scientific Comet Studies by
Stephen J. Edberg last night. It is well written and has a 
wealth of information reguarding comet observation techniques.
Topics include:
		Visual Observations
		Photography
		Astrometry
		Spectroscopic Observations
		Photoelectric Photometry
		Meteor Observations
The book is essential for anyone expecting to contribute to the
International Halley Watch program but even if you have only a 
casual interest the Ephemeris and star charts give nighly positions
of the comet from June 1985 through May 1987. 
	The book can be purchased from

		Sky Publishing Corporation
		49 Bay State Road
		Cambridge, Mass 02238-1290

		Cost $9.95

				Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 83 7:45:11-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxh!slb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Astronaut Candidates

The following is now out of date, but is provided for those planning
to apply in the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

		Announcement No. 3ACS-83
			for
		Mission Specialist and Pilot
		Astronaut Candidates

SPACE SHUTTLE DESCRIPTION

The successful flights of the Space Shuttle have convincingly
demonstrated that we have entered a new era of space
transportation.  In the 1980's routine operations
and expanded experimental investigations in space
will be commonplace.  The Space Shuttle, its gross
liftoff weight exceeding four million pounds, is
launched like a rocket and maneuvers into Earth orbit
where it performs its assigned missions lasting
up to 30 days and then returns to Earth in a manner
similar to that of the X-15 research vehicle.  The
reusable Shuttle spacecraft is then readied for another
flight with new payloads and flight crew.  The crew
normally consists of four people - the commander, the
pilot, and two mission specialists.  On occasion,
additional mission specialist or payload specialists
may be assigned to bring the crew complement to seven
people.  The commander, the pilot, and the mission
specialists are NASA astronauts; the payload specialists
will be nominated by payload sponsors and will be
responsible for the operation of specific payload
equipment where their individual skills or expertise
are needed.
	The Shuttle is capable of performing a variety of
orbital missions including deployment and retrieval of
satellites, service and refurbishment of existing
satellites, and operation of specialized laboratories
including astronomy, earth sciences, space processing,
and manufacturing.  These missions may also include
supporting the development and servicing of a permanent
space station.  The Space Shuttle also provides a staging
capability for using other rocket sources to inject
satellites into higher orbits than can be achieved by
the Shuttle itself.  Potential users include both
Government and private industries from the United
States and abroad.

ASTRONAUT CANDIDATE PROGRAM

By this announcement, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) plans to establish rosters
from which mission specialist and pilot astronaut
candidates are expected to be selected during 1984.
Twelve new candidates are expected to be selected;
six mission specialists and six pilots.  The final
numbers will depend on mission plans and operational
needs.  NASA plans to establish new rosters and select
astronaut candidates on an annual basis.
	Applicants are being sought from both the
military services and the general public, with separate
rosters established for military and civilian candidates.
All positions will be located at the Lyndon B. Johnson
Space Center in Houston, Texas, and will involve a
1-year training and evaluation program.  The period
for submitting civilian applications under this announcement
is OCTOBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 1, 1983.  No applications
from civilians will be accepted after December 1, 1983.
Each military service will establish its own closing
date for applications.

MISSION SPECIALIST ASTRONAUT

Mission specialist astronauts, working with the commander
and pilot, have overall responsibility for the coordination
of Shuttle operations in the areas of crew activity
planning, consumables usage, and other Shuttle activities
affecting experiment operations.  Thus, mission specialists
are required to have a detailed knowledge of the Shuttle
systems as well as the operational characteristics, mission
requirements and objectives, and supporting systems and
equipment for each of the experiments that will be
conducted on their assigned mission.  Mission specialists
will participate in extravehicular activities, perform
special payload handling or maintenance operations using
a remote manipulator system, and assist in specific
experiment operation at the discretion of the experiment
sponsor.

PILOT ASTRONAUT

Space Shuttle pilot astronauts serve as both Shuttle
commanders and pilots.  During flight, the Shuttle
commander has onboard responsibility for the space
vehicle, crew, mission success, and safety of flight.
The Shuttle pilot assists the commander in controlling
and operating the Shuttle.  In addition, Shuttle
pilots may deploy and retrieve payloads using a remote
manipulator system, participate in extravehicular
activities, and support specific payload operations
where appropriate.

GENERAL CANDIDATE INFORMATION

Selected applicants will join the Johnson Space Center
and be assigned to the Astronaut Office.  They will
undergo a 1-year training and evaluation period during
which they will be placed in responsible technical or
scientific positions allowing them to contribute
substantially to the Shuttle Program and continue
to work in their scientific or technical fields, where
feasible, while under evaluation.  They will also
participate in the basic astronaut training program
which is designed to develop knowledge and skills
required for formal mission training upon selection
for flight assignments.  Pilot astronaut candidates
will be required to maintain proficiency in NASA
aircraft during their candidate period.
	Applicants should be aware that selection
as an astronaut candidate does not ensure selection as an
astronaut.  Final selection as an astronaut will
depend upon satisfactory completion of the 1-year
training and evaluation period.  Civilian candidates
who successfully complete the training and evaluation
period and are selected as astronauts will become
permanent Federal employees and will be expected
to serve NASA as an astronaut for a minimum period
of five years.  Civilian candidates not selected as
astronauts may be placed in other positions within
NASA depending upon Agency requirements and manpower
constraints at the time.
	Successful military candidates will be detailed
to NASA for a time period established by NASA/Department
of Defense (DOD) Memorandum of Understanding.  The most
recent Memorandum of Understanding specifies a 7-year
tour of duty.
	NASA has an affirmative action program goal of
having qualified minorities and women among the newly-
selected astronaut candidates.  Therefore, women and
minority candidates are encouraged to apply.

QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS
(Both Military and Civilian)

Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidate Program

Applicants MUST meet the following minimum qualification
requirements.  All requirements must be met by the
deadline of receiving applications (December 1, 1983, for
civilian applicants).

1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in
engineering, biological or physical science, or mathematics.
Degree must be supplemented by at least 3 years of related
professional experience.  An advanced degree is desirable
and may be substituted for all or part of the experience
requirement (master's degree = 1 year, PhD degree = 3 years).
Quality of academic preparation is important.

2. Ability to pass NASA Class II space flight physical
(similar to military and civilian flight physicals) to
include the following specific standards:

	Distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected;
			correctable to 20/20, each eye.
	Hearing loss not to exceed:
	  Frequency (HZ)	500	1000	2000
	  Loss (db)
	    Better ear		 30	  25	  25
	    Worse ear		 35	  30	  30
				per ISO, 1964 Standard
	Blood Pressure:		Preponderant systolic not to
				exceed 140, nor diastolic to
				exceed 90 mm Hg, measured in
				a sitting position.

3. Applicant height between 60 and 76 inches.

Pilot Astronaut Candidate Program

Applicants MUST meet the following minimum qualification
requirements.  All requirements must be met by the deadline
for receiving applications (December 1, 1983, for civilian
applicants).

1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in
engineering, biological or physical science, or mathematics.
An advanced degree or equivalent experience is desired.
Quality of academic preparation is important.

2. At least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in high
performance jet aircraft (an aircraft having at least
3000 pounds of thrust per engine).  Flight test experience
is highly desirable.

3. Ability to pass NASA Class I space flight physical
(similar to military and civilian flight physicals) to
include the following specific standard:

	Distant visual acuity:	20/50 or better uncorrected;
				correctable to 20/20 each eye.
	Hearing loss not to exceed:
	  Frequency (HZ)	500	1000	2000
	  Loss (db)		 30	  25	  25
				per ISO, 1964 Standard
	Blood Pressure:		Preponderant systolic not to
				exceed 140, nor diastolic to
				exceed 90 mm Hg, measured in a
				sitting position.

4. Applicant height between 64 and 76 inches.

EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must meet
the basic education requirements for NASA engineering and
scientific positions, specifically successful completion
of a standard professional curriculum in an accredited
college or university leading to a bachelor's degree with
major study in an appropriate field of engineering,
biological or physical science, or mathematics.
	The following degree fields which may be related
to engineering and the sciences are not considered qualifying:

	- Degrees in Technology; i.e., Engineering Technology,
	  Aviation Technology, Medical Technology, etc.
	- Degrees in Psychology (except Clinical, Physiological,
	  or Experimental Psychology, which are considered
	  qualifying).
	- Degrees in Aviation, Aviation Management, or similar
	  fields.

CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS

Current regulations require that preference for
appointment to Astronaut Candidate positions be
given to U.S. citizens when there is an adequate
source of well qualified citizens available. NASA
anticipates that there will be an adequate source of
well qualified U.S. citizens.

PAY AND BENEFITS

Salaries for civilian candidates will be based on the
General Schedule pay scale of the Federal Government,
generally ranging from grades GS-11 through
GS-14.  Candidates will be compensated in accordance
with prevailing Federal pay scales based on their
individual academic achievements and experience.
	Other benefits include vacation and sick leave
and participation in the Federal Government retirement,
group health, and life insurance plans.
	Selected military candidates will be detailed to the
Johnson Space Center but will remain in an active
military status for pay, benefits, leave, and other
similar military matters.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES

Civilian Application Procedure

Civilian applications for appointment to astronaut
candidate positions will be accepted beginning
October 1, 1983, and must be received at the Johnson
Space Center or postmarked no later than
December 1, 1983.  The necessary application materials
may be obtained by completing the form included
in this pamphlet and returning it to the address
indicated.  A complete college transcript of
grades must be included when submitting the
application forms.  After preliminary screening,
additional information may be requested from
applicants, and references and supervisors may
be contacted.  Applicants who previously applied
must submit new applications if they wish to be
considered.

Active-Duty Military Application Procedures

Active-duty military personnel must submit applications
through their respective military service and
not directly to NASA, using procedures which will
be disseminated by their service.  Application
packages may be obtained from NASA by completing
the form included in this pamphlet; however, the
application must be submitted to the appropriate
address indicated below.  For information on military
requirements or deadlines, or to submit your application,
please refer to the appropriate military point-of-contact
below:

	Air Force

	Air Force Military Personnel Center
	Attn: MPCRPF2
	Randolph AFB, TX 78150

	Army

	Commander Military Personnel Center
	Attn: DAPC-OPA-V
	200 Stovall Street
	Alexandria, VA 22332

	Marine Corps

	Commandant Marine Corps
	Attn: Code MMOA3
	Washington, DC 20380

	Navy

	Commander Naval Military Personnel Command
	Navy Department
	Attn: NMPC 446B
	Washington, DC 20370

...
Final Selection

Personal interviews and thorough medical evaluations
will be required for both civilian and
military applicants under final consideration.
Final selection will be announced by May 1984, and
all applicants will be notified in writing of the
outcome.  Successful applicants will be asked
to report to the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,
Houston, Texas, on a date to be established.
	Selection rosters established through this
process will be valid for a period of 1 year following
their establishment and may be used for selection of
additional Astronaut Candidates during that time
should the need arise.

REQUEST FOR APPLICATION PACKAGE

Send name and address to:

	Astronaut Candidate Program
	Mail Code AHX
	NASA-Johnson Space Center
	Houston, TX 77058

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #77
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
	   Improper address posted for L5 USENET mailing list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 83 5:38:46-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!coleman @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Improper address posted for L5 USENET mailing list.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #78
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:
		     [Anderson: SPACE Digest V4 #77]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 1 Jan 84 17:35:23 EST
From:    Margot <Flowers@YALE.ARPA>
Subject: [Anderson: SPACE Digest V4 #77]
To:      Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

It looks like the copy we recieved here got truncated (SPACE@YALE) ??:

*** Forwarded Message Follows ****
Return-Path: <@SU-AI:OTA@S1-A>
Date: 01 Jan 84  0302 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A.ARPA>
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #77
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
           Improper address posted for L5 USENET mailing list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 83 5:38:46-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!coleman @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Improper address posted for L5 USENET mailing list.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

*** End of Forwarded Message ****
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #79
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:
	 The Nature of Paradigm Shifts --> space-based evolution
			      AW&ST Address
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 January 1984 23:42 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: The Nature of Paradigm Shifts --> space-based evolution
To: LIN @ MIT-ML
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 2 January 1984 15:34 EST
    From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
    on survival, i think that the odds are essentially zero that we will
    contribute to the genetic pool in 10^11 years, regardless of nuclear
    war, because I don't believe that interstellar space travel will ever
    be possible.
I disagree. Already we have achieved petri-dish fertilization, and
soon may have petri-bowl pregnancy. Assuming we establish a permanent
habitat in space, we'll have time to study the way cells work to where
we can generate a living cell from nothing but the DNA (being sure to
include all the symbiots of course: nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA,
centrole DNA, and any other symbiots or escapees that may be hiding in
the cell) and some chemicals. At that point, very small spaceprobes
can deliver all the DNA of all the creatures from Earth to spots
lightyears away by sending only the encoding of all the DNA and a
machine to bootstrap a chemical factory, then recreating the DNA and
the cells and the lifeforms in the new location. Of course the
encoding of life can withstand higher accelerations and random jarring
than the life itself could, and no life-support would be needed any
time along the voyage, so cruder transportation means could be used
such as pulsed Earth-based lasers or hydrogen-fusion explosions. By
sending out lots of these tiny probes to lots of spots in the
universe, travelling at relativistic speeds, we may be able to spread
our genetic material throughout the universe in a rather short time,
as an alternative to spreading computers/androids throughout the
universe, if we should so choose.

Of course after this initial seeding, evolution will occur everywhere
and 1E11 years hence much of our genetic material will have been
replaced by better (more survivable) genetic material, leaving only a
small amount of our original stuff in its present form. But there will
be many more chances for our stuff to mix with the new genes and find
favorable combinations, so here and there one of our genes may
actually survive, and other places some other genes may survive, and
even if computers take over most of the universe by then, infestations
of biological life will remain around and about, and some significant
percentage of our current gene pool may actually be around in various
nooks and crannies even then.

On the other hand, if we stay here and just send robots out there,
virtually all of our current genes will be EXTINCT in 1E11 years as
you suggest.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jan 84 9:30:59-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!tc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: AW&ST Address

The address on the subscription card is:
	Aviation Week & Space Technology
	P.O. Box 503
	Hightstown, N.J.  08520

"Subscriptions solicited and limited to executive, management, engineering
and scientific levels in industry, airlines, corporate aviation, government
and military"

			Tom Crawford
			...amd70!tc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #80
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:
		 advantages of computer storage of genes
	       Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
	 The Nature of Paradigm Shifts --> space-based evolution
	       Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
	 The Nature of Paradigm Shifts --> space-based evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 Jan 1984 0927-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL>
Subject: advantages of computer storage of genes
To: space@KESTREL

	One advantage of using electronic storage of genetic information is
that cruder and faster means of transportation can be used, but there is
another side of the coin.  {\it slower} means of transportation can be
selected.  

	The speed of light is approximately 3*10^5 KPS.  If we select a
speed of 10^-5C or 3KPS, readily achievable with a Jupiter flyby, we can go
one light year in 10^5 years (obviously), reaching several interesting stars
in less than a million years.  When we get where we're going we can use a
capture manouver to stop without wasting fuel (which would probably "go bad"
by the time we got there).  Ion rockets could be used for fine control to
achieve capture; frozen mercury would probably "keep" that long.  In flight
power requirements, which would be quite modest, could be supplied by
slow-decaying isotopes.  The larger amounts of power that would be needed
after capture could be supplied by a nuclear reactor that would be started
upon arrival.  I don't know, but I suspect that solid diffusion would be
minimal at the low temperatures of interstellar space, so the electronics
should still (again?) work.  (Maybe we should send vacuum tubes?)
	It seems clear to me that there is {\it already} technology at hand
to send a shuttle-payload-size package on such a journey; we should probably
send a modified shuttle and solve the problem of landing!  (I wonder how the
tiles would survive a million years in space?  I suppose the thing should be
surrounded by an inch of foam rubber.)  Using SRB's and SSME's to get off
the ground, opening the payload bay to get sunlight to run an ion rocket to
get to the moon's orbit, using the moon to get to Venus's orbit, and then
swinging by Jupiter for speed and Saturn for aiming would have us on our
way.  Close the cargo bay doors (they'll never work when they get there, but
they shouldn't need to) and we're on our way!
	When it gets there it lowers skids and lands.  Another alternative
is to land on water.  Fill the machine with Styrofoam and it should be
possible to "land" on water quite safely.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 1984 9:54-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: lin@mit-ml
Subject: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
Via:  Usc-Cse; 03 Jan 84 10:36:26

I don't recall seeing Lin's message in this digest, (was it a private
message to REM?) but I'll respond anyway.

    Date: 2 January 1984 15:34 EST
    From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
    on survival, i think that the odds are essentially zero that we will
    contribute to the genetic pool in 10^11 years, regardless of nuclear
    war, because I don't believe that interstellar space travel will ever
    be possible.

Herb, I don't see how you can make this prediction.  Similar
predictions were made for heavier-than-air flying vehicles, for
sattelites, for manned spacecraft.  These predictions, like yours, were
made AFTER all the fundamental discoveries/inventions necessary had
already been made.  Many different schemes have been outlined for
interstellar space travel that look feasible.  Manmade objects are
already leaving the solar system at 10^-4 c -- and that's just with
chemical propulsion (and gravitational assists).  Boost this velocity
by a factor of 50 to 100 and generation ships become feasible.  I'll be
adventurous (some will say conservative) and predict that, baring
nuclear war or social collapse, a manned interstellar spacecraft will
leave the solar system before the end of the next century.

If you believe that there are many intelligent civilizations in the
galaxy (I don't) then you don't even need interstellar spacecraft to
spread human genes around the galaxy -- radio will do (reconstructing a
working cell on the other end is a problem left to the reader).  It's
already possible to clone an entire human genome in bacterial hosts (in
fact, it's been done); so it won't be too many decades before an
entire human genome is sequenced.

------------------------------

Date: 3 January 1984 23:22 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
Subject:  The Nature of Paradigm Shifts --> space-based evolution
To: REM @ MIT-MC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 2 Jan 1984 23:42 EST from Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>

why would we *want* to send our DNA molecules over the universe?  For
what purpose?

------------------------------

Date: 3 January 1984 23:35 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
Subject:  Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
To: dietz%usc-cse @ USC-ECL
cc: space @ MIT-MC
In-reply-to: Msg of 3 Jan 1984 9:54-PST from dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL at SRI-NIC


    From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL at SRI-NIC
    To:   space at mit-mc
    cc:   lin
    Re:   Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?

    I don't recall seeing Lin's message in this digest, (was it a private
    message to REM?) but I'll respond anyway.

        Date: 2 January 1984 15:34 EST
        From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
        on survival, i think that the odds are essentially zero that we will
        contribute to the genetic pool in 10^11 years, regardless of nuclear
        war, because I don't believe that interstellar space travel will ever
        be possible.

    Herb, I don't see how you can make this prediction.  Similar
    predictions were made for heavier-than-air flying vehicles, for
    sattelites, for manned spacecraft.  These predictions, like yours, were
    made AFTER all the fundamental discoveries/inventions necessary had
    already been made.  Many different schemes have been outlined for
    interstellar space travel that look feasible.

I didn't realize that my submission would go to SPACE, but I don't mind.

The reason I don't think I.S. travel will be possible is not for lack
of technology, but for lack of motivation.  Previous earth-bound
explorers were at least motivated by the hope that they would be able
to establish some kind of reasonable two-way interchange between
whatever they found and where they came from.  If you believe in
relativity, there is no way that two way interchange can take place on
time scales shorter than years (at the most optimistic prediction).
That doesn't qualify as reasonable two-way interchange.

Unmanned space probes are a different matter, and I suspect that it
will someday be possible to send robots throughout the galaxy.  But
why would we do such a thing?  To get back information, OK.  To spread
our gene pool?  Why?

------------------------------

Date: 4 January 1984 02:40 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: The Nature of Paradigm Shifts --> space-based evolution
To: LIN @ MIT-ML
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, rem @ SU-AI

    Date: 3 January 1984 23:22 EST
    From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
    why would we *want* to send our DNA molecules over the universe?  For
    what purpose?
[The answer is obvious to anyone who understands evolution by natural
selection.] Because we have genes that give us the desire to survive
(if we didn't, we wouldn't be here now) and because we have genes that
give us the power of analytic thought (at least, most of us, you and I
and everyone on this mailing list etc.) and because our science has
shown us enough about the Universe to understand the concept and
benefit-toward-survival of widespread distribution of lifeforms
carrying our genes and our technology has brought us very close to
feasibility (just a few tens of years to go; out of 4.3 billion years
our genes have been evolving to date). I.e. we want to survive (by
programing by our genes) and we will soon have a method to survive and
we know we are close to having that method so naturally we will want
to actually carry out that method of survival. In a lot of ways, the
conditional probability of instituting panspermia as soon as we can
(if we don't go extinct by nuclear war beforehand) is greater (more
likely) than the current/absolute probability that we'll realize we
have to prevent nuclear war to survive and that we'll choose to go
ahead and do that prevention and that we'll actually be capable of
preventing nuclear war. I ask you, why would we WANT to stop nuclear
war, given that it's probably unstoppable? Sure we could WISH to stop
nuclear war, but WANTing to do so implies some belief it's a
reasonable/possible wish.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #81
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Deuterium on Venus
			  Astronaut requirements
		       Terraforming?  Astroforming!
	       Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
		    Re: Space Art & Tourists in Space
			    Re: AW&ST Address
	      Clipping service - Commercialization of space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 84 18:07:54-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxl!braddy @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Deuterium on Venus
In-Reply-To: Article <14936@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Why would you want to explode fusion bombs in Venus' atmosphere???
===David Braddy   houxl!braddy

------------------------------

Date:  4 Jan 1984 0746-PST
From: Wmartin@OFFICE-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: Astronaut requirements
To:   space@MIT-MC

Can someone explain the purpose of a minimum height requirement for
"Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidates" (as included in SPACE
Digest V4 #76)? I can understand MAXIMUM height requirements for
any shuttle crew or passengers, as they can't make special design
changes to accomodate a few extra-tall people. I can also understand
minimum height requirements for "Pilot Astronaut Candidates" (which
are 4" higher than the other minimum, by the way) -- the pilot must
be able to sit in a standard seat and see out the window, I guess.

But what on earth (or off it) is wrong with having very short (and
therefore lightweight) astronauts as mission specialists? They could
get into nooks and crannies where full-size adults couldn't fit. The
spacesuits are all custom-made for each astronaut anyhow, right? So
that doesn't matter. I would think there would be definite advantages
in reduced life-support requirements and the versatility of the 
individual astronaut's abilities to having at least a few smaller-sized
people in the program. Also, doesn't the 60" minimum height discriminate
against the number of women that could be chosen?

(I speak not for myself in this, as I am 74" myself [and too far gone in
many other ways to qualify...]. Just curious...)

Will Martin
-------

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 1984 12:29-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Terraforming?  Astroforming!
Via:  Usc-Cse; 04 Jan 84 14:37:38

Using the deuterium on Venus got me thinking about other sources in the
solar system.  An obvious one is Jupiter.  Jupiter's core consists of a
small rocky/metallic center surrounded by lots of helium & metallic
hydrogen, at a temperature of about 54000 degrees K.  My first thought
was that maybe the deuterium has settled out of the hydrogen under
gravitational forces, and maybe we could ignite this layer with a bomb.
This would probably destroy the planet, though, and there's no way of
getting a bomb that deep -- it would melt first.

If there was a way we could fuse some of the deuterium in Jupiter,
Jupiter would radiate more heat and the Jovian satellites would warm
up.  Some have lots of water, so oceans could be formed.  (Clarke had
the aliens doing this in "2010".)

Fusion reactions can be catalyzed by heavy negatively charged
particles, such as muons.  Muons are about 200 times heavier than
electrons, so when one replaces an electron in a deuterium molecule the
nuclei are brought much closer together -- so close that they nearly
instantly fuse by quantum mechanical tunnelling.  This process isn't
really economical on earth because you can't get enough fusion
reactions to occur before the muon is trapped by a reaction product
nucleus.

In Jupiter's core, however, the hydrogen and deuterium are in a dense
metallic state, which means that the electrons are not tied down in
orbits around individual nuclei.  I would guess that a muon injected
into metallic deuterium would catalyse very many reactions -- possibly
millions or billions of fusions -- before it decayed.  In Jupiter, the
reaction p + D --> He-3 + gamma would probably predominate, unless the
deuterium has separated, in which case D+D fusions could be induced.

But how to get the muons into Jupiter's core?  While muons can
penetrate thousands of feet of rock, they can't reach the center of
Jupiter from the surface.  What can?  Neutrinos.  The probability of a
neutrino reacting with matter increases linearly with neutrino energy.
At 10 trillion electron volts, the mean-free-path of a neutrino in
ordinary matter is about the diameter of the Earth.  For this reason, a
group of physicists have recently proposed building a giant floating
accelerator to do a neutrino "CAT scan" of the Earth's innards
("Neutrino Exploration of the Earth", Science 4602 (220) 10 June 1983,
page 1142).  The accelerator would produce 10 TeV protons, which would
slam into a fixed target.  The debris produced would decay, producing
high energy neutrinos and antineutrinos.  The decay tube, called the
"snout", would be a kilometer long and would have to be evacuated.  It
would swivelled to scan the neutrino beam through the Earth.  A
detector would be moved around on the other side of the planet.  The
accelerator would be 30 kilometers in diameter, with a circumference of
over 100 miles.  Before you scoff at this, remember that the next high
energy accelerator to be built in the US, the "Ultra High Energy
Accelerator" or "Desertron" (named after the probable location) will
have the same dimensions and produce 10-20 TeV protons.  The Desertron
will cost somewhere around $1 billion to build, about twice what the
Fermilab "Tevatron" cost (in constant dollars), even though the energy
is much higher.

A high energy neutrino interacting with matter creates a particle
"shower" of more substantial particles.  Even if a tiny fraction of the
10 TeV is converted to negative muons, many will be produced.  These
muons are slowed as they pass through matter; they eventually come to
rest.  In Jupiter, the muons would then catalyze many fusion reactions.
A fusion reaction liberates around 5 MeV of energy, so each muon could
catalyze the production of about 5 TeV of energy -- possibly orders of
magnitude more.

We can irradiate Jupiter from Earth, since neutrinos are stable
particles.  Generating a beam of neutrinos with a spread of a few
seconds of arc would be necessary.  Thermal pollution would probably
make Earth-surface based neutrino guns impractical; close solar orbit
seems like a better location.  Planetary scientists will probably want
movable spacegoing neutrino guns to scan the insides of the planets,
moons and the sun, even if the physics makes astroforming Jupiter
impractical.

------------------------------

Date: 5 January 1984 02:24 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
To: LIN @ MIT-ML
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, dietz%usc-cse @ USC-ECL

You say there's no motivation to create progeny unless we can
establish two-way comunication with them.

Yet all around this planet I see creatures leaving progeny around;
animals lay eggs and abandom them, they later hatch, and the parents
never even get to hear the offspring say "mama" not to mention any
interactive communication; people plan for their children's education
in the event the parents should die, by buying life insurance, even
though the life insurance will never be paid to a child who can
converse with the parents, only to an orphaned child; people write
scientific papers with no insurance anyone at all will read them
during the scientist's lifetime. -- The basic fact of evolution is
that reproduction is one-way. A creature gives life to its offspring
in the hope that the offspring will carry the genes onward after the
original creature has died, not that the offspring will somehow give
something back to the parents in the indefinite future. The motivation
to reproduce is advantagous, those creatures which don't have it die
out, and with them the gene pools that lack that gene. Apparently you
somehow lack that gene, or misunderstand yourself enough to deny that
motivation despite actually having that genetically-deterined motivation.

If you don't want your genes spread around, that's fine with me, 1E11
years hence my genes will exist but yours will be extinct.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 84 12:36:29-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Art & Tourists in Space
In-Reply-To: Article <14765@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <795@cvl.UUCP>

hronous orbits, for example.  A long-term
increase in the ion population could result in brighter nights,
if the aurorae borealis and australis began to approach the equator--
this would make earthbound astronomers unhappy.  Depending on the type
of ion produced, the old fears of reducing the amount of ozone in the
upper atmosphere, thus increasing the flux of ultra-violet solar
radiation at the earth's surface, might be realized.  Further, 
the quality of the vacuum in low-earth orbit could be degraded,
with ions reacting with the glass coverings of photo-electric cells,
and with the optics of high-precision telescopes and spy-satellites
in low orbits.  
   In short, I don't think that we have much to fear at the moment, 
especially from this one project, but we shouldn't be 
>too< complacent...
-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 84 14:26:44-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: AW&ST Address
In-Reply-To: Article <4206@amd70.UUCP>

Actually, AW+ST is quite willing to let you subscribe even if you
don't meet their preferred-readership specs.  It just costs more,
a lot more.  At least, this was the case several years ago.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:  Thursday, 5 January 1984 03:11 est
From:  Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject:  Clipping service - Commercialization of space
To:  space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840105081105.487926@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

'LEASECRAFT' opens industrialization of space

From the December 1983 issue of Industrial Research & Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pushing hard for industrialization of space, NASA has signed an
agreement with Fairchild Industries under which Fairchild will design
and build its own privately owned, unmanned space station.

As its part of the bargain, NASA will provide technical support for the
$200 million platform, dubbed 'Leasecraft', and offer it two free
journeys on the space shuttle.

The first trip, in 1987, will put the platform in Earth orbit. On the
second trip, six months later, shuttle astronauts will service the
platform.

After the second trip, Leasecraft will be a full-fledged business
proposition. Fairchild will rent out space aboard the platform to
industrial and government customers, and will insure that customer's
packages reach the station. To make its deliveries, Fairchild will pay
NASA at the going commercial rate for payload space aboard the shuttle.

"This is a good example of President Reagan's program to encourage
private enterprise in space," declared NASA administrator James Beggs at
the signing ceremony in Washington. Leasecraft, said Fairchild chairman
Edward Uhl, "should put the U.S. in the lead in facilities available for
space manufacturing and offers the promise of profitable business for
potential customers, for NASA, and for Fairchild."

One strong possibility as an early customer for Leasecraft is the
combination of the McDonnell Douglas Corp and Johnson & Johnson, which
has tested a process for manufacturing pharmaceuticals in
reduced-gravity conditions of high-Earth orbit during recent space
shuttle flights. Other possibilities include companies seeking to
produce rare alloys and extremely pure electronic components in space.

According to preliminary designs, Leasecraft will be a 15 X 15 X 14.5 ft
structure that will weigh 12,000 lb. Two solar panels will power the
craft, communications, and data processing. The platform will be
designed to operate continuously for at least 10 years.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #82
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:
			       APU Transfer
			  Astronaut requirements
	    Re: Space Art & Tourists in Space / ion pollution
	Clipping service - Commercialization of space / unmanned??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 84 13:04:22-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: APU Transfer

NASA has decided to take the three APU's from the
Discovery, now sitting in the VAB, and put them in
the Challenger.  This follows the fuel leak and
subsequent fire i two of the three APU's used on
Columbia during STS-9.  Discovery's APU's, the
same as Challenger's, are newer and have been used
less, and NASA is transferring them only as a
safeguard, since they do not ye know why the Columbia's
leaked.  The APU work is expected to be completed
in time for the 12 January rollout of the Challenger
to pad 39A, from where it will be launched on 3 February.

Discovery will be prepared for its April maiden flight
after Challenger is moved to the pad.

------------------------------

Date: 6 January 1984 03:27 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Astronaut requirements
To: Wmartin @ OFFICE-3
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

[Why the minimum height requirement for mission specialist?]

<Totally hack answer> Well, there's a lot of heavy equipment in the
ship, and if a somthing heavy should break loose and fall on the
captain it'd be nice if the specialist could lend a hand at lifting it
off him so he wouldn't be pinned there and eventually crushed to
death. A frail little person wouldn't be strong enough. <Credit to one
of the stupidest things in Startrek, artificial gravity that can't be
turned off during combat and other emergencies.>

I agree, it's a rather silly rule, and does tend to discriminate
against women and oriental people as well as midgits and other
unusually short people. <Opinion of REM>

------------------------------

Date: 6 January 1984 03:41 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Space Art & Tourists in Space / ion pollution
To: decvax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Although the start of your message is missing, so your message starts
in the middle of a word: "hronous orbits, for example.", your point
about ion rockets damaging the upper atmosphere is well taken. We
should proceed with designing and building ion rockets, but be ware
that as with all other things we do there's a limit to how much we can
do of one thing before we start polluting the ecology too much. We
must therefore be willing to limit the total use of ion rockets or any
other technology when the side-effects become significant in negative
ways. (We should have curtailed use of coal and petroleum many years
ago, before Canada started suffering acid rain from our burning of coal
and before Los Angeles started having smog alerts.) But if the exhaust
from commercial jetliners isn't destroying our atmosphere yet, even
though each of about a hundred major airports has a hundred or so
takeoffs per day, I suspect we can put a lot of ionliners up in space
before the ozone layer is damaged significantly.

------------------------------

Date: 6 January 1984 03:53 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Clipping service - Commercialization of space / unmanned??
To: Schauble @ MIT-MULTICS
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Well, that's a start. But we still need a manned station up there for
experiments that need more human intervention than just remote control
from Earth. Or do we?

How would it be if except for shuttle flights to service the platform
and other satellites, the whole space program was unmanned for the
next several years? We could run an automated mining station on the
Moon and on asteroids, run an automated smelting station and
materials-processing station in low Earth orbit, and eventually
construct (in LEO) full size solar-power collectors and habitat out of
lunar and asteroid materials; the whole operation controlled remotely
from Earth, with long feedback delays for mining but short
Earth-to-LEO delays for everything else, until such time as the
hotel-in-the-sky is finished and ready for occupancy. Then we start
actually moving people up there to live.

Opinions anyone?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #83
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
		    1984 Space Shuttle Launch Schedule
	     Re: Interstellar manned spaceflight this century
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 84 16:55:32-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!orca!shark!philb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 1984 Space Shuttle Launch Schedule


	From December 19, 1983 AW&ST:


		1984 SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH SCHEDULE
		----------------------------------

Launch   NASA          Crew   Duration 
Date     Designation   Size   (days)    Orbiter    Payload
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 30     41-B        5	8	Challenger Manned Maneuvering unit
						   flights, rendezvous ballon
						   deployment, Palapa B-2
						   Indoesian communications
						   satellite, Western Union
						   Westar 6 Communications
						   satellite, West German SPAS
						   (shuttle pallet satellite)

Apr. 4	    41-C	5	6	Challenger Long-Duration Exposure 
						   Facility, Repair of Solar
						   Maximum Mission (SMM) 
						   satellite

June 4	    41-D	6	7	Discovery  Office of Aeronautics and
						   Space Technology Satellite
						   (OAST-1), Large Format
						   Camera, Hughes Syncom 4-1 
						   (Leasat), Telesat of Canada
						   Anik communications
						   satellite

July 14	    41-E	-	-	Challenger Defense Dept.

Aug. 9      41-F	5	7	Discovery  Shuttle-pointed autonomous
						   research tool for astronomy
						   (Spartan-1), Satellite 
						   Business Systems SBS-D
						   communications satellite,
						   AT&T Telstar 3C
						   communications satellite
						   Syncom 4-2

Aug. 30     41-G	5	10	Columbia   Office of Space and
						   Terrestrial Application 
						   Satellite (OSTA-3), Earth
						   Radiation Budget Satellite
					   	   (ERBS)

Sept. 28    41-H	-	-	Challenger Defense Dept.

Oct. 24     51-A	6	6	Discovery  Materials Science Lab
						   (MSL-1), Anik, Gas Bridge
						   (Fluid Transfer Experiment)

Nov.21      51-B	7	7	Challenger Spacelab 3

Dec. 17     51-C	5	7	Discovery  Tracking and Data Relay
						   Satellite (TDRS-B),
						   Materials Science Lab
						   (MSL-2)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Space shuttle launch schedule for 1984 reflects rapid buildup in the launch 
rate. In the National Aeronautics and Space Administration designation, the
numbers 4 and 5 indicate fiscal year, 1 indicates Kennedy Space Center and
letters show launch sequence.



							Phil Biehl
						 	Tektronix

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Jan 84 13:15 EST
From: Gocek.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Interstellar manned spaceflight this century
In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 06 Jan 84 03:02 PST"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc:

Someone recently commented that manned, interstellar flights would be
made before the turn of the century.  I agree that the technology will
be available, and the question of "Why?" doesn't bother me.  The problem
is that, assuming that faster-than-light travel is not available, by the
time the space travellers get anywhere in their 20th century ship, they
will have been passed by 21st century travellers using more advanced,
21st century transportation systems.  The early travellers would waste
several years, only to arrive at an already established colony.

It's one thing to test out hardware in orbital missions or earth-moon
missions, but missions that never return are another story.  That's why
it was feasible to send Mercury crafts into space, rather than simply
waiting for the space shuttle.  Interstellar travel is a situation where
I think we should wait for reasonable technology.  The first oceanic
crossing wasn't in a canoe.  The first manned, deep space crossing
shouldn't be in a primitive craft either.

Gary

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #84
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:
		      TR article on Mars base - (nf)
	 The Nature of Paradigm Shifts --> space-based evolution
	       Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
			       backpacking
	     Re: Interstellar manned spaceflight this century
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 84 22:09:08-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: TR article on Mars base - (nf)

#N:ucbesvax:8700010:000:8352
ucbesvax!turner    Jan  5 02:14:00 1984

This month's issue of Technology Review has a proposal for a manned Mars
base.  Some of its conclusions (probably familiar to most of you):

	- the bulk of the materiel should be freighted by unmanned
	  long-haul propulsion systems like solar-sails and ion
	  drive, in "small" batches (measured in hundred of tons);
	  there will be dozens of these;
	
	- crew transport will require higher velocities (liquid
	  hydrogen/oxygen engines are mentioned) because of the
	  dangers of longer travel times; radiation and gravity-
	  deficiency syndromes are mentioned; braking fuel can
	  be conserved by skimming the atmosphere; a solar storm
	  shelter will be needed;
	
	- a crew of seven members of both sexes is optimal; an odd number,
	  to break ties in voting (?!), and more than five, for social
	  variety; both sexes probably because this also provides more
	  variety; all results derive from psychological studies; being
	  past child-bearing age will be a consideration in crew-choice,
	  in view of the radiation hazards;
	
	- forward basing on Phobos/Deimos, for a months-long survey
	  (with ground-based rovers) prior to actual basing;
	
	- once on the surface, it might be possible to use gliders
	  for long-range surface missions;
	
	- on the trips over and back, complete recycling is infeasible;
	  all food for the journey must be taken along;

	- plants can grow at low atmospheric pressure--greenhouse
	  agriculture is possible in inflated surface bubbles;
	
	- fuel tanks can be reused as surface housing, buried in
	  Martian soil for insulation and radiation-shielding;
	
	- equatorial sites are preferred over polar sites, even if
	  vital resources (water, oxygen, etc.) are more easily
	  extracted at polar zones--it seems that Martian winters
	  are not to be trifled with;
	
	- no problems with using Martian resources; most necessities
	  (oxygen, inert buffer gases for breathing, water, desalinated
	  soil for growing, etc.) can be extracted in more than one way;
	
	- "complex AI techniques" are disparaged in the context of
	  unmanned surface rovers;
	
	- projected cost: around 2/3 of Apollo, with much lower annual
	  outlay by comparison; expected year of basing: 2000 AD.

While not an expert, I still feel the need to question some of their
conclusions.  Some of these objections are detailed below.

STYLE OF TRANSPORTATION

I fully approve of long-haul techniques, if they can be made workable--
they favor economies of scale (both in transport and in production of
transport); there has been, to my mind, far too much "get it done
somehow, drop it later" in the U.S. space programs.

However, I don't agree with the conclusion that long-haul *manned* transport
is infeasible--I suspect that rocketry is being pushed rather more for
its usual drama, even though the manned vehicle would certainly be launched
from orbit rather than from the surface.  Would an American public wait
18 months longer for the trip to complete?  The question is absurd--the
proposal is *already* asking them to wait for 18 years.

The matter of safety is compelling, but not convincing: unless the
trajectories for either the trip or the return voyage involve close solar
orbits, why bother with speed?  Why not send more people by sail, shielded
by cargo, perhaps in smaller batches.  Intervehicle shuttles could be used
between storms for social exchange, emergencies, etc.  (Trips from one
group to the next might take a while at maximum separation.  "Captain,
can I have the car for a few weeks?")  Occasional social isolation and
social separation might go a long way toward providing the variety that
psychologists find so important.

Separate, long-haul manned vehicles might actually improve overall safety,
since if one group is lost through some accident, the remaining groups
can continue.  Not to mention the messy, scary-sounding business of coming
out of a month's long high-speed trajectory to brake against an atmosphere.
(I realize that I should have more faith in computers, but . . . )

Consider the matter of cost as well--two vehicle development programs will
be more expensive than one, and the rocket-powered vehicle would be another
expensive one-shot deal.

RECYCLING DURING TRIP

There are two basic approaches to total recycling: contained ecology and
chemical processing.  (Even the contained ecology approach will involve
some chemical processing, of course.)  Chemical processing is difficult;
it would certainly require much heat, with dead-mass costs for radiating
the excess.  Any breakdown of processing equipment could be fatal.  Derived
foodstuffs would probably be horribly unexciting.

Contained ecology is tricky.  Don't get the idea that they'll be taking
tons of dirt, I'm not advocating that.  But I think that a decade of
near-orbit experimentation could produce a system that is compact,
maintainable for years, and with very low energy requirements.

Almost certainly, it would be more massive than the food-supplies for
an 18-month liquid-fueled round-trip.  But again, I object to that
style, and would in any case prefer to see contained ecology techniques,
since development of these can start now (on Earth), and will have long-
term benefits, with much spin-off potential.  Genetic engineering will
find a place here, I think.  The research cost could be quite low.

PSYCHOSOCIAL DYNAMICS

The article points out that Russian cosmonauts have received better
training than Americans in dealing with the psychological stresses of 
long orbital stints.  (Nevertheless, the tedium is thought to be
extreme--possibly the biggest single problem in a six-month mission.)

We are just now going beyond the test-pilot psychological profile--
people who can handle long periods of little excitement are quite
different from those who are best fit to sporadic adrenaline rushes.
In view of what I have laid out above, perhaps a recent Nobel Laureate
geneticist represents (but for her very advanced age) the ideal Mars
mission crew-member: patient, methodical, reclusive, impossible to
ruffle, and devoted to the natural sciences.  (And the ideal candidate's
reaction to being selected?  "Oh, dear--photographers, again.")

The matter of sexual balance is fraught with questions that are
irrelevant to mission objectives.  The rationale is that there will
be sex--so there must be men and women.  (But with an odd man or women
out?)  I favor a sexual balance for other reasons than this, but
an all-woman or all-man crew doesn't seem out of the question.  Maybe
there will still be sex--so go flame in net.flame if this irks you.
I have seen fewer problems with jealousy in homosexual relationships
than in heterosexual ones.  Given the way attitudes are changing now,
by 2000, the moral questions might be considered totally irrelevant.

I applaud the idea of using older people, though not so much for the
reasons given.  There is even a PR angle, here (where I have been so
contemptuous of that in comments above): by 2000, we will be a nation
of older people.  Given the underlying theme of the mission, as
implied by the article, choosing older people makes a lot of sense--
that, as a nation historically and demographically middle-aged, we still
have what it takes.  (How old will *you* be in the year 2000?)

CONCLUDING NOTES

I think the projected cost is an overestimate.  I think the safety-
measures rationale looks dumb in view of ideas like using a glider
in a thin atmosphere over boulder-strewn, craggy terrain.  I think the
"complex AI techniques" bit is more rationalization--a maximum speed
of 1 mph would probably take care of most reaction-time problems.
Rapprochment with the Russians would get us their walker-technology.

On the favorable side, the low-pressure bubble-greenhouses sound like
fun.  Perhaps they could be layered to provide staging between pressure
zones, a gradation of Martian-thin-to-human-breathable atmospheres,
thus providing a buffer against sudden pressure loss in the main modules.
If the sails are nonporous (see an earlier note of mine as to why they
might not be), and the reflective coating could be stripped, they could
be laminated to make bubble-tissue, yielding the prospect of very large,
multicellular atmosphere containers, arranged for fail-safe protection
against sandstorm damage.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

------------------------------

Date: 7 January 1984 14:55 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
Subject:  The Nature of Paradigm Shifts --> space-based evolution
To: REM @ MIT-MC
cc: rem @ SU-AI, SPACE @ MIT-MC


    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>

        Date: 3 January 1984 23:22 EST
        From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
        why would we *want* to send our DNA molecules over the universe?  For
        what purpose?
    [The answer is obvious to anyone who understands evolution by natural
    selection.] Because we have genes that give us the desire to survive
    (if we didn't, we wouldn't be here now) and because we have genes that
    give us the power of analytic thought (at least, most of us, you and I
    and everyone on this mailing list etc.) and because our science has
    shown us enough about the Universe to understand the concept and
    benefit-toward-survival of widespread distribution of lifeforms
    carrying our genes and our technology has brought us very close to
    feasibility (just a few tens of years to go; out of 4.3 billion years
    our genes have been evolving to date).

I think I see a flaw in your reasoning about natural selection, whose
principles I accept.  Natural selection operates by giving each member
of a particular species a differential advantage over other species,
thereby enabling each of those members of the particular species to
survive at a higher rate.  This operates at the level of theindividual
organism, and not at a species level.  Only individual organisms have
a motivation to survive and to have offspring; the species behavior is
simply the result of collective individual behavior.  

If you argue that mankind will *collectively* band together to
send its genes over the universe, mustn't you argue that somehow this
will be beneficial to individual humans?

    I ask you, why would we WANT to stop nuclear
    war, given that it's probably unstoppable? Sure we could WISH to stop
    nuclear war, but WANTing to do so implies some belief it's a
    reasonable/possible wish.

Because nuclear war indicates a distinct possibility that my children
will be fried.  Thus, this ties into my wish for preserving my
individual genetic line.  Still, if the war actually happens, I doubt
I would adopt a survivalist mentality.

------------------------------

Date: 7 January 1984 15:29 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
Subject:  Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
To: REM @ MIT-MC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, dietz%usc-cse @ USC-ECL
In-reply-to: Msg of 5 Jan 1984 02:24 EST from Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>


    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>

    You say there's no motivation to create progeny unless we can
    establish two-way comunication with them.

    Yet all around this planet I see creatures leaving progeny around;
    animals lay eggs and abandom them, they later hatch, and the parents
    never even get to hear the offspring say "mama" not to mention any
    interactive communication; people plan for their children's education
    in the event the parents should die, by buying life insurance, even
    though the life insurance will never be paid to a child who can
    converse with the parents, only to an orphaned child; people write
    scientific papers with no insurance anyone at all will read them
    during the scientist's lifetime.

You're right on this point - i retract my statement on two-way
communication. I still stand by my last msg concerning the motivation
for individual behavior (until that's proven specious as well).

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 7 January 1984 15:40:48 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc
Subject: backpacking
Message-ID: <1984.1.7.20.37.59.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>


n507  2246  06 Jan 84
BC-SHUTTLE-2takes-01-07
     ADVANCE FOR SUNDAY
     By Albert Sehlstedt Jr.
     (c) 1984 The Baltimore Sun (Independent Press Service)
     WASHINGTON - Capitalizing on a maturing shuttle program, the United
States will fly a record number of manned missions in space this year
and experiment with a new method of maneuvering astronauts between
orbiting vehicles.
     Ten shuttle flights, beginning with a Feb. 3 mission that will test
a ''Buck Rogers'' backpack, will double the number of astronaut
voyages attempted in any year of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's 25-year history.
    A previous maximum of five manned missions were flown in 1965 and
1966 when NASA was preparing for the moon landings that began in the
summer of 1969.
    The maximum number of cosmonaut flights conducted by the Soviet
Union in any year was six in 1980. However, the USSR, unlike the
United States, has been constantly active in manned flight
operations, accumulating extensive medical data and experimenting
with long-duration missions lasting months at a time.
    The Russians appear also to be developing their own version of a
space shuttle, and last month a congressional report said they were
embarked on long-range programs to colonize the moon and Mars.
    NASA's plans this year call also for the deployment of 10 unmanned
satellites from the 60-foot-long cargo bays of the shuttles as well
as conducting 12 other space missions with so-called expendable
launching vehicles; rockets that are used once and not recovered
after a launching.
    Two of the highlights of the American program in 1984 will be the
first test of the rocket backpack early next month, followed by a
similar operation in April when other astronaut crewmen will leave
the shuttle, fly to an inoperative scientific satellite and haul it
back into the cargo bay for repairs.
    Next month's flyers will be Bruce McCandless 2d and Robert L.
Stewart, the first Army astronaut assigned to the space program. All
others have come from the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and civilian
pursuits.
    McCandless and Stewart will venture from the shuttle on the fifth
and seventh days of the eight-day mission, which is scheduled to end
with the first landing of a shuttle on the 15,000-foot runway of
NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
    The two crewmen will fly several hundred feet away from the shuttle,
simulating the exercises future astronauts will employ when repairing
or recovering inoperative satellites or, perhaps, rescuing comrades
from a disabled space vehicle.
    Neither astronaut on this mission (or future missions) will be
attached to the shuttle by any sort of tether, though the February
test is a first.
     NASA abandoned the tether idea when, on reflection, the astronauts
and other experts concluded that a dangling rope or other kind of
line could become twisted in a man's legs or, worse yet, flap him
whip-like against the side of the shuttle or a satellite he was
attempting to reach.
     Indeed, one of the principal objectives of the McCandless-Stewart
venture is a better understanding of how this sort of Buck Rogers
maneuvering actually works in weightless flight as shuttle and
astronauts orbit the earth at 17,000 miles an hour 150 miles above
the atmosphere.
    The backpack, which would weigh more than 300 pounds on earth, was
designed and built by the Denver division of Martin Marietta
Aerospace under research and development contracts totaling
approximately $40 million and extending over a period of years.
    NASA refers to the pack (two have been built for use in space) as a
manned maneuvering unit, or MMU.
    Each MMU is equipped with 24 small jets positioned in such a way
that the astronaut can move in any direction or roll, pitch and yaw
like an airplane in flight.
    The astronaut's arms rest on two rigid supports, resembling splints,
that extend forward from the backpacks. At the end of each splint are
hand controllers that he manipulates to propel himself in any desired
direction.
    There is enough propellant (nitrogen) in the MMU to allow a flyer up
to six hours of flight outside the shuttle.
    The maneuvering system is divided into two parts so that if one part
fails the other can be used to propel the astronaut back to the
shuttle.
    Should both systems fail, the shuttle pilots could maneuver close
enough to the stranded astronaut that he could be retrieved with the
craft's mechanical arm. The 50-foot-long arm would be operated by
another crewman through electronic controls on the shuttle's flight
deck.
    The second mission using the MMUs is scheduled April 4 when another
shuttle crew will fly up to a satellite called the Solar Maximum
Mission (SMM) that was launched on Valentine's Day in 1980 for
scientific studies of solar flares.
    The following winter, the 17,000-pound SMM became partly disabled
when one of its control systems failed and one of its seven
scientific instruments became inoperative.
    A shuttle crewman will stabilize the tumbling satellite so that it
can be grasped by the mechanical arm and brought into the cargo bay
for repairs.
    Retrieval and repair of satellites is one of the principal functions
of the shuttle program.
    In June, NASA plans to launch the shuttle Discovery on its maiden
voyage, bringing to three the number of craft in regular service. (A
fourth shuttle, now being built, will complete the fleet, which is
being developed and built at a cost of about $10 billion.)
    Additional shuttle flights are scheduled through the summer and
fall. Barring unforeseen difficulties, NASA intends to complete the
10-mission shuttle year with another flight of the Discovery on Dec.
17.
    END
    
nyt-01-07-84 0143est

------------------------------

Date: 7 January 1984 18:51 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Interstellar manned spaceflight this century
To: Gocek.Henr @ PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

Minor point, in the early days of sailing we didn't have radio, so
there as no way a fast ship overtaking a slower ship en route could
find it to pick up its crew. Instellar travel will be different.
There's no reason the crew of the first instellar ship need be left
adrift by the second ship. The first crew can enjoy the first voyage
while they're still young, instead of waiting forever for the "It's
Tuesday, we must be passing Vega" high-speed ship, then in their old
age join the crew of the second-generation <technology> ship. This
assumes they are going in the same dirction. If not, your original
complaint is invalid, since a canoe traveling to North America will
get there faster than a sailing ship headed to India will get to NA,
so the effort won't be wasted.

Now on to my main point...

I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but I have some amendments to
your thesis:
    Date: Fri, 6 Jan 84 13:15 EST
    From: Gocek.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
    It's one thing to test out hardware in orbital missions or earth-moon
    missions, but missions that never return are another story. ...
    Interstellar travel is a situation where I think we should wait
    for reasonable technology. 

(1) There's a general fallacy involved here, although it only slightly
applies here, but I'll cover it first: There's no point in spending
effort on anything this year because next year we'll have better
technology and the same amount of effort can get much more
accomplished. This would be partly valid if effort were a
"non-renewable resource" like petroleum. But effort is a "renewable
resource", so if we do no work this year at all, we've totally wasted
this year's quota of effort, wheras if we "waste our effort/time"
working inefficiently this year at least we'll get a little
accomplished, even if it seems small when we look back from next year,
it's better than nothing. Even if it were a non-renewable resource
like money, there are flaws in the argument. From a capitalist view,
even though work we do this year is less productive than work we wait
to do with better technology, everybody else is more productive next
year too, so by the law of supply and demand the monetary value of
work next year will be less, so it turns out the return on investment
is the same now as next year. Thus private industry might as well
spend money to make products&services to sell now, even though it
seems they'd get more done if they wait. From a holistic view, if
everybody waits until next year to invest money in new works, because
the same money will accomplish more useful work next year, nobody will
be doing the bootstrapping work this year that will make next year's
technology possible, so in fact next year we won't have the new
technology we were waiting for. Thus government MUST continue to
invest money in pushing the frontiers even if it seems the money would
be more effectively spent using better technology next year.

(2) Now regarding interstellar flight: In the case of unmanned probes,
your thesis doesn't apply. (Since you were writing about manned trips,
I'm not contradicting you, yet, but see section 3 below.) When the
Voyager was first proposed, I started to think "why bother sending
Voyager out past Saturn to Uranus and Neptune using this cruddy
chemical-rocket technology, when in five years the ion rocket will be
developed and it can get there in half a year, overtaking the Voyager
somewhere between Saturn and Uranus, with much better computers and
instruments, grossly improving on Voyager's images of Saturn and
passing Voyager before it even gets to Uranus? But then I thought,
well it's nice to take out insurance, just in case the ion rocket takes
longer to develop than expected and the super-Galileo has to use
chemical rockets too, so launched in 1981 the super-Galileo doesn't
get to any of the planets before the Voyager does. Little did I know
it'd be worse than my worst fears, the planetary program would be
slashed almost out of existance, the Voyager 2 being several years
past Saturn, almost to Uranus, by the time the Galileo is launched
with chemical rockets in 1985 or 1986 or ..., and the super-Galileo
never even getting considered. The Voyager 2 may in fact be the only
spacecraft to reach Uranus during my lifetime.

Eventually of course some advanced-technology ship will overtake any
of our various early travelers (Pioneer 11, Voyagers 1 and 2). But
during that first part of the trip the early craft will arrive first
and chart the course for the later craft as well as provide scientific
information that helps us design the instruments and helps us plan the
observation program of the later craft. Examples: Pioneer and Mariner
gave a crude view of the planets, allowing us to pick landing targets
on Mars for Viking and optimum viewing targets for Voyager. In
particular Pioneer showed Saturn to be a lot more interesting visually
than we thought it'd be, prompting us to invest in good cameras on
Voyager. Pioneer and other craft were purturbed by the gravity of
things it passed by, and measuring its trajectory gave us better
knowledge of the orbits and mass of the satellites so the trajectory
of Voyager could be planned better. Voyager in turn gave us enough
information that Galileo will use an elaborate gravitational-assist
programme to make each looping orbit in a different place to gather
maximal information with minimum fuel consumption. The first
interstellar probe with proper instrumentation will provide valuable
information about the Oort cloud and other possible hazards to later
faster-moving craft. -- Other advantages of spacecraft out there, even
if moving slowly: With telscopes far beyond Pluto, we'll be beyond the
obscuring effect of "zodiacial light" (dust in the Solar system) so we
can get truly accurate measurements of our galaxy, and furthermore our
base for triangulation will be larger so we can directly measure the
distances to stars much further out than we can now, furthermore the
relativistic purturbation of the Sun will be reduced so our paralax
(triangulation) measurements can be more correct. We'll be able to
measure the distance to nearby stars more accurately too, so as to
accurately plan later trips by advanced craft. Also the scientific
knowledge we gain in this early stage of interstellar exploration,
both the geometry of our galaxy and the physics of the Oort cloud an
vicinity, may be useful in understanding what we're dealing with so
our later ships can take appropriate instead of useless instruments,
and so those ships won't have to take unnecesary precautions about
imagined but non-existant interstellar hazards yet can still take
prcautions against real hazards discovered by the early ships.
Recall how Voyager 1 found the rings of Saturn less dangerous than
expected so Voyager 2 could "shoot the rapids" and thus gain more
info, while one of the probes found Jupiter's environment to be much
more dangerous than expected, and nearly got its electronics fried, so
later craft could keep their distance.

(3) When we decide that we need people to make on-the-fly (real-time)
decisions, because our artificial-intelligent computers are complete
idiots compard to the task needed, the above argument applies to
manned craft. The first manned craft will act as a survey ship to
scout for dangers later craft will want to avoid, and to scout for
interesting things to report back which may modify/influence the
programme of later ships. But you say "how can we send a crew on a
one-way trip, in virtual isolation?", how can we subject our crew to
cruel and unusual punishment? Well, the fun-life of most people
consists mostly of (a) TV, (b) interaction with friends&co-workers and
office machines (including computers) at work and around the home, and
(c) travel to see new and interesting things. Well, TV can be beamed
to the crew, with only a month or so delay for Oort-cloud journeys,
and with a large crew in a full closed-ecology system all of (b) would
be provided. The only problem is (c), where instead of traveling to
random places the crew is taking one very long trip to one kind of
place. I guess we'll have to get the kind of crew that doesn't want to
visit Paris or Rome every so often except by vidiophone/telepresence,
and will instead be content at spending the rest of their lifetimes
exploring the Oort cloud. Perhaps their children will be picked up by
a later-generation <technology> craft and moved to a colony around
another star, or perhaps back to Earth to find their "roots", or
perhaps to a later-generation <technology> space probe traveling at
relativistic speed to explore a nearby cluster of stars in person.
Perhaps their children (original crew's grandchildren) will be picked
up again to make a colonization voyage at very-relativistic speeds to
M13. Perhaps their children (ggc of original crew) will be picked up
yet another time to embark upon colonizing the Magenellic clouds.

(Z) We wouldn't want to promise the first crew they'd be on their way
to Alpha Centauri, knowing full well they'd arrive 1000 years after a
faster ship has goten there and established a colony. But each
generation <technology> of ship could be used to send more crews a
little bit further into the Universe, pushing the frontier a bit
further outward and exchanging all the latest information with Earth
and with other crews on other ships in different directions at the
same time. The time from when they start out until they are overtaken,
would not be wasted.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #85
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:
		  Interstellar travel -- will it happen?
			 Challenger Moved to VAB
		 Mission to Mars -- planetary chauvinism
		      Palaces and Pyramids on Mars?
	     Re: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
		 BC-REVIEW-ASTRONOMY 2takes (Undated)   
			Re: Astronaut requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 January 1984 14:25 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
Subject:  Interstellar travel -- will it happen?
To: dietz%usc-cse @ USC-ECL

As I think I pointed out in my last msg to REM, I retract my comment
about interchange, but let me respond to your comments anyway.

    From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL at SRI-NIC

    I don't understand this objection.  What is "interchange", anyway?

Interchange is informational, social or commercial intercourse.

    Communication?  Trade?  And why should wanting to establish this
    "interchange" be the only possible reason people could want to
    undertake I.S.?  It certainly isn't the motivation for the US planetary
    exploration program -- curiosity (& pork barrel politics) is.

In the current climate, no one would send a probe without a way of
getting information back from it.  The only question is how long it
would take.  Can you imagine a current political leader authorizing
a probe that would take a million years to report its findings?

    It wasn't the motivation for the Pilgrims to come to America.  It
    wasn't the motivation for Magellan to circumnavigate the world.

True enough on the Pilgrims.  Are you suggesting that space will
become a haven for those that are oppressed and persecuted?  Then
you have to find a way of funding the trip, and oppressed and
persecuted people usually have a hard time getting money.  

Magellan?  Would he have gone if he had essentially no hope of
returning in his lifetime, of his children's lifetime, or his
great-great-great... grandchildren's lifetime?  I think not.

    The fact that the data from these observations would take years to
    reach earth is unimportant, since there's no other easy way to gather
    it.

You have a far greater faith in the long-term perspectives of humans
than I do.  Given that it is nearly impossible to get Congress to
even consider two year appropriations for ANYTHING, you are talking
about a climate for scientific inquiry that I cannot imagine in my
wildest dreams.

    One can easily come up with other motivations.  Political or religious
    rivalry, for example.  Some religious systems today have builtin dogma
    that serves to increase the number of members of that religion
    (catholicism vs. birth control, for example).  A religion that had as
    one of its precepts the idea of interstellar colonization would also be
    self propagating.  Motivation here could be that holders of certain
    belief systems desire to have many others agree with them; what better
    way to do that than to fill up the galaxy with 10^20 true believers?

Now this is something I had not considered.  You're right about this
one.  Religious fanatics will do anything.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 84 16:53:24-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger Moved to VAB

Challenger was moved to the VAB today in preparation
for STS-10.

------------------------------

Date: 8 January 1984 23:26 EST
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Mission to Mars -- planetary chauvinism
To: space @ MIT-MC

I also read the Technology Review article on the manned mission to Mars
and was deeply disappointed by it. If that turns into NASA's next big space
project after a space station and lunar station, it will be crowning waste
of effort, opportunity, and time. Like pyramids and palaces.

Now that I've got everybody hot under the collar, let me explain what I mean.
The biggest problem with a manned Mars mission right now is that it doesn't
return very much to earth (so it'd be horrible politically, and we should
learn that lesson from Apollo), and most importantly, it won't get many
of us into space (I really want to go into space once before my life
is up). It's an end unto itself, it doesn't establish much of an
infrastructure for doing much else in space, and it could be blown away
with a turn of the political wind.

The amount of money involved for that Mars mission is probably
adequate to get a space settlement started a la O'Neill's High
Frontier. His idea being that all you really need to start a
settlement that can house thousands of people and build enough solar
polar plants to replace earth-based generated electrical is a lunar
mass driver, an LEO to L5 (or so) mass driver shuttle, a chemical
separation plant for processing lunar ore, and a general purpose
manufacturing facility of fairly small capacity. The key point is that
the manufacturing facility first be used to construct another
separation plant and manufacturing facility (expensive or specialized
components would come from earth so the space based technology
required is not great), and then one would repeat the doublings enough
times until you could crank out anything big you wanted. Settlements,
solar power stations, ships, thousands of people living in space,
plenty of energy for people on earth, no limits to growth, and no way
to stop our exploration and use of space.  Plus, a Mars mission would
be a piece o' cake.

Another point that the Technology Review article assumed was that 
manned bases should be planets. In fact, it would be cheaper and easier 
to build a base in space where you don't have to worry about gravity
or weather or nightfall. If man does succeed to evolving to a space faring
species, he will probably spend most of his time in structures of his
own creation in free space because that's where most of the opportunities
will lie.

------------------------------

Date: 08 Jan 84  2216 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: Palaces and Pyramids on Mars?
To:   space@MIT-MC
CC:   bruc@MIT-ML 

I must agree with Robert Bruccoleri's objections to the Technology Review
article about a manned mission to Mars.  The shorted sightedness of the
so-called space-scientists has always annoyed me, since it is one of the
few serious divisions among the space enthusiasts.  However, I haven't
really worried about it until this recent message reminded me that the
President's science advisor Keyworth has chastized NASA for not being
sufficiently visionary.  I have some faith that the NASA administrators
will not fail us in this matter it is worth thinking about.

In anycase it is probably worth writing a few letters to Technology Review
to let them and their readers know that not everyone thinks that Mars is
the obvious next step.

	Cheers,
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 84 19:38:27-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!cbneb!cbnap!whp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?

The motivation for reproduction should not be defended logically.
Actually, humans (and I suppose other animals) do not select goals
in a logical or even rational manner; in this respect the image many
people have of themselves is false.  Humans are *not* rational
beings, instead they are rationalizing beings.  The difference to
me is that a ration being would chose completely logical, rational
goals and carry them out in a logical and rational way.  A rationalizing
being choses goals to satisfy biological urges, but attempts to
reach that goal through logical means.  There is not defensible,
imperitave motivation for manned exploration of the universe, but
then there is no defensible logial reason for the continued existence
of mankind either.  The urges to explore, gain territory, etc., are
similar to the urge to reproduce.  These urges are programmed into
our genes and historically seem to have been good survival traits.
So it is probably true that many years from now these "stay at home"
stick-in-the-muds will die out of the gene pool.

I am sure that interstellar will happen despite the arguments
of these people when enough people *want* it to happen.

W. H. Pollock

------------------------------

Date: 09 Jan 84  0001 PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: BC-REVIEW-ASTRONOMY 2takes (Undated)   
To:   space@MIT-MC

n044  1217  08 Jan 84
(The Week in Review)
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    
ASTRONOMICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF 1983 - A STELLAR YEAR
    
Old Data Yielded New Insights, New Instruments Unveiled Ancient
Phenomena and
Earth Waved A Very Long Goodbye to the Satellite Pioneer 10.
    
    Earth's rotation is erratic, usually slowing, rarely speeding up. As
a result, scientists must insert ''leap seconds'' every few years to
keep world clocks in step. An extra second was added last year on
June 30. The minute beginning at 7:59 EDT that evening was 61 seconds
long. It was the 12th such second to be added since these kinds of
adjustments began in 1972, when two leap seconds were added to the
year. The variability in the rate of Earth's rotation is believed to
be caused by a number of factors, including friction in the planet's
atmosphere, in the oceans and in the core.
    Without much hoopla, the standard for defining all units of length
in the world was changed by the General Conference on Weights and
Measures in Paris. What has this to do with astronomy? For one, the
definition affects the units of force, wavelength and radio
frequency. For another, the new standard is based on the speed of
light, in part because time-measuring methods are far more precise
than those applied to distances.
    For many decades, all length measurements were based on the meter as
defined by the distance between two scratches on a platinum-iridium
bar stored in a vault at the International Bureau of Weights and
Measures at Sevres, near Paris. Since 1960, length measurements have
been based on a more accurate and more readily available standard -
the wavelength of orange light emitted by the gas krypton 86. Under
the new system, one meter is defined as the distance traveled by
light through a vacuum in one-299,792,458th of a second.
SOME STORM
    -A reanalysis of data from the two Voyager spacecraft that passed
Saturn revealed recordings of a peculiar static. Astronomers said it
was the mark of a gargantuan atmospheric lightning storm 40,000 miles
long, wrapping a sixth of the way around the planet (almost twice
around Earth) and lasting at least 10 months.
    -Information collected by Soviet Venera 13 and 14 landing craft,
together with data from orbiting Pioneer Venus spacecraft, indicated
that Venus should join the list of volcanically active objects in the
solar system. The list includes Earth and Jupiter's moon Io.
    -Triton, a satellite of the planet Neptune, may have a near-global
ocean - not of water but of liquid nitrogen. Scientists at the
University of Hawaii in Honolulu announced that spectral data had
provided ''the first direct evidence for an ocean on an
extraterrestrial body'' - that body being Triton. The other leading
candidate for an ocean is the Saturnian moon Titan, whose seas are
thought to be 70 percent ethane, 25 percent methane and 5 percent
nitrogen.
SOLAR SIGNS
    The appearance of twin dust rings around the Sun, hypothesized as
early as 1927, was recorded by Japanese astronomers over Indonesia
during a solar eclipse. Scientists had theorized that cosmic dust
spiraling in toward the Sun would begin to glow as it grew nearer and
would continue to do so until close enough to evaporate. Given the
geometry of the dust spiral, the glow seems brightest at the outer
and inner edges of the zone.
    The picture was obtained with a video system suspended from a
balloon and a computer-based enhancement process. The glowing region
lies 900,000 to 1,500,000 miles above the solar surface. Scientists
calculated the distance from the Sun at which the inner dust
disappeared and used it as an indication of the ring's vaporization
temperature. From this, they guessed that the dust is a silicate
comparable in composition to quartz.
ASTEROID ALERT
    Asteroids have struck Earth in the past, hurtling from space with
such speed that they vaporized on collision. Astronomical and
geological observations showed last year that large asteroid
collisions can still occur. More than 50 asteroids are known to be in
orbits that might send them charging into Earth, and recent samplings
of the asteroid population signal that the total number of
Earth-threatening asteroids may approach 100,000. Asteroid fragments
weighing about 500 tons plunge into the atmosphere, on average once a
year, but usually break up before hitting the surface.
STAR LIGHTS
    Infrared Astronomy Satellite, an orbiting observatory launched last
January and now out of service, discovered that the star Vega is
surrounded by a giant disk or shell of material. Scientists at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology
hailed the discovery as the first direct evidence of solid objects
orbiting a star other than the Sun. Some astronomers suggested that
the shell may be an early planetary system in formation.
    Vega is near our solar system, only 26 light years - or about 156
trillion miles - away. It is the brightest star in the constellation
Lyra (the Harp) and the third brightest star in the night sky. It is
thought to be less than a billion years old, less than one-fourth the
age of the Sun and its family of planets. Vega's properties have
turned it into an astronomical measuring piece on which scientists
train instruments to test equipment sensitivity. That's what
astronomers were doing with IRAS when they found the Vegan shell.
    Data from the infrared satellite also indicate that cool, solid
material may be orbiting the star called Fomalhaut, the brightest
star in the constellation Piscis Austrinus and one of the 20
brightest in the heavens. It can be seen in the winter sky with the
unaided eye.
THE UNIVERSE...
    A new variation on a recent theme of the cosmos' formation, the
''inflationary universe,'' was unveiled. The revised inflationary
model postulates, in part, that the universe did not start with a big
bang, but bubbled up out of virtually nothing and then suddenly
inflated to astronomical proportions. Dr.Alan H. Guth of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed the first inflationary
model several years ago.
    Meanwhile, cosmic surveys by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, along with some fancy computer modeling, led
cosmologists to picture the current universe as a piece of Swiss
cheese, with the force of gravity making particles of matter clump
together into long filaments and flat, pancake-like structures.
Between these areas of dense matter are bubbles of largely empty
space. The model assumes that neutrinos, atomic particles thought to
constitute about 90 percent of all matter in the universe, have some
mass and therefore clump together.
...AND BEYOND
    Pioneer 10, the satellite launched March 3, 1972 from Cape
Canaveral, Fla., left the outer limits of the planetary system. No
human artifact had ever traveled so far. Its next stop - no one
knows. According to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, ground-based antennas should maintain communications
for eight years more, to a distance of five billion miles. Scientists
hope that in the time remaining the satellite will detect gravity
waves, the gravitational radiation that in theory emanates from
cataclysmic events, such as exploding stars, but in practice has not
been found. When it does turn a blind eye toward Earth, the craft
will carry on with a message for passersby - a plaque engraved with
images of a man, a woman, Earth's location and some terrestrial
scientific ABC's.
    In November 1988, the satellite Voyager 1, which was launched five
and a half years ago, will become the first spacecraft to cross the
orbits of all nine planets in the solar system. (Pioneer's path took
it outside Pluto's orbit.) Voyager 2 and Pioneer 11 are also swinging
out beyond the outer planets.
METEORIC RISE
    The Murchison meteorite, which fell on Australia in 1969, gave up
one of its greatest secrets - that it contains the five chemical
bases of human genes. Scientists at the University of Maryland's
Laboratory of Chemical Evolution said their detection of the bases -
precursors of life - and their ability to synthesize all five in a
single experiment simulating primordial conditions on Earth, boosted
the theory that terrestrial life arose by comparatively simple,
natural chemical processes.
    Their success further suggested that life may have arisen by the
same processes elsewhere in the universe, wherever the appropriate
conditions existed.
COMET TRIALS
    A new comet, named for its discoverers Sugano-Saigusa-Fujikawa, and
passing unusually close to Earth, was discovered as another comet,
IRAS-Araki-Alcock, receded from Earth. IRAS-Araki-Alcock passed
within 2.9 million miles of the planet - closer than any other comet
since 1770. Sugano-Saigusa-Fugikawa came within about 6 million miles.
    Astronomers also estimated that the total number of comets roaming
the outer reaches of the solar system, beyond the outer planets, may
be at least 2 trillion - far more than the 100 billion previously
imagined. The recalculation resulted in part from the discovery of
several comets traversing the inner solar system. Most comets were
thought to be slowly circling the Sun far beyond the outer planets.
Finding these inner system trespassers hinted that other comets are
nearby successfully escaping detection from Earth.
    
nyt-01-08-84 1521est
***************

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 84 21:00:00-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!watmath!looking!brad @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Astronaut requirements
In-Reply-To: Article <15152@sri-arpa.UUCP>

It interests me that all astronaut requirements ask for people in the
peak of physical health.   Now, while there is nothing wrong with good health,
I think they should deliberately send up people with average health.

(I am not referring to the astronauts but rather to the mission specialists)

All these space-sickness experiments being performed right now are going on
with prime physical specimens.  We need to find out what the effects of space
are on out-of-shape people, too.  Thus people should not be rejected from
the mission specialist program just because they don't run twenty miles a day.
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #86
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
			    Undeliverable mail
		 Re: Terraforming?  Astroforming! - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 9 Jan 84 03:29:32 PST
From:           Mail Handler <postman@UCLA-CS>
Subject:        Undeliverable mail
In-Reply-To:    Your message of 09 Jan 84  0303 PST
To:             Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

===== POSTMAN output follows =====
AERROR - (n < SLOCKTRIES) CAN NOT GET LCK.SEQL
mailers/ucla: error writing to UMAIL
"v.Burris": not delivered

===== unsent message follows =====
Date: 09 Jan 84  0303 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #85
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC


SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:
		  Interstellar travel -- will it happen?
			 Challenger Moved to VAB
		 Mission to Mars -- planetary chauvinism
		      Palaces and Pyramids on Mars?
	     Re: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
		 BC-REVIEW-ASTRONOMY 2takes (Undated)   
			Re: Astronaut requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 January 1984 14:25 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
Subject:  Interstellar travel -- will it happen?
To: dietz%usc-cse @ USC-ECL

As I think I pointed out in my last msg to REM, I retract my comment
about interchange, but let me respond to your comments anyway.

    From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL at SRI-NIC

    I don't understand this objection.  What is "interchange", anyway?

Interchange is informational, social or commercial intercourse.

    Communication?  Trade?  And why should wanting to establish this
    "interchange" be the only possible reason people could want to
    undertake I.S.?  It certainly isn't the motivation for the US planetary
    exploration program -- curiosity (& pork barrel politics) is.

In the current climate, no one would send a probe without a way of
getting information back from it.  The only question is how long it
would take.  Can you imagine a current political leader authorizing
a probe that would take a million years to report its findings?

    It wasn't the motivation for the Pilgrims to come to America.  It
    wasn't the motivation for Magellan to circumnavigate the world.

True enough on the Pilgrims.  Are you suggesting that space will
become a haven for those that are oppressed and persecuted?  Then
you have to find a way of funding the trip, and oppressed and
persecuted people usually have a hard time getting money.  

Magellan?  Would he have gone if he had essentially no hope of
returning in his lifetime, of his children's lifetime, or his
great-great-great... grandchildren's lifetime?  I think not.

    The fact that the data from these observations would take years to
    reach earth is unimportant, since there's no other easy way to gather
    it.

You have a far greater faith in the long-term perspectives of humans
than I do.  Given that it is nearly impossible to get Congress to
even consider two year appropriations for ANYTHING, you are talking
about a climate for scientific inquiry that I cannot imagine in my
wildest dreams.

    One can easily come up with other motivations.  Political or religious
    rivalry, for example.  Some religious systems today have builtin dogma
    that serves to increase the number of members of that religion
    (catholicism vs. birth control, for example).  A religion that had as
    one of its precepts the idea of interstellar colonization would also be
    self propagating.  Motivation here could be that holders of certain
    belief systems desire to have many others agree with them; what better
    way to do that than to fill up the galaxy with 10^20 true believers?

Now this is something I had not considered.  You're right about this
one.  Religious fanatics will do anything.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 84 16:53:24-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger Moved to VAB

Challenger was moved to the VAB today in preparation
for STS-10.

------------------------------

Date: 8 January 1984 23:26 EST
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Mission to Mars -- planetary chauvinism
To: space @ MIT-MC

I also read the Technology Review article on the manned mission to Mars
and was deeply disappointed by it. If that turns into NASA's next big space
project after a space station and lunar station, it will be crowning waste
of effort, opportunity, and time. Like pyramids and palaces.

Now that I've got everybody hot under the collar, let me explain what I mean.
The biggest problem with a manned Mars mission right now is that it doesn't
return very much to earth (so it'd be horrible politically, and we should
learn that lesson from Apollo), and most importantly, it won't get many
of us into space (I really want to go into space once before my life
is up). It's an end unto itself, it doesn't establish much of an
infrastructure for doing much else in space, and it could be blown away
with a turn of the political wind.

The amount of money involved for that Mars mission is probably
adequate to get a space settlement started a la O'Neill's High
Frontier. His idea being that all you really need to start a
settlement that can house thousands of people and build enough solar
polar plants to replace earth-based generated electrical is a lunar
mass driver, an LEO to L5 (or so) mass driver shuttle, a chemical
separation plant for processing lunar ore, and a general purpose
manufacturing facility of fairly small capacity. The key point is that
the manufacturing facility first be used to construct another
separation plant and manufacturing facility (expensive or specialized
components would come from earth so the space based technology
required is not great), and then one would repeat the doublings enough
times until you could crank out anything big you wanted. Settlements,
solar power stations, ships, thousands of people living in space,
plenty of energy for people on earth, no limits to growth, and no way
to stop our exploration and use of space.  Plus, a Mars mission would
be a piece o' cake.

Another point that the Technology Review article assumed was that 
manned bases should be planets. In fact, it would be cheaper and easier 
to build a base in space where you don't have to worry about gravity
or weather or nightfall. If man does succeed to evolving to a space faring
species, he will probably spend most of his time in structures of his
own creation in free space because that's where most of the opportunities
will lie.

------------------------------

Date: 08 Jan 84  2216 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: Palaces and Pyramids on Mars?
To:   space@MIT-MC
CC:   bruc@MIT-ML 

I must agree with Robert Bruccoleri's objections to the Technology Review
article about a manned mission to Mars.  The shorted sightedness of the
so-called space-scientists has always annoyed me, since it is one of the
few serious divisions among the space enthusiasts.  However, I haven't
really worried about it until this recent message reminded me that the
President's science advisor Keyworth has chastized NASA for not being
sufficiently visionary.  I have some faith that the NASA administrators
will not fail us in this matter it is worth thinking about.

In anycase it is probably worth writing a few letters to Technology Review
to let them and their readers know that not everyone thinks that Mars is
the obvious next step.

	Cheers,
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 84 19:38:27-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!cbneb!cbnap!whp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?

The motivation for reproduction should not be defended logically.
Actually, humans (and I suppose other animals) do not select goals
in a logical or even rational manner; in this respect the image many
people have of themselves is false.  Humans are *not* rational
beings, instead they are rationalizing beings.  The difference to
me is that a ration being would chose completely logical, rational
goals and carry them out in a logical and rational way.  A rationalizing
being choses goals to satisfy biological urges, but attempts to
reach that goal through logical means.  There is not defensible,
imperitave motivation for manned exploration of the universe, but
then there is no defensible logial reason for the continued existence
of mankind either.  The urges to explore, gain territory, etc., are
similar to the urge to reproduce.  These urges are programmed into
our genes and historically seem to have been good survival traits.
So it is probably true that many years from now these "stay at home"
stick-in-the-muds will die out of the gene pool.

I am sure that interstellar will happen despite the arguments
of these people when enough people *want* it to happen.

W. H. Pollock

------------------------------

Date: 09 Jan 84  0001 PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: BC-REVIEW-ASTRONOMY 2takes (Undated)   
To:   space@MIT-MC

n044  1217  08 Jan 84
(The Week in Review)
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    
ASTRONOMICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF 1983 - A STELLAR YEAR
    
Old Data Yielded New Insights, New Instruments Unveiled Ancient
Phenomena and
Earth Waved A Very Long Goodbye to the Satellite Pioneer 10.
    
    Earth's rotation is erratic, usually slowing, rarely speeding up. As
a result, scientists must insert ''leap seconds'' every few years to
keep world clocks in step. An extra second was added last year on
June 30. The minute beginning at 7:59 EDT that evening was 61 seconds
long. It was the 12th such second to be added since these kinds of
adjustments began in 1972, when two leap seconds were added to the
year. The variability in the rate of Earth's rotation is believed to
be caused by a number of factors, including friction in the planet's
atmosphere, in the oceans and in the core.
    Without much hoopla, the standard for defining all units of length
in the world was changed by the General Conference on Weights and
Measures in Paris. What has this to do with astronomy? For one, the
definition affects the units of force, wavelength and radio
frequency. For another, the new standard is based on the speed of
light, in part because time-measuring methods are far more precise
than those applied to distances.
    For many decades, all length measurements were based on the meter as
defined by the distance between two scratches on a platinum-iridium
bar stored in a vault at the International Bureau of Weights and
Measures at Sevres, near Paris. Since 1960, length measurements have
been based on a more accurate and more readily available standard -
the wavelength of orange light emitted by the gas krypton 86. Under
the new system, one meter is defined as the distance traveled by
light through a vacuum in one-299,792,458th of a second.
SOME STORM
    -A reanalysis of data from the two Voyager spacecraft that passed
Saturn revealed recordings of a peculiar static. Astronomers said it
was the mark of a gargantuan atmospheric lightning storm 40,000 miles
long, wrapping a sixth of the way around the planet (almost twice
around Earth) and lasting at least 10 months.
    -Information collected by Soviet Venera 13 and 14 landing craft,
together with data from orbiting Pioneer Venus spacecraft, indicated
that Venus should join the list of volcanically active objects in the
solar system. The list includes Earth and Jupiter's moon Io.
    -Triton, a satellite of the planet Neptune, may have a near-global
ocean - not of water but of liquid nitrogen. Scientists at the
University of Hawaii in Honolulu announced that spectral data had
provided ''the first direct evidence for an ocean on an
extraterrestrial body'' - that body being Triton. The other leading
candidate for an ocean is the Saturnian moon Titan, whose seas are
thought to be 70 percent ethane, 25 percent methane and 5 percent
nitrogen.
SOLAR SIGNS
    The appearance of twin dust rings around the Sun, hypothesized as
early as 1927, was recorded by Japanese astronomers over Indonesia
during a solar eclipse. Scientists had theorized that cosmic dust
spiraling in toward the Sun would begin to glow as it grew nearer and
would continue to do so until close enough to evaporate. Given the
geometry of the dust spiral, the glow seems brightest at the outer
and inner edges of the zone.
    The picture was obtained with a video system suspended from a
balloon and a computer-based enhancement process. The glowing region
lies 900,000 to 1,500,000 miles above the solar surface. Scientists
calculated the distance from the Sun at which the inner dust
disappeared and used it as an indication of the ring's vaporization
temperature. From this, they guessed that the dust is a silicate
comparable in composition to quartz.
ASTEROID ALERT
    Asteroids have struck Earth in the past, hurtling from space with
such speed that they vaporized on collision. Astronomical and
geological observations showed last year that large asteroid
collisions can still occur. More than 50 asteroids are known to be in
orbits that might send them charging into Earth, and recent samplings
of the asteroid population signal that the total number of
Earth-threatening asteroids may approach 100,000. Asteroid fragments
weighing about 500 tons plunge into the atmosphere, on average once a
year, but usually break up before hitting the surface.
STAR LIGHTS
    Infrared Astronomy Satellite, an orbiting observatory launched last
January and now out of service, discovered that the star Vega is
surrounded by a giant disk or shell of material. Scientists at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology
hailed the discovery as the first direct evidence of solid objects
orbiting a star other than the Sun. Some astronomers suggested that
the shell may be an early planetary system in formation.
    Vega is near our solar system, only 26 light years - or about 156
trillion miles - away. It is the brightest star in the constellation
Lyra (the Harp) and the third brightest star in the night sky. It is
thought to be less than a billion years old, less than one-fourth the
age of the Sun and its family of planets. Vega's properties have
turned it into an astronomical measuring piece on which scientists
train instruments to test equipment sensitivity. That's what
astronomers were doing with IRAS when they found the Vegan shell.
    Data from the infrared satellite also indicate that cool, solid
material may be orbiting the star called Fomalhaut, the brightest
star in the constellation Piscis Austrinus and one of the 20
brightest in the heavens. It can be seen in the winter sky with the
unaided eye.
THE UNIVERSE...
    A new variation on a recent theme of the cosmos' formation, the
''inflationary universe,'' was unveiled. The revised inflationary
model postulates, in part, that the universe did not start with a big
bang, but bubbled up out of virtually nothing and then suddenly
inflated to astronomical proportions. Dr.Alan H. Guth of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed the first inflationary
model several years ago.
    Meanwhile, cosmic surveys by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, along with some fancy computer modeling, led
cosmologists to picture the current universe as a piece of Swiss
cheese, with the force of gravity making particles of matter clump
together into long filaments and flat, pancake-like structures.
Between these areas of dense matter are bubbles of largely empty
space. The model assumes that neutrinos, atomic particles thought to
constitute about 90 percent of all matter in the universe, have some
mass and therefore clump together.
...AND BEYOND
    Pioneer 10, the satellite launched March 3, 1972 from Cape
Canaveral, Fla., left the outer limits of the planetary system. No
human artifact had ever traveled so far. Its next stop - no one
knows. According to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, ground-based antennas should maintain communications
for eight years more, to a distance of five billion miles. Scientists
hope that in the time remaining the satellite will detect gravity
waves, the gravitational radiation that in theory emanates from
cataclysmic events, such as exploding stars, but in practice has not
been found. When it does turn a blind eye toward Earth, the craft
will carry on with a message for passersby - a plaque engraved with
images of a man, a woman, Earth's location and some terrestrial
scientific ABC's.
    In November 1988, the satellite Voyager 1, which was launched five
and a half years ago, will become the first spacecraft to cross the
orbits of all nine planets in the solar system. (Pioneer's path took
it outside Pluto's orbit.) Voyager 2 and Pioneer 11 are also swinging
out beyond the outer planets.
METEORIC RISE
    The Murchison meteorite, which fell on Australia in 1969, gave up
one of its greatest secrets - that it contains the five chemical
bases of human genes. Scientists at the University of Maryland's
Laboratory of Chemical Evolution said their detection of the bases -
precursors of life - and their ability to synthesize all five in a
single experiment simulating primordial conditions on Earth, boosted
the theory that terrestrial life arose by comparatively simple,
natural chemical processes.
    Their success further suggested that life may have arisen by the
same processes elsewhere in the universe, wherever the appropriate
conditions existed.
COMET TRIALS
    A new comet, named for its discoverers Sugano-Saigusa-Fujikawa, and
passing unusually close to Earth, was discovered as another comet,
IRAS-Araki-Alcock, receded from Earth. IRAS-Araki-Alcock passed
within 2.9 million miles of the planet - closer than any other comet
since 1770. Sugano-Saigusa-Fugikawa came within about 6 million miles.
    Astronomers also estimated that the total number of comets roaming
the outer reaches of the solar system, beyond the outer planets, may
be at least 2 trillion - far more than the 100 billion previously
imagined. The recalculation resulted in part from the discovery of
several comets traversing the inner solar system. Most comets were
thought to be slowly circling the Sun far beyond the outer planets.
Finding these inner system trespassers hinted that other comets are
nearby successfully escaping detection from Earth.
    
nyt-01-08-84 1521est
***************

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 84 21:00:00-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!watmath!looking!brad @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Astronaut requirements
In-Reply-To: Article <15152@sri-arpa.UUCP>

It interests me that all astronaut requirements ask for people in the
peak of physical health.   Now, while there is nothing wrong with good health,
I think they should deliberately send up people with average health.

(I am not referring to the astronauts but rather to the mission specialists)

All these space-sickness experiments being performed right now are going on
with prime physical specimens.  We need to find out what the effects of space
are on out-of-shape people, too.  Thus people should not be rejected from
the mission specialist program just because they don't run twenty miles a day.
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 84 21:54:19-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Terraforming?  Astroforming! - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1506300:ucbesvax:8700011:000:393
ucbesvax!turner    Jan  7 18:30:00 1984

The idea of igniting a self-sustaining fusion process in the Jovian
core (thereby turning our solar system into a binary-star system)
is interesting--but would not make the Jovian planets more habitable.
There is already too much radiation coming from Jupiter to make
surface life on the larger (inner) planets of that system a working
proposition.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #87
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Terraforming?  Astroforming!
		  Apology for UCLA mail hiccup in V4 #86
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 1984 8:20-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: randvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner%Usc-Cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Subject: Re: Terraforming?  Astroforming!
Via:  Usc-Cse; 10 Jan 84 08:37:32

   (ucbvax!usbesvax.turner)
   The idea of igniting a self-sustaining fusion process in the Jovian
   core (thereby turning our solar system into a binary-star system)
   is interesting--but would not make the Jovian planets more habitable.
   There is already too much radiation coming from Jupiter to make
   surface life on the larger (inner) planets of that system a working
   proposition.

Actually, I wasn't proposing igniting Jupiter, just heating it up a
bit.  Remove the catalyst and it'll cool down again.

Jupiter is much too cold to emit any harmful radiation (the harmful UV
from the sun comes from the corona, not the surface).  The radiation
you're referring to is the swarm of high energy particles trapped in
Jupiter's magnetic field.  Compared to heating Jupiter, getting rid of
these particles is a trivial problem.

One technique is to create a ring around Jupiter by pulverizing an
asteroid.  The ring particles absorb the high energy electrons and
protons (as they do around Saturn).  Distortions can be induced in
planetary magnetospheres, causing trapped particles to hit the planet.
This was done around Earth in the 1960's with nuclear explosions.  The
terraformed jovian moons could be equiped with artificial magnetic
fields.  The core of Jupiter could be heated in such a way as to
manipulate convection there, altering the Jovian magnetic field to
reduce particle trapping.

 

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 10 Jan 84 10:02:45 PST
From:           Rich Wales <v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS>
To:             Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Subject:        Apology for UCLA mail hiccup in V4 #86

Due to a transient system problem on the ARPANET host UCLA-CS, the en-
tire contents of Volume 4, Issue 85 of the SPACE digest was accidentally
returned as undeliverable -- which caused it to be retransmitted as part
of Volume 4, Issue 86.

The problem in question has since been fixed.  My apologies for any in-
convenience caused thereby.

-- Rich Wales <v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS>
   (UCLA Computer Science Department mail guru)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #88
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
			   height requirements
		 Lunar landings, cold mining, launchings
			    Why nuke planets?
			  Re: Deuterium on Venus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Wednesday, 11 January 1984 09:34 est
From:  Chris Jones <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  height requirements
To:  Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840111143423.136768@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

re the comment "All space suits are custom made":  not true anymore!
The era of off the rack space suits has arrived.  According to the Space
Shuttle Operator's Hnadbook, suits come in "several" standard sizes,
with straps inside to adjust them for fit.  They don't say how many
"several" is, but do mention that there are fifteen glove sizes
available.  Still, I don't see this as preventing people who are too
small for any of the standard sizes from riding the shuttle, since only
two crew members are equipped with suits, while the rest have to climb
into those rescue balls in the event of cabin decompression.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 1984 11:03-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Lunar landings, cold mining, launchings

Last month I sent a message describing an idea by Krafft Ehricke to
land payloads on the lunar surface.  It involved skidding the payloads
on a long strip of lunar soil at orbital velocity (about 1650 m/sec).
A difficulty is sifting the lunar soil to remove rocks from the top
1/2 to 1 meter.  But this may not be necessary.  The rocks could be
removed by a special vehicle.

The vehicle would have pipes that would be extended several meters into
the lunar soil.  Around the outside of the vehicle is a gas-tight skirt
that would be anchored in the soil.  Gas would be injected into the
lunar soil through the pipes.  Sufficient gas flow would liquify the
soil, causing large objects such as rocks to sink.  Smaller soil
particles would be buoyed by the gas flow.  Gas would be collected
under the skirt for recirculation.  Care must be taken not to let the
vehicle sink.  Subsurface lunar soil is quite cold, so the gas will
have to reheated, probably with sunlight.  Or, the cold gas could be
used as a heat sink to increase the efficiency of solar powered heat
engines.

Another way to sift the soil would be to give the soil particles
electrical charges.  The particles repel one another, allowing large
rocks to sink.  This suggest a novel form of earth moving possible only
in a vacuum:  spray the soil to be removed with an electron beam while
giving a soil collector a positive charge.  Lack of moving parts should
help reliability.

I previously proposed using an aluminum strip to levitate rockets for
lunar launches.  Samarium-cobalt magnets should be sufficiently light
to make the scheme practical.  For extra efficiency, high launch
accelerations could be used (10 gee's, say), and the strip could be
covered by a gas-tight tunnel ~14 km long.  The rocket would use lunar
oxygen and imported hydrogen as fuel; the water produced by combustion
would be trapped in the tunnel, recovered and the hydrogen recycled.
The tunnel would have gas tight doors on the east end which would
close after launch to trap the water.  This scheme will help keep a
lunar atmosphere from developing.

 

------------------------------

Date: Wed 11 Jan 84 21:13:58-EST
From: Anthony J. Courtemanche <AC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Why nuke planets?
To: space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC

I hope I do not sound like I'm flaming but I am a bit concerned with
this talk of significantly altering our solar system.

What gives us the right to nuke Venus or any other planet or moon in
the hopes that it will make it habitable?  We have done much to
destroy Terra's ecology, so now we must work on other places??!! It
seems to me that until Mankind learns to be responsible enough to take
care of his own planet, he should lay off trying to change other
planets to suit his needs.


					Anthony
					ac@mit-oz
-------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 84 16:29:28-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Deuterium on Venus
In-Reply-To: Article <14945@sri-arpa.UUCP> 3 January 1984, <730@ssc-vax.UUCP>

     Let us say you wanted to raise the temperature by a factor of 4.
     This requires 64 times as much incident intensity.  Assume that
     this is gotten from solar sails in Venus vicinity.  They need a 
     total surface area of 7.24 billion km**2.  If their thickness is
     .15 microns, then the volume of material required is only 1.1 km**3,
     not an unreasonable quantity.

And we wave a fond farewell to the lightsails as they accelerate into 
the darkness of interstellar space.


(may not make too much sense towards the end, but it sounds good)

(hint: divide 7.24 billion km**2 light pressure at Venus by the mass 
 of 1.1 km**3 of material, and use F = ma).

Bruce Giles
---------------------------------------------
UUCP:		decvax!ucf-cs!giles
cs-net:		giles@ucf
ARPA:		giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay
Snail:		University of Central Florida 
		Dept of Math, POB 26000
		Orlando Fl 32816
---------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #89
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Space Highlights of 1983
			   What about Cavemen?
			       terraforming
		     Re: Terraforming? Astroforming!
			   "Rights" of planets?
				  Venus
			      Planet rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 84 9:42:18-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihdev!rck @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Highlights of 1983

> 				. . .
>
>    Earth's rotation is erratic, usually slowing, rarely speeding up. As
>  result, scientists must insert ''leap seconds'' every few years to
>  keep world clocks in step.
>
>				. . .

Question:

	When has it ever been necessary to REMOVE ''leap seconds''?


					R. C. Kukuk

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 84 16:16:43-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: What about Cavemen?

We talk about orbitting space stations, going to build a lunar Base,
going on manned Mars Missions, etc.  It seems to me that the easiest
way to go for a long time/permanent stay in space would be through
asteroids.  Wouldn't it be easier to use a low-level neuclear device
to blast a hole (cave) in an asteroid.  Come back in three years.  the
heat from the detonation should have fused the walls giving an
air-tight seal.  Put in an airlock, and pump in air, and you have
living quarters.  Put a few solar panels in on the surface, and you
have power.  Crush some of the rocks, and you have soil, and plant and
you have crops.  We can recycle the water, or perhaps find a water
pocket on that asteroid, or on a nearby asteroid.  Does this seem so
unreasonable.  I would also say that it is probable as possible to get
from here to the asteroid belt as it is to get from here to the
gravity well of Mars, and back out of the gravity well again.  Well,
where are the holes in my arguement, or then why aren't they doing it?


                                          Walt Pesch
                                    AT&T Western Electric
				      AT&T Technologies
                                     ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 84 21:55:47-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: terraforming

Why mess around with terraforming?  It looks expensive, dangerous,
and somewhat useless.  How about staying up in our space colonies
with variable gravity, 24 hour a day sunshine, controlled climate,
and all the comforts of home.  We can enjoy the view, get ready
for generational ships to the asteroid field of Vega, and maybe
avoid screwing the solar system up.

I must admit terraforming is fun to speculate on, but lets keep
it theoretical folks.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 84 15:04:00 PST
From: David Alpern <Alpern.Ibm-Sj@Rand-Relay>
Return-Path: <ALPERN.SJRLVM4.IBM-SJ@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Re: Terraforming? Astroforming!
To: Space-Enthusiasts@Mit-Mc
In-Reply-To: Message of 10 Jan 1984 8:20-PST from dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@Sri-Nic

                                    ....  Distortions can be induced in
     planetary magnetospheres, causing trapped particles to hit the planet.
     This was done around Earth in the 1960's with nuclear explosions....
 
It was????  I'd be interested in hearing more about this.  Was this a side
effect of some of the missile testing, or was this done on purpose?  If the
latter, why?
 
- Dave

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 1984 7:10-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: ac%mit-oz@mit-mc
Cc: space@mit-mc
Subject: "Rights" of planets?

   What gives us the right to nuke Venus or any other planet or moon in
   the hopes that it will make it habitable?  We have done much to
   destroy Terra's ecology, so now we must work on other places??!! It
   seems to me that until Mankind learns to be responsible enough to take
   care of his own planet, he should lay off trying to change other
   planets to suit his needs.

One could argue that since Man has messed up Earth, we should try to
make up for it by building ecologies on previously lifeless planets.  I
disagree strongly with the idea that inanimate matter has "rights", as
you seem to imply.  Absent this idea, it's hard to object to
terraforming, except perhaps for esthetic reasons.

 

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 1984 7:35-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Venus

A excellent book on Venus (title "Venus") has just been published by
the U. of Arizona Press.  Authors are Hunten, Colin, Donahue and Moroz.
It's over 1100 pages long and is *the* source book for Venus data.

About terraforming Venus:  Oberg has proposed terraforming the planet
with sunshades and imported hydrogen from the moons of Saturn (Phoebe
looks good, the rings are too deep in Saturn's gravity well).  I notice
that an intermediate stage in the terraforming process would involve a
high pressure ocean on Venus's surface, with a temperature of 200-260
degrees C.  Importing only a fraction of the hydrogen necessary for
full terraforming would still give some surface water, which would be
fairly acidic.  Water (especially high temperature acidic water) is
vital to most ore-forming processes on Earth (gold, for example, is
concentrated by superheated water to form "hydrothermal" deposits); on
Venus, the newly condensed oceans would circulate through the still hot
subsurface rocks, generating massive fluid flow, steam, geysers, etc.
As a result, rare elements could very well become highly concentrated
in ore deposits on Venus's surface.  These concentration processes
cannot take place in asteroids or the moon, so Venus, Earth and Mars
may be the only sources of concentrated rare elements in the solar
system.  The ore formation process would be accelerated by fracturing
Venus's crust (to increase the surface area of the water/rock
interface);  asteroid impacts or nuclear explosions would do the trick.
If it turns out that Venus's crust is deficient in desired heavy
elements then asteroids could be landed there to "cook" in the ocean.

Someone who objects to terraforming Venus is really going to object to
turning Venus into a mega-stripmine.  The economic justification looks
good, though, even if space colonies make terraforming for colonization
redundant.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 12 Jan 84 12:30:10-EST
From: Anthony J. Courtemanche <AC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Planet rights.
To: dietz%usc-cse%usc-ecl@SRI-NIC.ARPA
cc: space@MIT-MC

My point was not that planets have rights.  My point is that ruining
the earth is not a good basis for trying things out on another planet.
Until Mankind can restore what he has destroyed, and DOES RESTORE HIS
DESTRUCTION, I don't think he is in any shape to try and start anew
somewhere else.  I would rather wait till we prove to ourselves that
we can be responsible with our world before spreading our cancer to
another one.  Would you like to prolong man's survival at the expence
of disposible planets or would you like a responsible civilization
that can survive with what it has?  I prefer the latter.

					Anthony
					ac@mit-oz

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #90
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:
		   Cavemen, terraforming, magnetosphere
			 Shuttle launch Spectator
	      Re: Re: Interstellar manned spaceflight - (nf)
			      Apollo Trivia
			     Magnetic torque
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 1984 7:30-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Cavemen, terraforming, magnetosphere

   ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch @ Ucb-Vax:
   Wouldn't it be easier [to use asteroids]?

I think the problem with asteroids is that they're hard to move.  The
current asteroid recovery schemes involve bringing back to Earth orbit
a 100 meter diameter carbonaceous asteroid massing one to two million
tons.  Also, exploding a nuclear bomb inside an asteroid will probably
destroy the asteroid, not carve out a hole, unless the blast is deep
inside a large asteroid.  Underground nuclear blasts on Earth are kept
confined by the weight of the overlying rock.

Asteroid recovery from the asteroid belt is currently not feasible, due
to the large delta-vee and long flight times required.  Earth-crossers
are another matter; some recently discovered Apollo-Amor asteroids look
very attractive as sources of siderophile metals (such as platinum),
and many more will be discovered.  Unmanned asteroid probes are needed
before billions are spent on a manned mission, if only to find out for
sure what the things are made of.

   menlo!ames-lm!al @Ucb-Vax
   Why mess around with terraforming?

Why indeed?  I personally prefer space colonies.  It's interesting to
note that it *can* be done, if people want to pay for it.  As a
previous message stated there may be reasons for partially terraforming
Venus even if no one wants to live there.

To David Alpern (Alpern.Ibm-Sj@Rand-Relay):  The explosion of nuclear
devices in the ionosphere occured in the 1961-1963 in Projects Argus and
Starfish.  Exploded at alltitudes of 100 km, the explosions dumped
lots of charged particles into the ionosphere, which in some cases
caused the Earth's radiation belts to overload and collapse.

 

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 84 14:23:03-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!ths @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle launch Spectator

Can anyone tell me how to go about getting a "reservation" for the VIP
area to view a shuttle launch at the Cape?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 84 1:27:09-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!zehntel!root @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: Interstellar manned spaceflight - (nf)

<enter Sarcasm Mode>

"Someone recently commented that manned, intercontinental trips would be
made before the turn of the century.  I agree that the technology will
be available, and the question of "Why?" doesn't bother me.  The problem
is that, assuming that faster-than-wind travel is not available, by the
time the ocean travellers get anywhere in their 15th century ship, they
will have been passed by 16th century travellers using more advanced,
16th century transportation systems.  The early travellers would waste
several years, only to arrive at an already established colony.

"It's one thing to test out hardware in lake missions or Europe-Britain
missions, but missions that never return are another story.  That's why
it was feasible to send longboats crafts to Iceland, rather than simply
waiting for the clipper ship.  Intercontinental travel is a situation where
I think we should wait for reasonable technology.  The first river
crossing wasn't on a log.  The first manned, deep ocean crossing
shouldn't be in a primitive craft either."

		--Gary

I've got news for you Gary.  By all accounts, the first
ocean crossings were done either by the Phoenicians in
something very much like a large canoe, or by the
Polynesians in a RAFT.  If everyone thought like you
we'd never get anything done.

Berry Kercheval		Zehntel Inc.
(ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry)
(415)932-6900

------------------------------

Date: 13 January 1984 22:21 EST
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
To: ac @ MIT-OZ
cc: space @ MIT-MC

Frankly, I don't see any way of restoring the earth's ecology to a
more healthly state unless we tap extra-terrestrial resources soon. We
do not have the energy capacity in easily accessible form that will
permit the improvements in standards of living for most of the world
so that population growth can be stopped.  (Rich, educated people have
few children than poor, illiterate ones and energy will be at the root
of future development) To clean up the various industries responsible
for pollution, we also need cheap energy. Because I can't go into
detail about these arguments, I refer you to Gerard K. O'Neill's
The High Frontier which addresses many of the points you raised although
from a much more optimistic and pragmatic point of view.

I would opt for good living rather than just surviving; I would opt for
good living for all of mankind, not just Europe, North America, and
the Western Pacific; I would opt for a living earth getting resources from
lifeless asteroids and planets.

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 13 Jan 84 08:36 EST
From: Alexander Wolf <wolf%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
Return-Path: <wolf%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@CSNet-Relay>
Subject:  Apollo Trivia
To: space@mit-mc
Via:  UMASS-CS; 13 Jan 84 19:46-EST

I was once told that Armstrong's famous "first words" were not, as commonly
accepted, "This is one small step for Man, one giant leap for Mankind," but
rather "This is one small step for *a* man, one giant leap for Mankind.
(note the article "a").

Apparently the voice-activated transmitter ate the "a."  To me, the latter
version makes more sense anyway (what's the real difference between Man
and Mankind?).

Can anyone confirm or deny this for me?

                                                         Alex.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 84  0025 PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: Magnetic torque
To:   space@MIT-MC

n009  0652  13 Jan 84   
BC-PATENTS-COLUMN
(BizDay)
By STACY V. JONES
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - Improved control of its communication satellites that
orbit around the world has been invented for the RCA Corp. Patent
4,424,948, assigned to the company, was granted this week to three
technical staff members. The system is called magnetic torquing.
    One problem frequently encountered by spacecraft is nutation, or
undesirable wobbling, and another is the need to maintain proper
attitude, or pointing, of the craft. Magnetic torquing, an answer to
both problems, involves passing current through coils on the
satellite, which interacts with the earth's magnetic field. The roll
and yaw errors are minimized.
    The inventors are Ludwig Muhlfelder and Kevin J. Phillips of the RCA
Astroelectronics Division in East Windsor, N.J., and Steven L.
Blasnik of Cambridge, Mass.
    Since 1958, RCA has launched 82 satellites and 12 of them are still
in operation. Those most recently launched are called Satcoms, and
the invention has been installed in five of these. Space is leased to
various companies and is used for transmission of radio and
television programs, weather data and other information.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #91
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:
			    Challenger at Pad
			     RE: space moped
			   "Rights" of planets?
		     Terraforming vs. Space Stations
			 Re: What about Cavemen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 84 12:50:48-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger at Pad

The Challenger was moved to pad 39A today in preparation
for its 3 February liftoff.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 84 18:24:24-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: RE: space moped

NASA has already built a space moped and plans to test it on the
next shuttle flight.  It's called the MMU, mannued manuvering unit.
Watch for it on your TV around Feb. 6th or so.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1984  12:46 EST (Sat)
Message-ID: <DMS.11983582804.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Siegel <DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
To:   dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC.ARPA
Cc:   ac%mit-oz@MIT-MC, space@MIT-MC
Subject: "Rights" of planets?

    From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL at SRI-NIC
    Re:   "Rights" of planets?

       What gives us the right to nuke Venus or any other planet or moon in
       the hopes that it will make it habitable?  We have done much to
       destroy Terra's ecology, so now we must work on other places??!! It
       seems to me that until Mankind learns to be responsible enough to take
       care of his own planet, he should lay off trying to change other
       planets to suit his needs.

    One could argue that since Man has messed up Earth, we should try to
    make up for it by building ecologies on previously lifeless planets.  I
    disagree strongly with the idea that inanimate matter has "rights", as
    you seem to imply.  Absent this idea, it's hard to object to
    terraforming, except perhaps for esthetic reasons.

Who is to say that Venus is certainly a lifeless, inanimate object
anyway?  In the early days of our planet's life it too may have seemed
worthless.  If some other lifeform came along back then and attempted
a major experiment on this planet, we might not be around today.
Don't forget, nature has always seemed to be wiser than humans in the
past!

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 84 15:22:45-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Terraforming vs. Space Stations

I think the point to see is that it will be necessary to have industry
established in space in a very large scale to support free-standing
from celestial body space stations.  This support should definately
come from asteroids.  You have a surface to work without having to
import one.  You have raw materials.  Energy is free through solar
power.  I think economically this is the feasible way to support
free-standing space stations, not from the gravity well of Earth or
any other major gravity well.

                                          Walt Pesch
                                    AT&T Western Electric
				      AT&T Technologies
                                     ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 84 14:06:38-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: What about Cavemen?

One problem is mutual support.  Ideally we would have a number of fairly
independent colonies close enough to offer support, if necessary. (I guess
you could describe it as -- I don't want to be so close to you that
whatever almost kills you almost kills me also, but I want to be close enough
that whenever I am almost killed you can help keep me alive.  The case of the
pronouns is not insignificant).

If you work through the orbital mechanics, I suspect (but do not know) that
heliocentric orbits in the astroid belt cannot be in such a relationship
indefinitely.  That is, if we start out separated by 10k km, for instance,
then unless we follow the exact same orbit (and how many of those are
there?), we will tend to separate instead of pull together.

Of course, for the case of geocentric and lunacentric (??) orbits, a nice
separation is possible without becoming *too* separated.  However, you're
right back in the neighborhood of the earth, and not off by Mars, or for
the adventurous, Hoboken. :-)


Bruce Giles
---------------------------------------
UUCP:		decvax!ucf-cs!giles
cs-net:		giles@ucf
ARPA:		giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay
---------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #92
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:
	  Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
			To the stars -- but when?
		  Re: SPACE Digest V4 #90 Apollo Trivia
		     Re: Terraforming?  Astroforming!
			     Apollo 13 Query
			Re: n009  0652  13 Jan 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 January 1984 13:55 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
To: ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 13 Jan 84 15:22:45-PST (Fri)
    From: ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch @ Ucb-Vax
    ...  I think economically [asteroids] is the feasible way to support
    free-standing space stations, not from the gravity well of Earth or
    any other major gravity well.

On the other hand, there's an awful lot of oxygen on the moon, and lots of
aluminum silicon and titanium also, and the moon is at a constant distance
from Earth, closer than virtually any "Earth-crossing" asteroid, and its
surface has already been surveyed in a few spots so we're not guessing.
Therefore, if we can get a mass-driver working on the moon which runs
automatically without humans on the premises, tossing moondirt into space
then moving to a new location to find some more lose moondirt, let's not
ignore the Moon. I say use Moon for supplying all materials it has in
abundance, taking advantage of its easy location (albeit uneasy gravity
well, but I think we can overcome that with mass driver), and also use the
asteroids, for the stuff they have in abundance (iron, carbon, hydrogen,
etc.; but we don't know for sure yet, none has yet been surveyed).  Ok?

But I concur that processing and fabriction should be done in zero-gee
mostly, not on the Moon. Collect moondirt and asteroid-chunks in low lunar
orbit or at L5 or elsewhere in Earth/Moon vicinity, and do processing
there.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 1984 10:40-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: To the stars -- but when?

Actually, I predicted that there would be manned interstellar flights
before the end of the NEXT century, not this century.  There may be
unmanned interstellar probes launched before the end of this century,
but I think it unlikely.

 

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 84 15:05:21 PST (Sunday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #90 Apollo Trivia
In-reply-to: Alexander Wolf <wolf%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Grantham.PA<wolf%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay.ARPA>
From: Tod <Grantham.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>

Alex,
   Your informant was correct.  From the book FIRST ON THE MOON by Gene
Farmer and Dora Jane Hamblin (copyright 1970 by Little, Brown and
Company Inc.):


   " At 9:56 PM, Houston time, Neil Armstrong stepped out of the dish-
   shaped landing pad and onto the surface of the moon: ' THAT'S ONE
   SMALL STEP FOR A MAN, ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MANKIND'" (page 321)

   footnote 1: " Mission Control in Houston recorded Neil Armstrong as
   saying ' That's one small step for man...' without the article 'a.'
   Tape recorders are fallible.  When Charles 'Pete' Conrad, the flight
   commander of Apollo 12, stepped onto the moon on November 19, 1969,
   he paraphrased the quotation: 'Whoopee, man, that may have been a
   small step for Neil, but that's a long one for me.'" (page 509)



						Tod Grantham
						Xerox Corp.
						Palo Alto Research Center

------------------------------

	id AA23382; Sun, 15 Jan 84 17:38:33 pst
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 84 17:38:28 pst
From: turner%ucbesvax@Berkeley (Michael Turner)
Message-Id: <8401160138.AA04905@ucbesvax.ARPA>
	id AA04905; Sun, 15 Jan 84 17:38:28 pst
To: decvax!dietz@Berkeley, space@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Terraforming?  Astroforming!
Cc: randvax!ucbesvax.turner@Berkeley

Thanks for the correction.  There remains the problem of equipping
the appropriate Jovian moon with s suitable atmosphere.  Any ideas
on that one?

-mike

------------------------------

From: John Shore <shore@NRL-CSS>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 84 21:01:27 EST
To: space at Mit-Mc
Subject: Apollo 13 Query
Cc: shore at NRL-CSS


Does anyone out there remember details about the cause of the Apollo 13
explosion?  My vague recollection is that one engineer's assumption about 
the current on a particular line was violated when a change was made.  
The resulting interface mismatch led to overheating and then to the 
explosion.  Anyway, I would like to get my facts straight.  If there's 
an easily available report (Aviation Week?), a reference would be 
sufficient.  Please reply direct to shore@nrl-css.  Thanks in advance.  

John Shore
shore@nrl-css

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 84 9:44:34-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: n009  0652  13 Jan 84
In-Reply-To: Article <15444@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Funny how magnetic torquing has been used on dozens of non-RCA satellites over
the past 25 years.  AMSAT-Oscar-10, the amateur radio satellite launched
last summer, uses it exclusively.

I never thought somebody could patent the electric motor.  Maybe I
should try for one on the electromagnet.

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #93
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:
		 Re: interstellar misquote of Dietz by me
		      Re: Re:   "Rights" of planets?
			 Re: "Rights" of planets?
			     Right of planet?
			   destroying planets?
			      Made in Space
			     Satellite killer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 84 11:05 EST
From: Gocek.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: interstellar misquote of Dietz by me
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc:

Sorry, I misread the century that you thought the first interstellar
flight would occur in.

By the way, open minded scientists, please stop beating the Phoenicians
and their ocean crossing canoes down my throat.  I made a mistake when I
stated that the first oceanic crossing was not in a canoe.

I still won't go on an interstellar flight that won't return.

Gary

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 84 11:28:50 EST (Monday)
From: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Re:   "Rights" of planets?
In-reply-to: DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA's message
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

"If some other lifeform came along back then and attempted a major
experiment on this planet, we might not be around today."


But then again, that might be why we ARE around today.  By the same
logic you use, I shouldn't clean my bathtub in order to keep the
descendents of the bacteria therein around, even though they seem
worthless today.

					Chris

------------------------------

Date: Mon 16 Jan 84 11:27:04-CST
From: Art Flatau <CMP.FLATAU@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: "Rights" of planets?
To: space@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "David Siegel <DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>" of Sun 15 Jan 84 06:05:50-CST

    Who is to say that Venus is certainly a lifeless, inanimate object
    anyway?  In the early days of our planet's life it too may have seemed
    worthless.  If some other lifeform came along back then and attempted
    a major experiment on this planet, we might not be around today.
    Don't forget, nature has always seemed to be wiser than humans in the
    past!

Who's to say that some other lifeform came along, and did attempt a major
experiment on this planet and that's why we are around today.

Just a thought!
-------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 1984 20:06:22-EST
From: Marty.Uram at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Right of planet?

Date: 16 Jan 1984 8:15 EST
From: Marty Uram @CMU-RI-FAS
To:Space bboard
Subject: Siegel on "'Right' of planet?"

	from Siegel<DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>

	Who is to say that Venus is certainly a lifeless, inanimate
	object anyway?  In the early days of our planet's life it
	too may have seemed worthless.  If some other lifeform came
	along back then and attempted a major experiment on this 
	planet, we might not be around today.  Don't forget, nature
	has always seemed to be wiser than humans in the past!

Who's to say we "humans" aren't the result of some other lifeform's
"major experiment?"

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 84 11:28:56-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: destroying planets?

What is the difference between "destroying" an environment and 
"changing" an environment?

I suspect that what I see as "controlling my environment" and thereby
ensuring the survival of my progeny (and thereby, the human race)
might very well be something like the sort of desctruction others
have derided.

I believe that humans are more valuable than uninhabited planets.
I amke no immediate claim that this is logical, and in fact suspect
it is at essence a religious question.  However, anyone who believes 
that mankind shouldn't change things to suit themselves is cordially
invited to stay the hell outa my garden.

Charlie Martin

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 17 January 1984 05:47:05 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc
Subject: Made in Space
Message-ID: <1984.1.17.10.45.26.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>

a028  0120  17 Jan 84
PM-Made in Space, Bjt,500
'Made in Space' Label to Appear Soon
By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Plastic beads so tiny that millions fit in bottles
smaller than your little finger will earn NASA $210,000 next year as
the first commercial product entitled to the label: Made in Space.
    Nowhere else could they have been made uniform and perfectly round.
They were created in four flights of the space shuttle, and the only
thing that remains before they can be put to use is that they be
measured and their size guaranteed.
    In the hands of medical researchers, the beads will be put to such
exotic uses as measuring the ''exit channels'' of the eyes of glaucoma
victims and determining the size of the pores of stomach and
intestinal walls in cancer studies. They will be used to calibrate
industrial and electronic instruments and devices that measure
pollution.
    With ceremony appropriate to the occasion, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration soon will turn over 25 grams of beads - less
than one ounce - to the National Bureau of Standards. The bureau will
certify their 10 micrometer size within one hundred-millionth of a
meter, said Stan Raspberry, chief of the office of standard reference
materials.
    A micrometer equals one-millionth of a meter.
    When that project is completed in 1985, the beads will be divided
into 600 units and sold to private researchers for $350 a unit.
    While technology developed for space has found applications on
Earth, the latex beads created in the shuttle's ''monodisperse latex
reactor'' are the first true space products to find commercial uses.
There are many more such products to follow, however, including drugs
made with a purity obtainable only in space.
    On Earth, it is possible only to make latex beads up to three
micrometers because gravity tends to make larger sizes egg-shaped and
irregular. The beads created in the microgravity in which the shuttle
flies can be made in uniform, perfectly round sizes in large
quantities.
    John W. Vanderhoff, a professor of chemistry at Lehigh University in
Pennsylvania and chief scientist of the latex bead producing project,
said the beads will be made in ever-larger sizes on four future
flights.
    He compared the manufacture to the seeding process in which oysters
are forced to create pearls.
    ''The pearl oyster gets a grain that acts as an irritant,'' he said.
''In this, we prepare a nucleus and it grows to larger size.'' The
beads are made of polystyrenes, the same material used in foam
drinking cups.
    ''Let's say you are interested in calibrating an electronic particle
counter in a hospital,'' he said. ''It's desirable to calibrate it
once in a while with a particle of known size.''
    Raspberry said eventually the Bureau of Standards expects to certify
space-produced spheres of 30 and 100 micrometers.
    To measure the tiny spheres, technicians at the bureau will use a
number of sophisticated methods. One technique uses the angle at which
light is scattered off the beads to record the diameter of the beads.
Another uses a scanning electron microscope.
    The beads then will go into the bureau's inventory of materials that
are yardsticks against which similar materials are measured.
    
ap-ny-01-17 0420EST
***************

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 17 January 1984 05:55:38 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc, arms-d@mc
Subject: Satellite killer
Message-ID: <1984.1.17.10.54.25.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>

a019  2345  16 Jan 84
PM-Anti-Satellite, Bjt,510
Force Ready To Test Satellite Killer
By TIM AHERN
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - After months of delay, the Air Force is ready to
flight test its new satellite killer - a weapon launched from a
fighter jet which hunts down and explodes objects in space.
    The Pentagon says it needs the weapon to keep pace with the Soviets,
but arms control advocates fear it will lead to a new weapons race.
    The U.S. anti-satellite weapon will be fired from under a
high-flying F-15 jet and the first two stages of the three-stage
weapon will be ignited, but no warhead will be exploded, according to
officials who declined to be identified.
    The test, which may be this week, has been scheduled since last
summer, but was postponed because of operational problems which now
appear to have been solved, the officials said.
    In later tests, the weapon's effectiveness will be judged as it is
fired against high-altitude balloons.
    The Soviet Union and the United States rely heavily on satellites
for communications and reconnaissance, particularly in systems
designed to warn against nuclear attack.
    The U.S. anti-satellite system, designed to be operating by 1987,
has become more controversial in recent months as arms control
advocates argue that it may touch off an expensive new round of
weapons competition by the two superpowers.
    Last year, as it approved the Pentagon's budget authorization bill,
Congress banned all tests ''against objects in space'' until the
White House tried to negotiate a ban of such weapons with the Soviet
Union. But the Pentagon has interpreted the language to allow the
first round of flight tests.
    Soviet President Yuri Andropov last year called for negotiations to
limit the weapons.
    While the United States officially said it would study any serious
Soviet proposal, U.S. officials have cautioned that such a treaty
would be difficult to verify and there are no current negotiations
under way.
    The $4 billion U.S. system uses an 18-foot, three-stage rocket slung
beneath an F-15, the top Air Force fighter, that fires it from about
60,000 feet. The rocket then hunts down its target and explodes it.
    The Soviets, by contrast, have an anti-satellite weapon which
Pentagon officials say is operational, but which arms control
advocates say is far less effective than the U.S. plan.
    The Soviet weapon, launched atop a large booster rocket, goes into
low orbit, maneuvers near its target, and then explodes, destroying
both itself and the target, according to Pentagon officials. About
half of the 20 tests the Soviets have conducted since 1968 have been
successful, according to published figures.
    The Soviet system, according to Pentagon officials who declined to
be named, is relatively cumbersome, since the time it takes to prepare
and launch it allows for observation by American satellites.
    By contrast, the officials say, the American weapon could be stored
at various sites and attached quickly to any F-15, meaning the U.S.
system is more mobile.
    The Soviets generally have lower orbits for their satellites,
meaning more would be within range of the U.S. system. American
military satellites are commonly in higher orbits, making them
relatively safe from the current Soviet system.
    
ap-ny-01-17 0246EST
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #94
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:
			Terraforming Jovian Moons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 1984 9:06-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: turner%ucbesvax@UCB-VAX
Subject: Terraforming Jovian Moons
Via:  Usc-Cse; 17 Jan 84 09:36:13

It shouldn't be hard to equip the Jovian moons with atmospheres, once
they are hot enough.  Indeed, the problem with several of the moons is
the overabundance of volatiles -- Ganymede, for example, is mostly
water, so you'd end up with an ocean 1000 km deep!  Io is probably the
best bet, although the sulfur might pollute things a bit.  Water,
carbon and nitrogen could be mined on the other moons; transfer can be
made with mass drivers.

 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #95
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
	       Space Shuttle mission designator explanation
		    Monitoring Shuttle Communications
		       cmsg cancel <460@ihuxs.UUCP>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  18 January 1984 09:23 est
From:  JPAnderson.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Space Shuttle mission designator explanation
To:  space at MIT-MC

The upcoming space shutttle mission has been designated as 41B, the 4
corresponding to the fiscal year, the 1 corresponding to the launch
site, and the B corresponding to the payload item of the FY. The first
payload of the FY, A, was spacelab. The launch site designators are 1
for Kennedy and 2 for Vandenberg.

------------------------------

Date:  18 January 1984 09:38 est
From:  JPAnderson.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS
Subject:  Monitoring Shuttle Communications
To:  space at MIT-MC

For the last shuttle flight, the amateur radio club at Goddard Space
Flight Center rebroadcast mission audio on several ham frequencies. One
that I monitored was 3860 LSB.  For more information regarding
frequencies, I suggest contacting the radio club directly (call Goddard
and ask for the radio club).

For those who require orbital parameters to plot the shuttle's orbital
path, the news room at Johnson Space Center (713)-483-5111 will have
equator crossing times and longitudes as well as keplerian element sets.

Good Luck Jay

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 84 19:09:26-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxs!hartwig @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: cmsg cancel <460@ihuxs.UUCP>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #96
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:
			   Space transportation
			      Space Station
			    Re: Apollo Trivia
		 The missing "a", other Apollo questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 19 January 1984 08:59:55 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc
Subject: Space transportation
Message-ID: <1984.1.19.13.55.50.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>

a034  0146  19 Jan 84
PM-Washington Briefs,630
    ---
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole is
pledging to cut through government regulations that have restricted
commercial ventures into space.
    ''If we are to maintain America's competitive edge, we must begin
now to introduce America's industry to the possibilities of space,''
Mrs. Dole told an annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board
on Tuesday.
    She said she is establishing a ''one-stop service'' at the
department for companies seeking government clearance for a commercial
space project. About a dozen firms have expressed interest in
launching cargo-bearing rockets, something that during 25 years of
space flights has been limited to the government.

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 19 January 1984 09:22:11 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc
Subject: Space Station
Message-ID: <1984.1.19.14.21.27.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>

n507  2252  18 Jan 84
BC-SPACE-01-19
    By Albert Sehlstedt Jr.
     (c) 1984 The Baltimore Sun (Independent Press Service)
    WASHINGTON - President Reagan will propose next week that the nation
build a permanent manned space station, and there will be some money
for the project in his 1985 budget, a senior administration official
said Wednesday.
    ''NASA made a good presentation'' to the White House in behalf of
the space station, the official said, referring to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. ''It seemed the next logical
step.''
     Reagan will make his proposal during his State of the Union Address
to Congress next Wednesday, the official said.
    NASA has long sought such a large station in Earth orbit that would
contain long-term living quarters for astronauts, serve as a
laboratory for scientific studies and possibly be used as a
jumping-off point for expeditions to the moon and planets.
    The cost of a space station in its initial form has been estimated
at $7.5 billion to $9 billion. A more elaborate station might cost
close to $20 billion.
    The nation's Apollo lunar landing program cost a total of $23.5
billion in the 1960s and 1970s.
    Should Congress agree to appropriate money for the project it would
be allocated over a period of years, not in one lump sum. The station
itself could be ready for use some time in the 1990s.
    There is substantial support for the station in some congressional
quarters and, of course, within the aerospace industry that would
design and build such a vehicle.
    ''We sent a letter to the president several weeks ago, asking that
he approve development of the space station and include it in his
budget,'' said Anna Perez, an aide to Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.),
chairman of the Science, Technology and Space subcommittee.
     Perez said the White House Office of Science and Technology had
requested a meeting with Gorton next week to discuss the project.
    On the House side of the Capitol, Rep. Don Fuqua (D-Fla.), chairman
of the Science and Technology Committee is on the record in support
of a space station.
    ''There is pretty much approval that this is the next logical step
in space,'' said Radford Byerly, science consultant to the Fuqua
committee. However, there has been no formal approval of a specific
project, he added.
    A lack of specifics, with regard to just how a space station would
be used, is one of the reasons the president's science adviser, Dr.
George A. Keyworth, has been less than enthusiastic about NASA's
proposal for a space station.
    However, he is understood to have become somewhat more favorably
inclined to the idea in recent months.
     Keyworth still believes that ''you must know what you are doing it
for,'' an associate said, referring to the specific objectives NASA
would have in mind for the project.
    The Soviet Union plans to orbit a manned space station that would be
permanently staffed and gradually developed into a multi-purpose
research and manufacturing center, according to Pravda, the Communist
Party daily.
    The newspapers reported the Kremlin's plans Nov. 28.
    END
    
nyt-01-19-84 0144est

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 84 22:40:54-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!monroe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Trivia

	for *a* man .vs. for Man

	True, that is what the quote was supposed to be, but I didn't hear
that it was the electronics that ate it.  Well, if I was stepping onto the
moon in front of a whole planet full of television viewers, I probably would
have concentrated more on not falling on my face rather than what I was saying.

					The Knight In Glowing Phosphor,

					Doug Monroe
					Sequent Computer Systems
					{ogcvax,cdi,verdix}!sequent!monroe

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 84 12:08:51-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!azure!markp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: The missing "a", other Apollo questions

Neil Armstrong says about the missing "a": "That's what I meant to say, and
that's what I thought I said."

"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
                           ^

Also, one of the last moon landings left a working camera on the lunar
surface -- they got some great shots of the return portion of the LEM
blasting off; plus, a camera aboard the LEM filmed the lunar surface as
they took off.  My question is this:  Is the American flag which was left
planted in the lunar surface still standing, or was it knocked down by the
rocket exhaust and associated debris?  Which mission was that, anyway?

>From the comfy chair of:

Mark Paulin
...tektronix!tekmdp!markp

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #97
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Apollo questions
				  Saturn
				Moon Base
			   Soviet space station
			    Re: Apollo Trivia
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 84 15:03:51-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo questions

I think it was Apollo 15 which first had a TV camera on the lunar surface
watch the ascent stage of the LM take off.  That would have been a camera
on the lunar rover.  Almost all of the later moon landings had a camera
within the ascent stage watching lunar lift-off from that angle.  I do
know that the Apollo 11 U.S. flag was indeed knocked down, but I think
they had the foresight on later missions to move it farther away.
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 20 January 1984 07:17:41 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc
Subject: Saturn
Message-ID: <1984.1.20.12.15.48.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>

n515  2353  19 Jan 84
BC-SATURN-01-20
    By William Hines
    (c) 1984 Chicago Sun-Times (Independent Press Service)
    WASHINGTON - The rings of Saturn, which have fascinated stargazers
for more than 300 years, are now believed to be much thinner than
previously supposed.
    In fact, say two Stanford University scientists, the most prominent
ring is no more than a couple of hundred feet thick, and fainter ones
may be as little as a few inches in thickness.
    The new findings, based on radio data from the planetary probe
Voyager 1 more than three years ago, are published in the issue of
the journal Science that goes to readers this weekend.
    From the time the Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens identified
them in 1659 until 1977, Saturn's rings were thought to be unique in
the solar system if not in the universe. Now it is known that at
least two other major planets, Jupiter and Uranus, also possess ring
systems.
    Until deep-space probes flew out to Saturn's vicinity, telescopic
measurements from Earth set one kilometer (roughly 3,300 feet) as the
probable thickness of the rings. Preliminary data from the spacecraft
Pioneer 11 (Sept. 1, 1979) and Voyagers 1 (Nov. 12, 1980) and 2 (Aug.
26, 1981) reduced the estimated maximum thickness to about 100 meters
(330 feet).
    Now, say Howard A. Zebker and G. Leonard Tyler of Stanford's Center
for Radar Astronomy in the Science article, new evidence indicates
that the rings are, at most, a few dozen yards thick. ''Putting it in
human terms,'' Tyler said in a telephone interview, ''the thickness
of the A ring could easily pass between the goal posts at opposite
ends of a football field.
    ''The thickness of the C ring could probably pass between the
uprights of a single set of goal posts.''
    The new evidence, they explained, emerged from analysis of radio
signals sent back by Voyager 1 after it had passed the Saturnian ring
system and was in a position to transmit through the rings back to
hugh dish-shaped antennas on Earth.
    Saturn's A ring, the first discovered to be identified as a distinct
feature and the brightest of all the rings, is about 6,750 miles
wide. It circles the planet's equator at a height of 40,500 to 47,250
miles above the clouds that make up Saturn's visible surface.
    If the Zebker-Tyler measurements are correct, the gossamer thinness
of Saturn's rings is almost incomprehensible. It is the equivalent of
a sheet of material two miles wide and only x00 the thickness of
ordinary plastic household wrap.
    How can something so insubstantial be visible from Earth--even
through a telescope--over distances that are never less than about
800 million miles?
    High reflectivity is the answer. Tyler said most scientists believe
the particles in the rings are practically pure ice. Saturn's rings
are tilted several degrees off the plane in which the planets circle
the sun. At various times during the 29.5 years it takes Saturn to
circle the sun, they are seen from different angles. When they face
the Earth edge-on, the rings are invisible.
    

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 20 January 1984 07:56:28 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc
Subject: Moon Base
Message-ID: <1984.1.20.12.55.50.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>

a232  1356  19 Jan 84
AM-Focus-Moon Settlement, Bjt,0953
TODAY'S FOCUS: Deciding Whether to Build American Base on Moon
Laserphoto NY28
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Buzz Aldrin, who walked on the moon with Neil
Armstrong, says his old employer, NASA, is wrong in wanting a space
station as its next major goal. Americans, he contends, should go back
to the moon and build a permanent base there.
    ''The solar system's most desirable space station already has six
American flags on it,'' he said in an interview. ''That's the moon.
Let's use it and not turn it over to foreign pioneering
frontiersmen.''
    Aldrin and several individuals and aerospace organizations are
trying to drum up support for a lunar base as the White House nears a
decision on an expanded national space policy for the remainder of
this century. Some groups are supporting a letter-writing campaign to
President Reagan.
    The president may announce the new policy in his State of the Union
message Jan. 25. Details would follow in his proposed fiscal 1985
budget to be presented Feb. 1.
    There is sharp division within the administration on what course
America should take in space. But there are indicators that Reagan
will strongly endorse an orbiting station, which for years has been
the No. 1 priority of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
    NASA officials, noting Reagan's recent call for a ''grander vision''
in space, said he also may support start-up money later in this
decade for a scientific station on the moon, perhaps as an embarkation
point sometime in the 21st century for a manned expedition to Mars.
    Preliminary 1985 spending projections given earlier this month to
Republican congressmen by Budget Director David Stockman show the
admininistration wants to add $6 billion to NASA's budget over the
next five years. That's a huge increase for an agency that has seen
several lean years and just about the right figure for space station
development.
    Reagan wants to ''recapture the vision of Apollo'' and is seeking
the best way to do that, said the White House science adviser, George
A. Keyworth.
    The president hinted at his direction in a speech last October on
NASA's 25th anniversary. He challenged the agency to develop more
visionary long-term goals instead of just focusing on winning approval
of a permanent manned space station.
    ''We're not just concerned about the next logical step in space,''
Reagan said. ''We're planning an entire road, a 'high road' if you
will, that will provide us a vision of limitless hope and
opportunity.''
    The president has been influenced considerably by Keyworth, who said
last September that NASA had not been imaginative enough in its
long-range planning. He said the agency should be thinking beyond a
space station - on how to use such a platform to return humans to the
moon and then on to Mars.
    Since then agency thinkers have been working on just such a plan,
but they have kept details under wraps.
    Aldrin and others have seized upon the president's challenge to urge
a moon base. Some, like Aldrin and George E. Mueller, who headed
NASA's manned spacecraft effort during the Apollo moon program, and
James Muncy, president of Using Space for America, want to skip the
station as the next goal and go directly to the moon.
    Organizations like the National Space Institute, the L5 Society, the
Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy and Spacepac would
like to see both a space station and a lunar base by the end of this
century. Some would like to see both in place by 1992, the 500th
anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World.
    Such organizations, which are privately funded, were formed to
advocate greater emphasis on the national space program. The L5
society is named for the fifth ''libration point'' between earth and
moon, where gravity is balanced and where a space stations conceivably
could be parked.
    NASA's concern is that it can't do two expensive programs at the
same time. Developing an operational space station for eight people by
1991 will cost between $6 and $8 billion. Building a moon base in
that same period would cost another $10 billion.
    The agency favors constructing a station first, ferrying up sections
with the space shuttle, and then using that platform as a launching
pad to the moon.
    A station would be used at first as a scientific observation point
above Earth's obscuring atmosphere, to search for resources on our
planet and as an orbiting factory to make pure and exotic
pharmaceuticals and materials for commercial use.
    Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon - on July 20, 1969 - said
the nation would benefit more by developing an Orbital Transfer
Vehicle to transport humans and materials from the space shuttle to
the moon, leaving a space station until later. He said he has
personally presented his proposal to both Keyworth and NASA
administrator James M. Beggs.
    The moon could serve as an excellent scientific observation post,
and workers there could gradually construct a large solar power
station to provide an enormous amount of electricity to Earth, he
said. Systems Development Corporation, a Burroughs company in Santa
Monica, Calif., recently made such a formal proposal to the space
agency.
    Aldrin is a consultant to SDC and has worked out a series of
rendezvous techniques for manned vehicles transferring between Earth
and moon. As a physicist he developed many of the rendezvous
techniques for the Gemini and Apollo man-in-space projects.
    Aldrin said that the six American manned missions to the moon found
that there are considerable supplies of minerals and building
materials there. He said 90 percent of a moon base could be built from
materials already there.
    

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 20 January 1984 15:00:16 EST
From: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G
To: Space@MIT-MC
Subject: Soviet space station
Message-ID: <1984.1.20.19.55.16.Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G>

According to Arthur Smith of the London Daily Mirror, the Soviet
Union is likely to attempt this year to launch a large (~100 Mg)
space station into LEO using their Saturn 5 class (G) booster,
which has not yet been fired successfully.  The station would be
about the size of Skylab, and much larger than Salyut.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 84 11:52:20-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Pucc-I.Pucc-K.ags @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Trivia
In-Reply-To: Article <15414@sri-arpa.UUCP> <333@sequent.UUCP>

A recent cartoon in OMNI magazine shows the first landing of a manned
spaceship on Mars.  One astronaut has tripped and is lying in a heap at
the bottom of the ladder.  The other astronaut, leaning out of the
spaceship, says:

   "Do you realize that what you just said will go down in history as
   the first words spoken on Mars?"


-- 

				Dave Seaman
				..!pur-ee!pucc-k:ags

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #98
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:
      dichotomy(?): intelligent plants vs. 'zone of life' criterion
		    Status of space telescope project 
		   Moon Base vs permanent space station
       Moon Base debate / I resent straw-man argument in news story
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 1984 1450-PST
From: WATERMAN%USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: dichotomy(?): intelligent plants vs. 'zone of life' criterion
To: space%MIT-MC.ARPA

Question(dichotomy?): Is the 'zone of life' criterion (that is to say the
liquid water criterion (that is to say the distance from the sun criterion))
the reason why plants could not be sufficient unto their (almost exclusively)
non-carniverous selves?   i.e. the photosynthetic process cannot deliver
enough power from the energy flux intercepted at the earth's radius to
allow plants to run around and build this and that ?  At distances from the
sun with sufficient energy flux, on the other hand, photosynthesis not to
mention earthlike-biology wont work(?).  Conclusion: the universe is
condemned to be transformed by lines of murderous monsters (us) instead of
by placid creatures ????

-e.s (waterman@ecla)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 84  2201 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Status of space telescope project 
To:   space@MIT-MC

n522  0048  21 Jan 84
BC-SPACE-2takes-01-21
    ADVANCE FOR SUNDAY
    By Albert Sehlstedt Jr.
     (c) 1984 The Baltimore Sun (Independent Press Service)
    WASHINGTON - The ailing space telescope project, conceived by
astronomers to explore the far reaches of the universe but hobbled by
cost overruns, management problems and technical gaffes, is now
pointed in the right direction for a mid-1986 launching.
    That is the ''cautious optimistic'' view of Dr. Edward J. Weiler, an
astrophysicist and executive at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration who is riding herd on a team of scientists and
engineers charged with making the 10-ton telescope work.
    James E. Welch, another NASA boss who is overseeing the management
side of the $1.1 billion program, scid ''Our target date is 1 June,
1986, and I don't see anything right now that would cause us to
change that estimate.'' On that date one of the space shuttles is to
carry the telescope to an orbit 320 miles above the atmosphere and
leave it there for a decade or more of astronomical research.
    Neither man is congratulating himself at this stage, 10 months after
a House subcommittee pointed to a list of management and technical
problems - and cost increases - that NASA and its contractors have
encountered in the development of the unique instrument.
    For example, the original cost for the design, development and
construction of the telescope assembly has soared from a 1976
estimate of $69 million to more than $160 million, according to data
compiled by the House panel, chaired by Rep. Edward P. Boland (D-
Mass.)
    Over-all, the cost of the entire program has risen from a 1978
estimate of $435 million to between $1.1 and $1.2 billion today,
according to Welch. And those figures do not include the cost of
launching the telescope.
    Without making excuses for past mistakes, Weiler and Welch point out
that the telescope represents an immensely difficult scientific and
engineering endeavor fraught with unknown or unanticipated problems
because it was pushing the ''state of the art'' from its inception.
    ''We're not building carburetors for Hondas,'' said Weiler. ''Space
telescope represents the single biggest leap in optical capability
since Galileo put his eye to the telescope,'' he said.
    And still ahead is the demanding task of integrating the
43-foot-long device with an array of scientific instruments that will
operate in concert with the 94.5-inch primary mirror to help
interpret the hieroglyphics of the cosmos for astronomers from around
the world.
    (Astronomers will ''look'' through the telescope electronically,
viewing images of the stars and galaxies transmitted from Earth orbit
to the Space Telescope Science Institute on the Homewood campus of
Johns Hopkins University.)
    Another important job facing NASA and its industrial contractors
involves mating the telescope assembly to the metal housing that will
support the scientific package in space.
    ''We're now getting to the unknown unknowns, and this late in the
program that can really ring your bell,'' Welch said with the joy of
a man half way across a rickety bridge.
    An embarrassing problem that seems mercifully behind the NASA
executives involves one of those seemingly obvious precautions that
would occur to any thoughtful seventh-grader working on his first
science project at the Catonsville Middle School.
    After polishing the telescope's primary mirror to an almost
unbelievable smoothness with a computer-controlled technique, the
contractor let it get dusty. Smoothness is to telescope mirrors as
youth is to fashion models. And dust equals wrinkles - it detracts
from the overall impression.
    The mirror contractor, the widely respected but sometimes tardy
Perkin-Elmer Corporation of Norwalk, Conn., plans to turn the
polished surface up-side-down later this yeap and carefully go over
it with a jet stream of nitrogen gas to remove the dust particles, or
most of them.
    ''Hopefully, most of the large particles will be blown off,'' Weiler
said. ''It is the larger particles that give you the most problems.''
    There was a management problem here, too.
    Welch pointed out that the understanding with Perkin-Elmer called
for the mirror to be ''visibly clean,'' a term subject to different
interpretations by different people.
    However, Weiler indicated that too much emphasis can be put on
mirror cleanliness because nothing is perfectly clean, including the
space environment where the telescope will operate.
    ''You needn't clean the mirror on the ground to a point where it
will be cleaner than in space,'' Weiler observed.
    Another technical problem has involved 27 latches on the telescope
assembly that hold various instruments, such as the wide-field camera
and the faint-object camera, in the right position.
    Latches are, after all, just latches, except these latches must be
stiff enough to endure the vibrations of a rocket launching, hold up
under the stresses of space operations, and keep the cameras and
other delicate devices in place with an accuracy ''on the order of
microns,'' to use Weiler's words. (A micron is an invisible fraction
of an inch.)
    To meet these requirements, the latches have had to be redesigned
and strengthened.
    The latches are a necessary part of the assembly because space
shuttle astronauts will fly up to the orbiting telescope from time to
time to remove malfunctioning instruments or replace some of them
with with more advanced models.
    Another problem has involved slippage in the schedule for
development of the telescope's fine guidance sensors that keep it
pointed in the right direction by locking on to guide stars in the
heavens. (This operation is analgous to a boater guiding his craft
over the waves of the Chesapeake by keeping his eye upon landmarks on
the shore.)
    Perkin-Elmer has now assembled the first prototype of a
fine-guidance sensor, Weiler said, and ''it has exceeded
specifications.''
    ''That gave us all quite a nice Christmas,'' he added.
    On the human side, Weiler conceded the telescope program had
suffered from a lack of good communication up and down the line,
adding that the astronomers and other scientists associated wivh the
program also felt they were not getting through to the managers.
    ''The scientists really felt their voices weren't being heard,'' he
said.
    As a consequence, he asked each space telescope scientist last
February to list the problems he or she saw in the program.
    ''I was shocked by the enormous response I got.'' he said.
    Another problem with the telescope project stems from the fact that
it is big-time science.
    In the past, NASA headquarters has largely left the management of
space science projects to the agency's ''centers'' (branch offices)
around the country which worked closel with university researchers
and contractors in preparing various missions to the moon and planets.
    Conversely, the headquarters people here have always kept very close
tabs on the more costly, and more visible, manned space flight
programs, such as the lunar landings and the space shuttle flights,
exercising many management prerogatives from Washington.
    But the space telescope is entirely new.
    The old ways didn't work.
    In managing complex programs like this, Welch observed after 15
years of triumphs and flops at the Pentagon, ''you learn how to
succeeed by failing.''
    ''When space telescope is finally launched,'' Weiler said, ''it will
work better than anybody expected.''
    END
    
nyt-01-21-84 0330est
**********

------------------------------

Date: 22 January 1984 03:25 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Moon Base vs permanent space station
To: Hans.Moravec @ CMU-RI-ROVER
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

	Reagan wants to ''recapture the vision of Apollo'' and is seeking
    the best way to do that, said the White House science adviser, George
    A. Keyworth.
	The president hinted at his direction in a speech last October on
    NASA's 25th anniversary. He challenged the agency to develop more
    visionary long-term goals instead of just focusing on winning approval
    of a permanent manned space station.
	''We're not just concerned about the next logical step in space,''
    Reagan said. ''We're planning an entire road, a 'high road' if you
    will, that will provide us a vision of limitless hope and
    opportunity.''
(1) From the above statements, it appears Reagan might actually be "in
his heart" on our side in the expansion of the human race into space,
and he seems to be giving us an invitation to send him our dreams for
a gallactic society that can suvive and prosper even after our sun
burns itself out 5-10 billion years hence. How about us make up
letters where we give the quote above, then describe our dreams/hopes
for space development, and conclude with what steps need to be taken
next to avoid elaying the overall plan?
(2) Re space station vs. moon base: Early setters made a wise
decision, establishing way stations about one day's (sun-up to sun
down) journay apart, so the traveller could rest and possibly get
equipment repaired and medical problems cured before going out alone
again. For really long journies into the unknown of course this is
infesible, for example the trip by covered wagon from Missouri to
Oregon. But for journies that are just a few days long, waystations
are a great convenience for the travelers. Thus I think Aldrin is
wrong in pushing for a moon base before the way stations (one in LEO,
one in LLO, and perhaps one in GEO) are established.

Rebuttal/discussion/debate welcome.

------------------------------

Date: 22 January 1984 03:45 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Moon Base debate / I resent straw-man argument in news story
To: Hans.Moravec @ CMU-RI-ROVER
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

	A station would be used at first as a scientific observation point
    above Earth's obscuring atmosphere, to search for resources on our
    planet ...

Um, this paragraph is a non sequitur. Being up above the obscuring
atmosphere is exactly an argument AGAINST observing from orbit. In
fact in many cases data from ERTS/Landsat is unsuitable because of the
atmosphere between the satellite and the ground, and U-2 or P-3
airplanes must be used instead. The correct argument for satellite
observation of Earth to locate resources is that despite the obsuring
atmosphere which present problems in interpreting the data, the global
coverage (suveying large areas at uniform low resolution) at minimal
cost (once you're in orbit, the fuel to "fly" another 25,000 miles once
around the whole Earth again is virtually zero) more than compensates
in many cases, making satellite-based ground-surveying more efficient
in many cases than airplane-based ground-surveying.

(I resent news stories which give false arguments for something I
favor, so that later those arguments can be attacked by an adversory,
and convince the public to be against that something because they never
hear the correct arguments in its favor.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #99
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:
				   ASAT
		Antimatter production, X-ray lasers, etc.
			 Request For Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sunday, 22 January 1984 08:15:43 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc, arms-d@mc
Subject: ASAT
Message-ID: <1984.1.22.13.14.35.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>

n066  1524  21 Jan 84
AM-WEAPONS
Air Force Flight Tests ASAT Missile
By JEFF GERTH
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - The Air Force announced on Saturday that it had
conducted the first test in flight of an advanced missile designed to
destroy satellites.
    The missile was fired from an F-15 fighter plane at Vandenberg Air
Force Base in California. The test involved only the booster and
booster guidance system and did not involve any target, the Air Force
said.
    Cmdr. Jeffrey S. Rink, a Pentagon spokesman, said details of the
test and test results were classified and would not be disclosed.
    The anti-satellite missile was launched from an F-15 flying out of
Edwards Air Force Base in California, the Air Force said. The test
took place over the western test range of the Air Force's Western
Space and Missile Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
    While the Air Force has conducted what it calls ''captive-carry''
tests over the past year, that is, taking the missile aloft attached
to the F-15, the test on Saturday involved the first actual firing of
the missile.
    The test of the missile, the U.S. Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle
Anti-Satellite (ASAT), seems likely to increase the debate over
weapons in space.
    In the past, such advocates as Dr. Herman Kahn, who headed the
Hudson Institute before his death last year, argued that ''clean
wars'' could be fought in space. Supporters have also said the Soviet
Union has been testing an anti-satellite technology for some time.
    Almost immediately after the test a group of scientists denounced it
as a dangerous escalation of the arms race.
    The scientists issuing the statement, who have been critical of the
technology in the past, included Henry W. Kendall, chairman of the
Union of Concerned Scientists; Jerome H. Bethe, a Nobel laureate in
physics; and Dr. Richard Garwin, a physicist at the International
Business Machines Corp.
    
nyt-01-21-84 1815est
***************

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 1984 13:58-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA.ECLnet
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Antimatter production, X-ray lasers, etc.
Via:  Usc-Cse; 21 Jan 84 15:36:27

I just read an interesting paper in the Journal of the British
Interplanetary Society (JBIS, 1983, pages 507-508) on the production of
antimatter (for use in interstellar propulsion systems) using
concentrated laser beams.  The idea is to focus enough light into a
small volume so that the electric field becomes strong enough to create
particle/antiparticle pairs out of the vacuum.  The field necessary for
electron/positron production is about 2.4x10^18 volts/meter.  A light
pulse with an energy of 2 megajoules lasting 3 femtoseconds focused on
a volume .2 microns across does the trick.  (Light waves with a
wavelength of .2 microns oscillate 4.5 times in 3 femtoseconds.) The
energy delivered to the interaction area should be converted to
electrons/positrons with high efficiency (> 90% if helium nuclei are
present to separate the particles).  The intensity and energy density
of the pulse are truly impressive: over 10^34 watts/m^2 and 5x10^25
joules/m^3 (or, a matter density of 6x10^5 grams/cm^3).

That high energy density suggests that it shouldn't be too hard to get
a very narrow laser pulse in which the energy density approaches that
of normal matter.  To reach a density of 1 gr/cm^3, a light pulse 1
cm long and .2 microns across must have an energy of (4x10^-13 kg) x
(3x10^8 m/sec)^2 = 36 kilojoules.  The Livermore SHIVA laser produces
10 kilojoule pulses, with a pulse length of 100 picoseconds, or about 3
cm (they are much wider than .2 microns, though).

That much light should change the refractive index of the vacuum,
leading to self focusing.  If the energy density of the pulse decreases
from the front to the rear the refractive index would decrease going
back along the pulse, so the photons in the back would move faster than
those in the front, causing the pulse to shorten.  This optical
soliton would not disperse with distance -- a real "photon torpedo".

How would one create such a pulse?  You'd need a laser cavity that's
very narrow, and you'd have to pump lots of energy into it.  A
laser cavity 1 meter long and .2 microns across has a volume of about
4x10^-8 cm^3, or at most about 4x10^-7 grams of lasing material.  So,
on the order of 10^11 joules of energy per gram of lasing material
would be needed.  That's enough to accelerate the matter to 5% of the
speed of light, if it was converted into kinetic energy.  More energy
would be needed to overcome laser inefficiencies.

Most of the outer electrons will be stripped away at these energies, so
lasing will probably occur in the far UV or X-ray region.  This is
beginning to sound like the rumors about nuclear pumped X-ray lasers.
Could those beams be self-focusing?  Perhaps that's why Teller is so up
on the idea.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 84 10:09:19-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxj!amra @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Request For Information

     I read an interesting article in the Jan/Feb issue of Science84
    and would like additional information. The article in question
    covered Alan Guth's new "inflationary" model of the universe.
    It is supposedly superior to the Big Bang theory because it explains
    the origin of matter and energy in the universe. I want to know if
    anyone is familiar with this new theory, and if so, is there any additional
    data to support/oppose it. I am not an expert in cosmology, but I do
    have a keen interest in this area. I figured there are numerous people
    on this newsgroup who could provide me with valid information about this
    theory. Any help is greatly appreciated. THANKS IN ADVANCE!!!

     Also, I was wondering what Stephen Hawking is up to these days. I
   admire the abilities of this individual and thought I'd see if anybody
   could provide more details. He posses a mind of superior quality and
   insight. His work on Black Holes is incredible. 

                             PEACE & BEST WISHES
                       From the ever curious mind of:
                 Steve (Black Holes Are Out Of Sight) Aldrich
                            IHNP4!IHUXJ!AMRA
    p.s. Either post replies to this newsgroup or send me mail.
          Thanks Again for your information.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #100    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
		       Glossary of NASA Terminology
		   Intelligent life on Alpha Centauri?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 84 7:41:17-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Glossary of NASA Terminology

	I've been collecting examples of the jargon in common use by 
people at NASA Headquarters.  Here is the collection so far:  
I have not made any of these up.  I'd be glad to hear of worthy
additions to the collection.

	The 'standard NASA noun modifiers' are nouns used as
adjectives in phrases like 'science community' or 'planetary area.'
Definitions have been omitted for entries whose meaning ought to be
clear.

	-- Ted Flinn

Action Item
Actors in the Program
Ancillary
Ankle: 'Get your ankles bitten' = running into unexpected trouble.
Ant: 'Which ant is steering this log?' = which office is in charge
	of a project.
Appendice (pronounced ap-pen-di-see):  some people, never having
	seen a document with only one appendix, think that this
	is the singular of 'appendices.'
Area:  Always as 'X Area,' where X is one of the standard NASA
	noun modifiers.
Asterick:  pronounced this way more often than not.
Back Burner
Bag It: 'It's in the bag' = it's finished.
Ball of Wax
Baseline: verb or noun.
Basis:  Always as 'X Basis,' where X is one of the standard NASA
	 noun modifiers.
Bean Counters:  financial management people.
Bed: 'Completely out of bed' = said of people whose opinions
	are probably incorrect.
Belly Buttons: employees.
Bench Scientists
Bend Metal:  verb, to construct hardware.
Bending Your Pick:  unrewarding activity.
Bent Out of Shape:  disturbed or upset, of a person.
Big Picture
Big-Picture Purposes
Bite the Bullet
Big-Ticket Item: one of the expensive parts.
Black-belt Bureaucrat:  an experienced and knowledgable government
	employee. 
Bless: verb, to approve at a high level of management.
Blow One's Skirts Up:  usually negative: 'that didn't blow
	their skirts up' = that didn't upset them.
Blow Smoke:  verb, to obfuscate.
Blown Out of the Water
Bottom Line
Bounce Off: to discuss an idea with someone else.
Brassboard (see Breadboard).
Breadboard (see Brassboard).
Bullet: one of the paragraphs or lines on a viewgraph, which are
	 *never* numbered, but always labelled with a bullet.
Bulletize:  to make an outline suitable for a viewgraph.
Bureaucratic Hurdles
Burn:  verb, to score points off a competitor.
Burning Factor:  one of the critical elements.
Calibrate:  verb, to judge the capabilities of people or
	      organizations.
Camel's Nose in the Tent
Can of Worms
Canned:  finished, as 'it's in the can.'
Can't Get There From Here.
Capture a Mission:  verb, to construct a launch vehicle for
			a space flight.
Carve Up the Turkey
Caveat:  usually a noun.
Centers:  'on N-week centers' = at N-week intervals.
Choir, Preaching to the 
Clock is Ticking = time is getting short.
Code:  Every section at NASA centers or Headquarters has a label
	consisting of one or more letters or numbers, and in 
	conversations or less formal memos, sections are always 
	referred to by the code rather than the name:
	Code LI, Code 931, Code EE, etc.
Commonality
Community:  'X Community,' where X is one of the standard NASA
		noun modifiers.
Concept:  'X Concept,' where X is one of the standard NASA
		noun modifiers.
Concur: verb, to agree.
Configure:  verb.
Constant Dollars:  cost without taking inflation into account
	(see Real-Year Dollars).
Contract Out
Core X:  The more important parts of X, where X is one of the
	  nouns used as modifiers.
Correlative
Cost-Benefit Tradeoff
Cross-Cut:  verb, to look at something a different way.
Crump:  transitive verb, to cause to collapse.
Crutch: flimsy argument.
Cut Orders:  to fill out a travel order form; left over from the
		days when this was done with mimeograph stencils.
Cutting Edge
Data Base
Data Dump:  a report made to others, usually one's own group.
Data Point:  an item of information.
Debrief:  transitive verb, to report to one's own staff after
	    an outside meeting.
Deep Yoghurt:  bad trouble.
Definitize:  verb, to make precise or definite.
De-integrate:  verb, to take apart (not dis-).
De-lid:  verb, to take the top off an instrument.
Delta:  an increment to cost or content.
Descope:  verb, to redesign a project as a result of budget
	   cuts (not the opposite of scope, q.v.).
Development Concept
Dialog:  transitive verb.
Disadvantage:  transitive verb.
Disgruntee:  non-NASA person unhappy with program decisions.
Dog's Breakfast
Dollar-Limited
Driver:  an item making up a significant part of cost or
	   schedule: 'X is the cost driver.'
Drop-Dead Date:  the real deadline; see 'hard deadline.'
Ducks in a Row
Egg on One's Face
End Item:  product.
End-Run the System
End to End
Extent to Which
Extramural
Facilitize:  verb, to make a facility out of something.
Factor in:  verb.
Feedback:  reaction of another section or organization to
	     a proposition.
Fill This Square
Finalize
Finess The System
First Cut:  preliminary estimate.
Fiscal Constraints
Flag:  verb, to make note of something for future reference.
Flagship Program
Flex the Parameters
Flux and Change
What Will Fly:  'see it if will fly.'
Folded In:  taken into account.
Forest: miss the f. for the trees.
Forgiving, unforgiving:  of a physical system.
Front Office
Full-Up:  at peak level.
Future:  promise or potential, as, 'a lot of potential future.'
Futuristic
Gangbusters
Glitch
Grease the Skids
Green Door:  'behind the green door' = in the Administrator's offices.
Go to Bat For
Goal:  contrasted to 'objective,' q.v.
Grabber
Gross Outline:  approximation.
Ground Floor
Group Shoot = brainstorming session.
Guidelines:  always desirable to have.
Guy:  an inanimate object such as a data point.
Hack:  'get a hack on X' = make some kind of estimate.
Hard Copy:  paper, as contrasted to viewgraphs.
Hard Deadline:  supposed deadline; never met.
Hard Over:  intransigent.
Head Counters:  personnel office staff.
Hit X Hard:  concentrate on X.
Hoop:  a step in realizing a program:  'yet to go through this hoop.'
Humanoid
Hypergolic:  of a person: intransigent or upset in general.
Impact:  verb.
Implement:  verb.
In-House
Initialize
Innovative
Intensive:  always as X-intensive.
Intercompare:  always used instead of 'compare.'
Issue:  always used instead of 'problem.'
Key:  adj., of issues:  'key issue; not particularly key'.
Knickers:  'get into their knickers' = to interfere with them.
Laicize: verb, to describe in terms comprehensible to lay people.
Lashup = rackup.
Lay Track:  to make an impression on management ('we laid a lot
		of track with the Administrator').
Learning Curve
Liaise:  verb.
Limited:  always as X-limited.
Line Item
Link Calculation
Liberate Resources:  to divert funds from something else.
Looked At:  'the X area is being looked at' = being studied.
Loop:  to be in the loop = to be informed.
Love It!   exclamation of approval.
Low-Cost
Machine = spacecraft.
Man-Attended Experiment
Marching Orders
Matrix
Micromanagement = a tendency to get involved in management of
			affairs two or more levels down from
			one's own area of responsibility.
Milestone
Mission Definition
Mode:  'in an X mode.'
Model-Dependent
Muscle:  'get all the muscle into X'
Music:  'let's all read from the same sheet of music.'
Necessitate
Nominal:  according to expectation.
Nominative:  adj., meaning unknown.
Nonconcur:  verb, to disagree.
Numb Nut:  unskilled or incapable person.
Objective:  as contrasted with 'goal' (q.v.)
Overarching Objective
Oblectation
Off-Load:  verb.
On Board:  'Y is on board' = the participation of Y is assured.
On-Boards:  employees or participants.
On Leave:  on vacation.
On the Part Of
On Travel:  out of town.
Open Loop
Out-of-House
Over Guidelines
Ox:  'depends on whose ox is gored.'
Package
Paradigm
Parking Orbit:  temporary assignment or employment.
Pathfinder Studies
Pedigree:  history of accumulation of non-NASA support for a mission.
Peg to Hang X On
Pie:  'another slice through this same pie is...'
Piece of the Action
Ping On:  verb, to remind someone of something they were 
	   supposed to do.
Pitch:  a presentation to management.
Placekeeper
Planning Exercise
Pony in This Pile of Manure Somewhere = some part of this mess
	may be salvageable.
Posture
Pre-Posthumous
Prioritize
Priority Listing
Problem Being Worked:  'we're working that problem.'
Problem Areas
Product = end item.
Programmatic
Pucker Factor:  degree of apprehension.
Pull One's Tongue Through One's Nose:  give someone a hard time.
Pulse:  verb, as, 'pulse the system.'
Quick Look
Rackup = lashup.
Rainmaker:  an employee able to get approval for budget increases
		or new missions.
Rapee: a person on the receiving end of an unfavorable decision.
Rattle the Cage:  'that will rattle their cage.'
Real-Year Dollars: cost taking inflation into account, as
	contrasted with 'constant dollars.'
Reclama
Refugee:  a person transferred from another program.
Report Out:  verb, used for 'report.'
Resources = money.
Resource-Intensive = expensive.
ROM: 'rough order of magnitude,' of estimates.
Rubric
Runout
Sales Pitch
Scenario
Scope:  verb, to attempt to understand something.
Scoped Out:  pp., understood.
Secular = non-scientific or non-technological.
Self-Serving
Sense:  noun, used instead of 'consensus.'
Shopping List
Show Stopper
Sign Off On something = approve.
Space Cadets:  NASA employees.
Space Winnies or Wieners:  ditto, but even more derogatory.
X-Specific
Speak to X:  to comment on X, where X is a subject, not a person.
Specificity
Speed, Up To
Spinning One's Wheels
Spooks:  DOD of similar people from other agencies.
Staff:  verb.
Standpoint:  'from an X standpoint'
Statussed:  adj., as, 'that has been statussed.'
Strap On:  verb, to try out:  'strap on this idea...'
Strawman
String to One's Bow
Street, On The:  distributed outside one's own office.
Stroking
Structure: verb.
Subsume
Success-Oriented:  no provision for possible trouble.
Surface:  verb, to bring up a problem.
Surveille: verb.
Suspense Date:  the mildest form of imaginary deadline.
Tail:  to have one's tail in a crack = to be upset or in trouble.
Tall Pole in the Tent:  data anomaly.
Tar With the Same Brush
On Target
Task Force
Team All Set Up
Tickler = reminder.
Tiger Team
Time-Critical:  something likely to cause schedule trouble.
Time Frame
Torque the System
Total X, where X is one of the standard NASA noun modifiers.
Total X Picture
Truth Model
Unique
Update:  noun or verb.
Up-Front:  adj.
Upscale
Upper Management
Vector:  verb.
Vector a Program:  to direct it toward some objective.
Ventilate the Issues:  to discuss problems.
Versatilify:  verb, to make something more versatile.
Viable: adj., something that might work or might be acceptable.
Viewgraph:  always mandatory in any presentation.
Viz-a-Viz
WAG = wild-assed guess.
Wall to Wall:  adj., pervasive.
Watch:  'didn't happen on my watch...'
Water Off a Duck's Back
Waterfall Chart:  one way of present costs vs. time.
I'm Not Waving, I'm Drowning
Wedge; Planning Wedge:  available future-year money.
Been to the Well
Where Coming From
Whole Nine Yards
X-Wide
X-wise
Workaround:  way to overcome a problem.
Wrapped Around the Axle:  disturbed or upset.

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 24 Jan 84 17:59:12 PST
From:           Rich Wales <v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS>
To:             Space@MIT-MC
Subject:        Intelligent life on Alpha Centauri?

How thorough a search has been made to date for intelligence-bearing
radio signals from possible planets orbiting Alpha Centauri A or Alpha
Centauri B?

Seemingly both of these stars are enough like our Sun that one or both
could have planets with "life as we know it".  If we did succeed in
picking up and identifying intelligent signals from this system, the
fact that it is only a little more than 4 light years from Earth seems
to open up the real possibility of two-way communication.

The only problem I can think of off the top of my head is that radio
equipment for such a project would have to be located in the Southern
Hemisphere.

-- Rich <v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #101    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:
		 Re:  Intelligent life on Alpha Centauri
	     re: a-centauri; note on ronnie's speach tonight.
			     NASA Vocabulary
		 Sussman's talk on the "Digital Orrery".
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 1984 7:23-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS
Subject: Re:  Intelligent life on Alpha Centauri
Reply-To: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Via:  Usc-Cse; 25 Jan 84 07:35:50

I think the early SETI searches looked at all nearby sunlike stars,
including Alpha Centauri, Tau Ceti, and so on.  At least 700 stars have
been examined in detail so far (this number may be out of date).

Actually, there probably isn't any life ON Alpha Centauri, and there
are probably no earth-like planets around either Alpha Cent. A or B.
Current theory on planetary formation has is that planets will form in
a binary system if the stars are very close together, so the planets
orbit both, or very far apart (100 au) so each has its own planetary
system.  Alpha Centauri A and B are the wrong distance apart, so
planetesimals cannot accumulate to form planets; their orbits are too
scrambled.  There COULD be lots of asteroids, though -- it may be a
good place to send colonists.

Proxima Centauri may have planets, but none have been detected, and
it's a red dwarf anyway.

Actually, the radio equipment to detect signals from Alpha Centauri
wouldn't have to be in the southern hemisphere.  Alpha Centauri can be
seen from parts of the southern US, albeit at low angles.

 

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 1984 0932-PST
From: WATERMAN%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Subject: re: a-centauri; note on ronnie's speach tonight.
To: space@MIT-MC

re: radio survey of a-centauri for intelligent signals:  the 's.e.t.i'
program was supposed to do that sort of thing.  I suppose if there was
any intelligent life as close as a-centauri and they were communicating via
rf signals, we would have known by now.

re: ronnie's speech tonight: radio report says he will propose:
' a permanent manned space station ... AND ... prayer in the schools' !!!
With the entire state of Texas and our prez. agreeing that science is 
opinion rather than evolving consesus based on the statistics of observation
, what good will a manned space station be since it will be inhabited
by bible-toting fanatics?  

-------

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 1984 15:06:02 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: NASA Vocabulary
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

Also:

SWAG - Scientific WAG (see WAG).
Gone South - Failed, as "the satellite went south."
POP - Program Operating Plan


...more to come (maybe)

The official NASA acronym guide is being revised,
it's about a dozen pages long.

-Sheldon Meth
-------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 84 15:38 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <rsf@diablo>
Subject: Sussman's talk on the "Digital Orrery".
To: space@mit-mc

Gerry Sussman gave this talk at Stanford on January 24th. Here was the
abstract:
---------

			   A Digital Orrery

			  Gerald Jay Sussman

		CalTech Theoretical Astrophysics Group
		MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


    The Orrery is a computer specifically designed for doing high
precision orbit integrations at blazing speed.  It is intended to be
used as a back-end processor, to be attached to a small conventional
host computer (eg. an IBM PC).  The host computer will be used to set
up and access the states of the particles, and to set up the control
sequences for the Orrery.

The Orrery is made of a number of planet machines controlled by a
central controller.  For N bodies there are N planet machines hooked
in a circle, such that data can be sent from machine i to machine
(i+1)mod N.  This configuration allows the Orrery to perform
integration steps in O(N) time (with O(N) hardware).  The machine has
a SIMD controller which broadcasts identical instructions to each
planet machine.  There are no data dependent steps in the microcode,
so the SIMD controller needs no inputs from the planet machines.

I will discuss the problems the Orrery is being built to solve, the
current state of and the details of the design, and the plan for
construction.
-------

rsf - Additional points that I picked up from the talk: A prototype machine
is currently under construction; testing should begin sometime around June.
The machine is being built with "off the shelf" TTL (there's no custom
VLSI), including a special HP floating-point processor chip (I forget the
details of this). The completed machine will be ideally suited for the
solution of N-body problems, where 'N' is fairly small (say < 10). An example
would be the computation of the influence (over several thousand years)
of the Sun, Mars and Jupiter on the orbit of a particular asteroid. Sussman
pointed out that even such problems with small 'N' have no analytic solution
in general; furthermore, they cannot be easily 'vectorized' for efficient
solution on a machine such as a Cray. Sussman expects (typically) a
billion-to-one speedup over "real life". That is, it would conceivably be able
to simulate one billion years of a planet's orbit in roughly one year of
machine time.

The machine will not be suitable for solving problems for very large 'N'
(eg for globular clusters). Such problems could perhaps best be treated as
problems in fluid mechanics instead.

The machine will not be 'hardwired' for simple Newtonian mechanics (GMm/r**2).
With appropriate hacking, the central controller's microcode could be modified
so that (for example) tidal, drag and relativistic effects are also taken into
account.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Jan-84  0307	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #102    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
			       NASA lexicon
		  Space Station Proposal;  Geostar Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 January 1984 06:28 EST
From: Bill Gosper <RWG @ MIT-MC>
Subject: NASA lexicon
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Did you mean finesse instead of finess?  Objectation instead of oblectation?
Anyway, here are three more from hearsay:

Crackle:  see Snap.
Pop:  see Snap.
Snap, Crackle, and Pop:  the fourth, fifth, and sixth time derivatives of
position..

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 1984 9:33-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Space Station Proposal;  Geostar Test

I was suprised at how little fuss was raised over Reagan's space station
proposal.  Perhaps the democrats didn't object because it fits in with
their ideas on government supported high technology and industrial
development.  Or maybe the project is just too small -- $10 billion is
only 1/6 of the Apollo project (in constant dollars), and it will be
spread over nearly a decade.

The most recent issue of Popular Science has an article about Gerard
O'Neill's Geostar project.  Geostar Inc. has successfully tested a
mockup of the system in the San Francisco area (using transponders on
hill tops and an IBM PC instead of three satellites and a
supercomputer).  Ultimately, users will each have a handheld
display/keyboard with a builtin microwave burst transmitter.  The
transmitter will emit 500 watts of microwave power, but only for very
short periods (microseconds).  Users will be able to relay short
messages (a hundred characters?) through the satellites and to determine
their positions to within meters.  The system will initially have one
satellite; later two others will be added to allow position
determination.  User cost is going to be around $450/year for the
microwave transceiver plus $40-$50 a month depending on usage.  They
expect to have the first satellite up in three years.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #103    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
		    re: G.K. O'Neill's satellite plan
			  Snap, Crackle, and Pop
			       More on NASA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 1984 1600-EST
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: re: G.K. O'Neill's satellite plan
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 11987026013.37.583.6200 at DEC-MARLBORO>

    So Gerard O'Neill is going to put up his own communications/navigation
satellite.  I find this sort of idea really exciting.  Information is the 
one commodity that we know can be produced in space.   Advanced materials
processing may or may not work, and solar power satellites may or may
not be a economical, but space info is already a billion dollar industry.
    But if O'Neill's system can actually let you find your position to within
meters, then the government may not let him build it.  The DoD is already
building an elegant navigation system, the Global Positioning System or Navstar,
and wants to keep it to itself.  They figure that if they can find their way
around with it then so can the enemy. There's a good description of the system
in the October '83 Proceedings of the IEEE. The original proposal for GPS had
several classes of equipment. There were to be expensive receivers with accuracies
of under ten meters and cheap backpack units with accuracies of a hundred
meters.  Then when they actually tested the equipment they found that the
backpack guys were good to forty meters. There was rejoicing among the
engineers, but the military became worried.  The portable units can be built
and used by anyone.  There's less advantage to knowing where you are if your
enemy also knows where he is. They decided to degrade the accuracy of the
signals that the portable units used, and to encrypt the signals for the
accurate receivers. Military receivers get the key to the encryption and
civilian ones don't. The cheap receiver's accuracy dropped to 200 m, although
it's still apparently possible to get it down to 100 m. 
      A hundred meters isn't bad, but it isn't good either.  Ships and
airplanes could still use it, but it doesn't seem quite accurate
enough to be useful for cars or hikers.   There's also no guarantee that they
won't degrade it again.  The receivers could be produced
for only a couple of hundred dollars and could be shrunk to handheld
units, but only if they are built in volume.  Without better accuracy the
volume applications aren't there.
      It makes you sick at heart.  With a system like this no one need ever be
lost anywhere in the world.  In rain or in snow, in Oklahoma or Antarctica, you
could always find out where you were.  But the people with the purse strings
decided that it was more important to hurt the Russians than to help civilians.
If O'Neill wants to build his own system, then more power to
him. Anyone want to lay bets, though, that the FCC will be pressured not to
permit it? 

John Redford
DEC-Hudson
   --------

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 1984 13:26:11 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Snap, Crackle, and Pop
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

The third derivative of position is Jerk.

Space station is $8B over 10 years, not $10B.

-Sheldon
-------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 84 5:13:30-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: More on NASA

"You can take all the impact that science considerations have on funding 
decisions at NASA, put them in the navel of a flea, and have room left 
over for a caraway seed and Tony Calio's heart."

This paraphrase of something Fred Allen said a long time ago is
certainly true: at levels where people drop the word 'millions' from
conversation about budgets ("oh, give them their eighty dollars and
let's see what they can do with it") scientific justification for 
proposed projects is usually necessary but never sufficient.  
Dr. A. J. Calio, now Deputy Administrator of NOAA, was Associate 
Administrator for Applications in the late 1970's - an able and fair, 
but very tough, guy.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #104    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
		       info wanted on calcium loss
			      Apollo trivia
		    Columbia Going to Rockwell Hangar
			  Re: O'Neill's GEOSTAR
			 Derivatives of position
		    re: G.K. O'Neill's satellite plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 84 17:32:26-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!rba-dx @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: info wanted on calcium loss

	A couple of weeks ago some articles were posted on
    calcium loss in bones when in prolonged zero-gravity. Can
    anyone tell me where to get technical reports or journal
    articles describing this?
				Please reply by mail.
				Thanks,
					Danny Espinoza	allegra!rba-dx

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 84 7:17:18-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!clyde @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Apollo trivia

<<Dead Wombats eat news lines>>

Several items of Apollo trivia (I remember these things well - but
don't ask me my driver's license number).

* On Apollo 11, the pallet with the TV camera was opened
when Armstrong had climbed just past the porch heading down the
ladder.  The 'unofficial step on the moon' was testing the
step down from the last rung of the LM ladder onto the footpad
of the LM (he fooled Walter Cronkheit (sp) on that one).
The 'first step' on the moon was really that.

* On Apollo 12, Pete Conrad's comment on Armstrong's first words
was partly because that last step off the ladder is a 3-foot drop,
and Conrad is about 6" shorter than Armstrong, so it was a bigger
step for him (physically).

* On Apollos 15,16,17 the LM liftoff was shown by the TV
camera on the Lunar Rover.  Of course, there was a movie camera
running in the window of the ascent module, (there was movie
cameras running in both CM and LM for most important maneuvers).
The LM liftoff on 15 was not tracked, for Mission Control was
afraid that the camera would jam pointing upwards, and they didn't
want that.  Subsequent camera mounts had that problem fixed.
-- 
Clyde W. Hoover @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
(Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots)
clyde@ut-ngp.{UUCP,ARPA} clyde@ut-sally.{UUCP,ARPA} ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 84 10:42:56-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Columbia Going to Rockwell Hangar

The Columbia left KSC atop a 747 today on its way to
EAFB.  From there, it will be taken by truck to a
hangar at Rockwell International, where modifications
to it will be done.  Columbia is being processed at
Rockwell because both hangars at KSC are full, one
with Discovery, the other with Challenger (after it
returns from 41-B)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 1984 8:24-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI,
    redford@SHORTY
Cc: space@mit-mc
Subject: Re: O'Neill's GEOSTAR

Geostar is superior to GPS for a number of reasons.  First, the
portable units are much less complex.  In GPS, the portable units don't
transmit any information (a good policy on the electronic battlefield)
and so have to do all the signal processing/position computation
themselves, and they must contain rather powerful little computers.  In
Geostar, the hand held boxes contain simple microwave tranceivers and
some logic for sending/receiving encrypted digital messages.  All the
smarts are in the ground station in New Jersey.  Positions are
determined by triangulation between the three satellites in
geosynchronous orbit (so accuracy degrades to tens of meters at high
lattitudes and is not available near the poles).

Another advantage of Geostar is the positions of all the active units
are know at the control center; also, the system has the capability of
sending messages from the control center to the units.  This
effectively rules out use of Geostar by potential enemies: no enemy is
going to want his position know to within meters!

Unlike GPS, Geostar allows applications such as:

  (1) Truck/airplane fleet position monitoring/communication.
  (2) Distress beacons.  Each Geostar box has an SOS button; press it
      and authorities are notified of your position (to within meters).
      This is much more accurate than current distress beacons.
  (3) Air traffic control.  The control center can determine, in real
      time, what aircraft (carrying beacons) are on collision courses
      and send warning messages to them (via the satellites).

The last application is most exciting, and is the one O'Neill
originally targeted.  The FAA is currently spending tens of billions of
dollars on an air traffic control system using radars and ground
computers; Geostar would be far more reliable and far less expensive.
An major airplane pilot's organization (AOPA?) has already endorsed the
system.

O'Neill envisions Geostar or a similar system allowing automated
personal aircraft; position information with accuracies of meters
allows automation of take-off and landing, the most dangerous portions
of a flight (when combined with some simple very short range terminal
sensors).

Geostar will require only 3 satellites; GPS needs up to 24 satellites,
so Geostar should be much cheaper.  Unlike GPS, Geostar can only be
used by paying subscribers -- otherwise, the control computer won't
tell you your position -- so there's no need to worry about loss of
business to unregistered users.

Geostar is cheaper, less complicated, more functional, less useful to
an enemy than GPS.  I don't see how the government could prohibit it,
especially with Reagan's push for space commercialization.

 

------------------------------

Date: 28 January 1984 13:24 EST
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Derivatives of position
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC, PHYSICS @ MIT-MC
cc: KFL @ MIT-MC

  The way I have always heard it was:

				Position	0th derivative
Rate of change of Position:	Velocity	1st derivative
Rate of change of Velocity:	Acceleration	2nd derivative
Rate of change of Acceleration:	Jerk		3rd derivative
Rate of change of Jerk:		Thump		4th derivative
Rate of change of Thump:	?		5th derivative

  Does anyone know what the 5th, etc, derivatives of position are
called?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 28 January 1984 16:27 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: re: G.K. O'Neill's satellite plan
To: VLSI @ DEC-MARLBORO
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, "REDFORD@SHORTY" @ MIT-MC

Let me step back and analyze this system from an abstract viewpoint.

Why would anybody want to know their position (relative to a coodinate
system fixed on the Earth; as we all know absolute position is either
nonsense or useless as the Earth spins thru space) anyway??

To establish rendezvous with some desired target (a fixed object or
somebody else who you're trying to meet), to prevent rendezvous
with some undesired object (a hazardous area), or to estimate distance
between the current location and a potential target to determine
feasibility of rendezvous, or to find the set of all potential targets
within some prescribed radius. Following a route on a computerized map is
merely a combination of using the navigation system to get a direction
vector to achieve approximate rendezvous with the next map target, and
using local feedback to avoid local obstacles and to improve the
proximity of rendezvous, this procedure being followed over and over
for different intermediary rendezvous points along a route.

Can anybody think of any other fundamental use for a locator system?

In the woods/mountains, getting within a few hundred meters should be
sufficient. When your two locators say you are "at the same location"
but you still can't see each other, you shout or fire a gunshot or use
a local radiobeacon or radio-describe landmarks. In a crowded city you
need more accurate information, both because normal city noises tend to
drown out your shouts and the like, and because gunshots tend to
disturb the residents and the police. It would be nice if a single
system could handle both country and city, but perhaps cellular radio
in cities will do a better locator job anyway, as well as provide
other services that are too compute-intensive for the satellite to
handle (the satellite would have to handle a whole world's load
whereas the corner radio-cell-transceiver would have to hande only one
square block's worth of load, about 9 orders of magnitude less), so
maybe a dual city/country system is inevitable and having the
satellite accuracy be insufficient to handle crowded cities is a minor
inconvenience?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jan-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #105    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:
		      Mass Driver Simulator Program
			     Apollo 11 trivia
		    re: G.K. O'Neill's satellite plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 1984 11:13-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Mass Driver Simulator Program

The following appeared in the Jan./Feb. 1984 SSI Update:

----------------

Mass Driver News

Yes, Virginia, there is further mass-driver research being done here at
SSI.  Its local standard-bearer has been indisposed over the last few
months [PFD -- working on Geostar] which has hindered the pace of work
getting done.  But that block has been removed and enw results will
appear soon.

Our request for help with moving the MD III computer simulation from
the Apple to a faster machine and language was answered by a number of
very qualified SSI Members and Senior Associates.  From those
respondents we have asked Mark Senn, a computer consultant in the
Chicago area, to have a try at getting the program to run in FORTRAN or
Pascal on the Purdue University VAX 11/780s, CDC 6000s, and possibly
even their Cyber 205.  We have estimated that we will be able to
increase the program execution speed by about 10,000 times if we were
to use the Cyber 205.  After we have a good version of the code running
we will send copies of the source code to other volunteers for their
comments and suggestions.

As for the experimental lab work on the prototype, I hope to get back
into the lab for a couple of weeks in January to turn up the power.
With the rush and deadline of the Conference last May, we were not able
to safely investigate and test the system at full power.  When we get
results from that work, I'll report them to you here.

					-- Les Snively
----------------

They were running the simulation on an APPLE?  Good grief.

Once the program is available it can probably be distributed over the
net(s).  Who is interested in a copy?

------------------------------

Date: 29 January 1984 18:01 EST
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Apollo 11 trivia
To: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KFL @ MIT-MC

	From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
	Date: 19 Jan 84 15:03:51-PST (Thu)

	I do know that the Apollo 11 U.S. flag was indeed knocked down...

How is this known?
				...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 84 8:19:44-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re: G.K. O'Neill's satellite plan
In-Reply-To: Article <16109@sri-arpa.UUCP>

	Two potentially important uses for GPS are in civil surveying and
in geophysical research.  Texas Instruments and a small company in
Massachusetts have developed and are already beginning to market 
backpack units which can determine position to a few centimeters in a 
geocentric coordinate system (i.e., the coordinate system defined by 
the GPS satellite orbits), although they do not work in real time.  
These units are not much more expensive than the usual doppler 
geoceiver rigs, which are accurate to a meter or so.  NASA is also
developing small GPS receivers for two purposes: (1) to locate
altimeter satellites to a few centimeters (the altimeters have 2-cm
accuracy and require similar knowledge of orbital position), and to
monitor crustal deformation and movement of the tectonic plates.  The
NASA and competing units are now being field-tested in California, and
there should be papers given at the next meeting of the American
Geophysical Union on the results of this comparison study.

	For further information on geophysical applications of this
kind of space technology, see an article I wrote for Science in June
1981, and the references cited there.
 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Jan-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #106    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
		       Re:  Derivatives of position
			  Electromagnetic Sails
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 30 Jan 84 11:50:01 EST
From:     Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@brl-vld>
Subject:  Re:  Derivatives of position

The fifth and higher time-derivatives of position are called "noise".

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 1984 13:36-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Electromagnetic Sails

One problem with light sails as a propulsion system is that the area
covered by the sails is proportional to the sail mass, limiting peak
acceleration.

Electromagnetic sails don't have this problem.  An EM sail would
deflect charged particles from the solar wind or from artifical
sources.  A simple EM sail is a conductor formed into a ring and
positively charged to several million volts.  If the ring has radius r
then the field at a distance of r along the axis of the ring is
inversely proportional to the ring radius.  The distance the field acts
on charged particles increases linearly with r, so the velocity of
particles that can be deflected by the ring remains unchanged.  The
area of the ring increases as r^2 but its mass increases as r, so the
maximum acceleration possible (in a charged particle stream of fixed
density) increases linearly with r.

Such sails could be far more efficient than laser powered light sails.
A light beam having the same momentum as a 5 Mev (.1 c) proton beam has
20 times the energy.

EM sails could be very light.  A 1 kilometer radius loop made with 1 mm
diameter aluminum wire would have a mass of about 13.4 kilograms.  In
constrast, a light sail 1 km in radius made of .1 micron aluminum would
have a mass of 850 kilograms, and these numbers get worse as the radius
increases.  I've omitted the mass of the ring charging device.  The
size of the device would depend on the number of electrons hitting the
the ring.  A 1 km radius ring of 1 mm diameter wire has a surface area
of about 20 m^2.  I don't recall the density of the solar wind, but
pumping 10^15 electrons/sec against (say) 5 kilovolts requires only .8
watts of power.  An elegant way to maintain the charge on the ring
would be to coat it with some e- emitting radioactive isotope.

Alternatively, a ring carrying a current could be used to magnetically
deflect charged particles.  In this case the ring should either be a
superconductor or, more likely, photovoltaic cells strung along the
ring could be used to generate current.

Ultimately, large rings could be used to extract useful energy from the
solar wind.  On a large enough scale such rings would cost far less
than light collectors of equal capacity.  For example, a 1 mm aluminum
ring with a radius of 1 million kilometers would mass only 13 thousand
tons (but would be far too resistive to be useful).  Magnetic fields
trapped in the solar wind would generate currents as they were swept
past the ring.

 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #107    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
			     Re: NASA lexicon
			When is the next liftoff ?
			  Star Ships, Star Wars
		      Mass Driver Simulator Program
			 Derivatives of position
	Terraforming?  Astroforming! --> rogue-planet way stations
			 A manned space station.
		      Re: When is the next liftoff ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 84 10:47:51-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA lexicon
In-Reply-To: Article <15994@sri-arpa.UUCP>

>Snap, Crackle, and Pop:  the fourth, fifth, and sixth time derivatives of
>position..

Just to confirm something I was told a long time ago:  Is the third time
derivative of displacement actually called JERK?
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 84 6:27:18-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxww!pyuxhh!kurt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: When is the next liftoff ?

	When is the next liftoff ?
	Please reply by mail.
-- 
Kurt Gluck SPL 1c273a  Central Services Organization 6 Corporate Place	Piscataway NJ, 08854
      ihnp4!pyuxi!pyuxhh!kurt                   (201)-561-7100 x2023

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 31 January 1984 12:46:57 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc, arms-d@mc
Subject: Star Ships, Star Wars
Message-ID: <1984.1.31.17.44.59.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>

n073  1629  30 Jan 84
(ScienceTimes)
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    LIVERMORE, Calif. - Behind fences topped with barbed wire and doors
equipped with combination locks, dozens of young physicists and
engineers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory work late
into the night, six and seven days a week, on classified projects
aimed at creating the next generation of nuclear weapons.
    Their dream, they say, is to end the nuclear arms race.
    In many ways they trace their lineage to another group of physicists
in the 1940s who dreamed of ending World War II. Yet they are
remarkably young for their level of achievement and for their
responsibilities.
    Theirs is a milieu of blue jeans, soft drinks, an occasional
science-fiction novel - and seemingly endless, all-night bouts of
work in the lab. Offices are cluttered with books and plants. Some of
the young inventors are still in graduate school, working on their
doctorates. None have ever seen a nuclear explosion.
    Their quest is to channel the energy of a nuclear detonation into
focused beams of intense radiation that travel thousands of miles at
the speed of light and destroy enemy missiles in flight, eliminating
the balance of terror that has kept an uneasy peace between the
superpowers for a third of a century. They believe that President
Reagan, in what has become known as his ''Star Wars'' speech, called
on them to speed development of such weapons as a way to help create
a defensive shield against attack from space. Their key designs
number a half dozen in all, although none except X-ray lasers and
microwave weapons have been mentioned outside the world of
government-imposed secrecy.
    Critics say these complex systems based on a new generation of
nuclear arms will never work. They say an enemy could outsmart them
with countermeasures, such as ''hardening'' the skin of a missile or
simply overwhelming a defense with increased numbers of missiles,
decoys, and hard-to-detect cruise missiles. The critics often oppose
the secret nuclear projects as schemes meant to increase research
budgets and to blunt public pressure for a freeze on nuclear arsenals.
    In a series of interviews, the youthful designers chided the critics
as being largely uninformed about their work at Livermore and about
the merits of defensive systems. They said lots of people worried
about the bomb, but they intended to do something about it.
    ''We can try to negotiate treaties and things like that,'' said
Lawrence C. West, 28 years old, who is pursuing a Ph.D. while he
works at the weapons lab. ''But one thing I can do personally,
without having to wait for arms control, is to develop the technology
to eliminate them myself, to eliminate offensive nuclear weapons.''
    The designs of the young physicists have come to be known in
military circles as ''third generation'' nuclear weapons. The first
generation, built in the late 1940s and early 1950s, were large atom
bombs meant to be dropped from airplanes. The second came in the late
1950s and early 1960s with the advent of compact, high-yield hydrogen
bombs that could fit atop intercontinental missiles.
    The third generation is altogether different in that the power of a
nuclear explosion is focused into tight beams of radiation that can
be directed at targets in space thousands of miles away.
    Dr. Edward Teller, who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and was a
founder of the Livermore Laboratory, told Congress last year that he
knew of a half-dozen ''solid'' proposals for nuclear weapons that
could be used in a defensive shield, but could ''mention these topics
only in a superficial manner'' in open session.
    ''Here are the whole gamut of third-generation nuclear weapons,'' he
said. ''I am 75 years old and I am one of those of closed mind who
did not invent them. But I am blessed with some young friends who
come to my office and tell me there is something new under the sun. I
regularly throw them out saying, 'Nonsense!' But they have learned
something from me. They are stubborn. They come back with new
arguments, with new proofs, and even though slowly, I learn.''
    At odds with the nuclear innovations of Teller's young friends is a
formidable array of critics, not a few of whom are veterans of the
earliest American attempts to unleash the hidden powers of the atom.
With surprising unanimity, these critics today lobby for a complete
ban on the construction and testing of all nuclear weapons. The false
promise of defensive systems, they assert, will only fuel the arms
race. Among other criticisms and questions are these:
    -Rationalize how you will, bombs are ultimately meant to kill people.
    When he first came to Livermore, West, the physicist pursuing his
Ph.D., had reservations about working on weapons, but eventually put
them aside.
    ''Nowadays I would be quite willing to go and do full-time weapons
work because I see the vast possibilities,'' he said. ''A tremendous
amount of creativity is needed, and there are very few scientists
willing to do it. Nuclear weapons can devastate the world. I
recognize that. But we are making anti-weapons. My primary interest
is not trying to find better ways to kill people, but better ways to
kill arms.''
    He said, for instance, that X-ray lasers cannot be used against
cities but only against objects in space, such as speeding missiles,
because the weapon's rays will not penetrate the Earth's thick
atmosphere.
    West was raised an Episcopalian and was a Boy Scout. About six years
ago he graduated at the top of his class from the California
Institute of Technology and joined Livermore. Since then he has
worked mainly on the theory and experimental design of a new
generation of supercomputers.
    ''This group was very exciting to me, right from the first day,''
West said. ''I could talk to most people here and have them
understand me very rapidly. I just loved it.''
    -What about the pope's recent plea urging scientists to give up
their ''laboratories and factories of death?''
    ''I don't think I fall in that category, of working on weapons of
death,'' West said. ''We're working on weapons of life, ones that
will save people from the weapons of death.''
    ''It's a moral decision, and I believe in it very strongly,'' he
said. ''I can't understand why everybody in the world isn't working
on finding ways to eliminate nuclear war. Obviously, the decision to
build bombs has been there for 40 years, and we keep getting more of
them. Why not find technical solutions to a technical problem?''
    -Do you ever worry that the technical solutions will fail and that
you will thus contribute to the end of the world?
    ''I just don't see how it could bring about a cataclysm,'' said
West. ''If you have a large system with lots of redundancy, it would
work.''
    Third-generation ideas, which are being pursued by all three of the
government's nuclear weapons laboratories, first came to life at
Livermore, which is run by the University of California for the
federal Department of Energy. The facility, which has 7,200 full-time
employees, is about 40 miles southeast of San Francisco.
    In a corner of the laboratory is a small cluster of buildings that
house O Group, a branch of the physics department. This is where West
says he works sometimes up to 30 hours at a stretch. This, too, is
where 50 other young scientists labor on advanced ideas in such areas
as astrophysics, supercomputer fabrication, spaceship propulsion, and
nuclear weapons design. Most of them have had educations heavy in
science and technology and fairly light in humanities. A top official
at Livermore characterized O Group as ''eccentric and extraordinarily
bright.'' The group is not the only place in the nation where people
plan third-generation nuclear weapons, but it is widely regarded as
the spark plug.
    Here the average scientist is in his 20s, and few, if any, wear
wedding rings. No women are present except for secretaries. The
kitchen has a microwave oven, a hot plate, a refrigerator, and a
mountain of empty Coke bottles. Not a few of the young scientists
work straight though the night, when it is easier to monopolize the
laboratory's huge computers, some of the fastest in the world.
    -Aren't special problems associated with a defense that relies on
nuclear weapons?
    A veteran of the O Group is Dr. Roderick A. Hyde, 31, a graduate of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in astronautical
engineering who has pioneered plans for fusion drives for starships.
A senior member of O Group, he heads a section that analyzes the
technical feasibility of new ideas. One problem with a nuclear
defense, he said, is the short time available to respond to an
attack, especially because the president ostensibly controls the
release of all nuclear weapons. ''Obviously you worry about him being
shot or, even more effectively, merely kept alive but out of
communication, so there isn't a clear devolution of presidential
authority.''
    -Aren't third-generation weapons really just so much speculation?
    A luminary of the O Group is Dr. Peter L. Hagelstein, 29, who is
credited with major innovations. His recent Ph.D. thesis from MIT
focused on non-nuclear ways to create X-ray lasers for scientific
use. Thick with equations, the document breaksfrom
its esoteric pace at one point to list ''future applications''
suggested by science fiction books. One is ''Ringworld,'' by Larry
Niven, a tale in which a spaceship is attacked by beam weapons.
    ''We have been fired upon,'' cries a character in the book. ''We are
still being fired upon, probably by X-ray lasers. This ship is now in
a state of war. Were it not for our invulnerable hull, we would be
dead.''
    Publicly, the best known technical triumph pioneered by Hagelstein
and O Group has been the nuclear-pumped X-ray laser, which first came
to life about four years ago as the result of a collaboration with
senior Livermore scientists such as Dr. George F. Chapline. The
weapon is being tested at the government's underground site in
Nevada. A small nuclear bomb at its core, it takes the power of a
nuclear explosion and channels it into laser rods that emit lethal
bursts of radiation. Its possible use as a weapon system is some
years off. But according to O Group scientists, clusters of X-ray
lasers will be able to put a very large dent into the entire force of
Soviet strategic missiles, currently some 1,500 strong.
    The power of the X-ray laser concept resulted in the founding of a
separate group at Livermore known as R Program, a consortium of more
than 100 laboratory personnel from different groups who are
developing and testing the X-ray laser alone. The head of R Program
is Dr. Thomas Weaver, who at 34 is one of the oldest members of O
Group.
    -Given the terrible risks and uncertainties, isn't working on arms
control better than constructing any kind of bomb?
    ''There's a simplistic view that says work on any weapon, defensive
or offensive, is intrinsically evil, and that we should lay down our
arms,'' Weaver said. ''The other position is that we are willing to
take prudent risks in order to maintain our freedom. I for one would
not argue that technological solutions alone are sufficient. I think
they need to be combined with arms control and discussions between
countries. But I think we have to be realistic. Without technical
advances to motivate the discussions, they're less likely to happen.''
    -The Russians could overwhelm a defense with decoy missiles. And
even if only 2 percent of the Soviet Union's current total arsenal of
warheads broke through a defensive shield, the resulting force of
bombs would still number 200, enough to wreak havoc on this country's
major cities.
    Visibly unmoved by any of the questions and criticisms is Dr. Lowell
L. Wood, 42, a Livermore physicist who founded and heads O Group. Apt
criticism is an aid in refining ideas, he said. More research was
clearly needed, he emphasized, but the potential power of the whole
spectrum of third-generation weapons was clear.
    A large man with a full beard, Wood is the principal inspiration
behind the frenetic activity of the young scientists. In separate
interviews, each of them paid tribute to Wood's scientific insights,
which include advances in laser fusion and astrophysics. And they
praised his ability to build enthusiasm. ''He has lots of confidence
that no matter how young you are, whether you are fresh out of
college with a B.S. or whatever, that you can still make a
difference,'' said Weaver of R Program.
    Wood is quick with replies to critics. He says, for instance, that
decoys cost about half as much as complete missiles, and that it is
economically and militarily feasible to shoot at all apparent
missiles, ignoring whether they are real or decoys.
    And, even if some nuclear warheads got through a multilayer
defensive shield, he said, the Soviet Union could never be sure which
warheads could penetrate the defenses, and whether they would strike
cities or fall on missile silos in wheat fields. Such uncertainty,
Wood said, is enough to insure that the Russians would think longer
and harder before launching an attack than they need to at present.
    -Couldn't the Soviet Union make X-ray lasers and use them
offensively as ''escorts'' to attacking missiles, knocking out our
defensive systems?
    ''Probably not,'' said Wood, ''since the defender always appears to
have the technical edge in these situations. Defensive
third-generation systems are compact and lightweight and thus have a
great capacity to carry protective armor, all the more so because
they have to fly relatively short distances. They would be able to
ride out an attack by offensive third-generation weapons and still be
able to fire at a fleet of offensive boosters. These, on the other
hand, would be quite vulnerable. Offensive missiles are very big and
can afford to carry little extra weight over the long distances they
must fly, so technically it's exceedingly difficult to armor them in
any significant way against attack.''
    In any event, scientists at Livermore, young and old alike, say
research on a new generation of nuclear weaponry will continue, even
if it is never used for a defensive shield. They say it helps them
better understand the breakthroughs in this area they assume the
Russians are making as well.
    The first generation of atomic physicists built the weapons that
initially shook the earth. The second generation refined them. And
now a third generation of weapons physicists has embarked on the
exploration of a new frontier.
    ''There're almost an infinite number of issues to be pursued,'' said
West. ''The number of new weapon designs is limited only by one's
creativity. Most of them have not been developed beyond the stage of
thinking one afternoon, 'Gee, I suppose you can do so and so.'
There're a tremendous number of ways one might defend the country.''
    

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1984  22:57 EST
Message-ID: <G.MENAGERIE.11987888333.BABYL@MIT-EECS>
From: G.MENAGERIE@MIT-EECS
To:   dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
Cc:   space@mit-mc
Subject: Mass Driver Simulator Program

I'm sure that there are many people who would be interested in the Apple
program(me, for one). Do you know where I could get a copy of it?
                                           Thanks,
                                              Greg McMullan
                                              G.Menagerie@MIT-EECS

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 1984 1333-PST
Subject: Derivatives of position
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF>

This is all wrong, it really should be:

Rate of change of Position:    Velocity
Rate of change of Velocity:    Acceleration
Rate of change of Acceleration:Jerk

but, the 5th derivative is called inauguration (change of the Jerk)!!

			Alan

------------------------------

Date: 1 February 1984 02:04 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Terraforming?  Astroforming! --> rogue-planet way stations
To: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL @ SRI-NIC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Boy am I behind in mail reading, I haven't even seen this message that
has been sitting in my inbox for weeks, much less reply to it:
    Date: 6 Jan 1984 9:53-PST
    From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
    ...
    There is reason to believe that star formation also leads to the
    formation of small bodies -- essentially independent gas giants.  Such
    rogue planets could be very close to the earth, perhaps only fractions
    of a light year away.
Hmmm, if there are enough of these, they could be used as intersteller
way stations, having a source of materials already there instead of
having to import materials from the nearest star&planetary system (the
Solar System initially). So then all we'd need is a built-in source of
energy for processing the materials into useful fuels and foodstuffs,
or a technology for using the materials as fuel (if it's hydrogen, we
know how to make hydrogen bombs, which if contained can be used as a
quick&very-dirty nuclear power plant).

If we can locate these potential way stations, perhaps the first
interstellar travelers will be able to travel to one of them instead
of all the way to the nearest star, and thus eliminate the
quantum-jump nature presumed for interstellar travel, eliminate the
generations-ship passed by later ships before it reaches its
destination. A 2000-vintage ship might be able to make it to one of
these rogue-planets in just a few years, set up an observatory for
sending back info that allows triangulation of not-so-nearby stars to
determine their distances accurately, and set up a comfortable
facility (restroom and fuel-supply) for later ships. Maybe even set up
a full scale habitat where billions of people can live.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 84 19:32:56-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!daemon @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: A manned space station.

From: coevax::croteau  (Reach out and Crush Someone)
Newsgroup : net.columbia
>From : 	COEVAX::CROTEAU
Organization : Digital Equipment Corp.

Reagan DID ask for a manned space station in last nights S of the U address.
He wants NASA to have it operating within a decade.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Given:  Gerald J. Croteau, Jr.
Nick:   Jerry
ARPA:   decwrl!rhea!coevax!croteau@Berkeley
	decwrl!rhea!coevax!croteau@SU-Shasta
UUCP:   ... {decvax , ucbvax , allegra} !decwrl!rhea!coevax!croteau
NYNEX:  (603) 884-5837         
USPS:   Digital Equipment Corp.
	Continental Blvd
  .	MKO1-2/H32
 / \	Merrimack, NH 03054
/~ ~\
__`__\

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 84 19:26:25-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: When is the next liftoff ?
In-Reply-To: Article <637@pyuxhh.UUCP>

General info on STS-10/41-B:

Liftoff:  3 February, 0800 EST
Landing: 11 February, 0750 EST

Times are approximate.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Feb-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #108    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:
	Re: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
	Re: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
			       the MMU EVA
		   Things (I'm new) regarding net.space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 84 13:16:36-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
In-Reply-To: Article <129@ames-lm.UUCP>

27 January 1984

     Don't put too much hope in Lunar Oxygen.  Liquid oxygen as an earthly
commodity is fairly cheap, $.15/lb the last time I looked.  What makes it
valuble in LEO is the cost of transporting mass to LEO ($1500/lb), and the
even higher cost of weight in GEO (around $10000/lb).
     As soon as someone develops a Shuttle derivative vehicle, to LEO cost
will drop by a factor of two or three.  This will remove much of the economic
value of Lunar Oxygen.

                                                   Dani Eder
                                                   Boeing Aerospace Company
                                                   ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 84 15:10:52-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
In-Reply-To: Article <129@ames-lm.UUCP>, <782@ssc-vax.UUCP>

What ever happened to Jim Arnold's hypothesis that the permanently
shaded craters near the Moon's poles might contain water ice from
cometary impacts?  I think he estimated that there might be
several cubic kilometers of ice there.

------------------------------

Date:  1 Feb 1984 1146-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL>
Subject: the MMU EVA
To: space@KESTREL

	Does anyone know when the MMU EVA will take place this weekend?  Will
it be televised?

	Please reply directly.  Thanks.

						Dick
-------

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 84 11:23:19-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!ames-lm!statvax!eugene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Things (I'm new) regarding net.space

My first attempt at posting news failed, I hope this makes it as
Al Globius has succeeded.

I am not a know it all about the space program, but I have worked at four
NASA centers and at HQ over seven years now.  And I am getting a bit weary.
I started as a fresh out, anyway.

Regarding the "Rights of Planets:"  I suggest you find an opinion by
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas entitled: "The Rights of Rocks."
This was a conservation opinion expressed as Douglas was a big muckee-muck
with the Sierra Club.  Yes, planets have rights, including the earth.
Look to Antarctica to legal precedent.  We must proceed with care in our
voyages into space.  Carl Sagan and the Planetary Society would back me
up on this (Please with care, especially if youcan't keep you own planet
clean).

Space stations were circular, probably, because they rotated to create
"artificial gravity."  Current space station design is probably
based on getting something into orbit for as little cost as possible
(launch cost).

NASA's conservativism -- Yes, its very conservative, more than I like,
but I worked on a $90M project which died 1/3 into its' life mission
due to hardware problems (not uncommon).  We underwent a Congressional
investigation.  Space is not as popular as people use to believe.
At a Compcon(82), a speaker, not me, just happen to ask the audience for a
show of hands, "How many people would like the US to have a Halley/
Tempel 2 comet mission?"  Only 1/3 of the people raised their hand.

Fiancing space is not cheap: note nuclear reactor funding.
Civil servants don't make much.  Contractors have limited say in policy.
I worked indirectly (imaging simulation[re: graphics, etc.]) on Voyager
and other at JPL.  I saw nine proposals for deep-space missions get
flushed down the tubes with one remaining when Reagan came into office.
As far as I am concern, with Voyager and Pioneer, we are already
in the business of interstellar space travel.

Sending genes in space and colonizing Io have been discussed at lunch
talks in NASA.  (Free format discussions, neat things, too.)
[Aside, while doing undergrad work, I worked for a company making disk
drive heads, and we discussed what it would take to encode DNA for
data storage --UV radiation would be a big problem].  Space is a pretty
harsh environment: Voyager I suffered heavy radiation damage passing
near Io.  Computer chips have to be of low density, this reduces
available memory, etc.. [Can't run UNIX in space yet.]

It appears my first message on blasting astroids didn't get thru.
If you are still interested in actually working in the space program,
I will gladly act at intermediate, NASA needs computer science people.
More details later, I have to log off.

--eugene n miya
  MS 233-14
  NASA Ames Research Center
  Moffett Field, CA 94035

  emiya@ames-vmsb
  ucbvax!menlo70!ames-lm!eugene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #109    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
	Re: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
			   inter-stellar travel
			     Re: Lunar oxygen
			    Planetary Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 February 1984 06:41 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 30 Jan 84 15:10:52-PST (Mon)
    From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
    What ever happened to Jim Arnold's hypothesis that the permanently
    shaded craters near the Moon's poles might contain water ice from
    cometary impacts?
I've seen no interest from Ronald Reagan or Congress on this matter,
and it would seem infeasible at this time for any private company to
invest funds in exploring that potential resource. Thus we're in a
helpless position, with this possibly being the critical path to
fullscale habitat and/or manufaturing in space (water is needed for
raising food and drinking, and hydrocarbons are needed in industrial
processes). I wish there was some way to get our government to fund
the investigation of this process. (Maybe after a private company
finishes the ion rocket they're developing, it'll be feasible for
somebody to use it to get into polar-lunar orbit without government
funds.)

------------------------------

Date:  2 Feb 1984 1047-PST
From: WATERMAN@USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: inter-stellar travel
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

re: inter-stellar(inter-galctic??)travel:

has there been a recap lately of current thinking about possible
propulsion+life-support systems for inter-stellar flight?  Is the
1950's idea about using the world's supply of h-bombs out of the running now?
then there was the interstellar gas gatherer idea and the laser idea and .....
... . If a-i research/cognitive studies research gets as far as being able to
map consciousness into a digital-silicon-brain, then one could in fact travel
at the speed of light!  Slow scout ships would go out and set up 'mind-trans-
ceivers' at various places of interest.  Then to go there,
Mr. John Q. Siliconhead would just have his entire consciousness broadcast
to the transciever at that place.  He would get there in no time at all !!!
Then he would just be booted in a duplicate material housing and be on his
way strolling on the beach on planet x.!

-e.s.(waterman@ecla)
-------

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 1984 12:11-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA.ECLnet
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: randvax!decvax!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder%USC-CSE@ECLA.ECLnet
Subject: Re: Lunar oxygen
Reply-To: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL.ARPA

Dani Eder:

Has Boeing done a study on the economics of lunar oxygen?  If so, how
do I get a copy?

Questions I have are: where does most of the cost of lunar oxygen come
from?  Transportation to LEO?  Transportation costs from LEO to the
moon and back?  R&D costs?  How would the economics be affected if
large water deposits are found on the moon, so hydrogen needn't be
imported?  Is any demand foreseen for oxygen at GEO?  For other bulk
materials at GEO (for, say, radiation shielding)?

Paul Dietz
dietz%usc-cse@usc-ecla or
rand-vax!usc-vax!dietz

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 84 10:09:22-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Planetary Program

Al Globus (NASA Ames Research Center) recently wrote:

 > "There has been a great deal of hand ringing over the lack of new
 >starts in the planetary program.  Prepare thyself for heracy, I
 >think the lack of new starts is a good thing, although it should
 >end in a year or two.  Why?
  > "Well, when conducting science I believe that it is a good idea to
 >understand the results of your first experiment before charging
 >off on a second.  The planetary community should take a good hard
 >look at the Voyager data before designing the next set of planetary
 >missions, at least to the planets we've already visited.  This argument
 >is not valid for asteroids and comets of course."

	If planetary science were actually 'charging off' to acquire
new data before understanding what is already on hand, and if total
understanding of, say, the Voyager data were a prerequisite for
designing subsequent missions to whatever planet, this argument
might have some validity. However, this is not the case.  It takes many
years to process and analyze the data from any planetary mission, and
it takes at least *ten* years between the time that the planetary science
community comes to what can pass for agreement on what the priorities
are and what mission should be attempted next, and the approval of
that mission - and then another five to seven years before launch and
another two in flight - making roughly half a generation between our
realizing that it's desirable to do a Galileo, say, and actually
getting the data in hand.  OMB does its best to apply Globus's
argument, but planetary scientists obviously need more than one
mission per career, and the solar system contains a sufficient variety
of objects that we can be planning one or more missions while
previously approved missions are still under construction or in
flight.

	A few words to bring readers up to date on what the status of
planetary missions actually is.  Galileo is on track for launch in
1986 and arrival in 1988-89.  Things look reasonably good for the
forthcoming Voyager encounter.  The Venus Radar Mission was approved in
the FY1984 budget.  The FY1985 budget announced by the President today
includes a Mars Geoscience/Planetology Orbiter, the first of a series
of Planetary Observer missions.  ISEE has been renamed the
International Comet Explorer, and is headed for Giacobini-Zinner after
completing a a successful lunar flyby.  The next mission for which 
the Solar System Exploration Division at NASA Headquarters will 
seek approval is the Comet Rendezvous - Asteroid Flyby, the first 
Mariner Mark-II mission, which will rendezvous with Comet Kopff and do a 
flyby near asteroids yet to be selected.  The next highest priority 
mission after that will be a Titan Probe - Radar Mapping mission to Titan.


	I will certainly add 'hand ringing' and 'heracy' to the list
of NASA jargon.

		-- Ted Flinn (former Deputy Director of Planetary
			      Programs, NASA Headquarters)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #110    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Intersteller travel via comet - (nf)
			    Re: Apollo Trivia
				   Sigh
			  Re: Planetary Program
			  Re: Destroying Planets
			   Re: Space stations.
			  Re: O'Neill's GEOSTAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 84 10:30:32-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!minn-ua!sew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Intersteller travel via comet - (nf)

#R:ames-lm:-12400:minn-ua:15100001:000:425
minn-ua!sew    Jan 31 09:53:00 1984

If I remember my physics correctly, you'd be better off meeting the comet on
its way *in*, and moving away from it by the sun.  If you can accelerate a
habitat to cometary speed, however, you'd only want to tag the comet for
whatever materials it might provide..would not need it for acceleration as
(1) you have enough thrust for a generation ship and (2) a comet does not have
sufficient gravity to accelerate the habitat.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 84 15:11:26-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxa!9212osd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Apollo Trivia
In-Reply-To: Article <15414@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <199@ll1.UUCP>

<-->
Look up the Dec.? 1983 issue of Esquire Magazine for a
decent article on Armstrong and the story behind the famous
first words.  Contrary to what Chuck Jones says, the
words were no rehearsed at any time before the launch.
He came up with the famous phrase en route. 
This article also explains Conrad's first words on the Moon.
He just wanted to win a bet with a very famous journalist.
He won, but was never paid. The purpose of the bet was to show
her that NASA was not pushing or telling the astronauts
what to say when they first stepped on the Moon. Check the
Esquire issue.
-- 
Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz /AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Road
Room HO-3M-325	201-949-1532	Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733
Path: {{{ucbvax,decvax}!}{ihnp4,harpo}!}houxa!9212osd

------------------------------

Date: 03 Feb 84  2215 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Sigh
To:   space@MIT-MC

n530  0121  02 Feb 84
BC-SPACE-02-02
    By William Hines
    (c) 1984 Chicago Sun-Times (Independent Press Service)
     WASHINGTON - The head of the federal space agency has ruled out the
possibility of a lunar base, or even resumed manned flights to the
moon, until after the year 2000.
    ''Lunar bases, and even manned missions to Mars, are still in our
dreams,'' NASA Administrator James M. Beggs told reporters at a
briefing session on his agency's budget for Fiscal Year 1985. But as
far as manned activities on the moon are concerned, Beggs added, ''I
think you are looking at the years beyond the beginning of the second
millennium.''
    The last manned flight to the moon, Apollo 17, ended with a safe
return to earth on Dec. 19, 1972.
     Big-ticket activity in space for the remainder of the century will
focus on expanded operations with the four-plane Space Shuttle fleet
and development of a ''permanent presence in low earth orbit'' in the
form of a manned space station.
     The station, which is planned for occupation by astronauts and
scientists beginning in 1992, was authorized last week in President
Reagan's State of the Union message to Congress. At that time, space
officials, including Beggs, estimated its price at $8 billion. At his
budget briefing, however, Beggs acknowledged that $8 billion would be
only the beginning. It would finance a bare-bones station that would
be augmented, at a possible cost of $2 billion a year, in the closing
years of the century.
    The new budget proposal includes $150 million for start-up costs on
the space station. C. Thomas Newman, NASA comptroller, said the
project would need ''$250-300 million'' in fiscal 1986, $1.2 billion
in 1987, and about $2 billion a year thereafter.
     ''Don't expect that once the station is operational NASA's program
will stop,'' Beggs said. ''We will continue to develop it. $8 billion
gets you the initial operating capability.''
     Interplanetary exploration, which has been on hold for several
years, gets a moderate shot in the arm in the new budget, with $16
million in start-up money on a Mars Geoscience-Climatology Orbiter
(MGCO) scheduled for launching in 1990. Beggs said MGCO represents a
new class of ''relatively lower cost planetary observers designed to
investigate specific questions in planetary science.'' Earlier
probes, such as the Mars-landing Vikings and the wide-ranging
Voyagers, were general purpose exploratory vehicles. MGCO will cost
about $375 million to develop and fly, Beggs said.
    Along with a Jupiter probe called Galileo, set for launching in
1986, and a Venus radar mapper and a north-to-south sun-orbiting
craft scheduled for later in the '80s, MGCO completes NASA's existing
planetary program. There has not been an interplanetary launching
since 1979. This was a Voyager spacecraft that is headed for a
rendezvous with the planet Uranus in 1986 and Neptune in 1989.
    The coming fiscal year will see delivery of the fourth and final
shuttle plane, to be named Atlantis. Beggs said he sees no
possibility, at present, of a fifth orbiter being needed.
    The reusable shuttle planes, about the size of a DC-9 jet transport,
cost about $1 billion each. Two, Columbia and Challenger, already
have flown; Discovery is set for its maiden mission in June; and
Atlantis is expected to be delivered in November.
    There will seven or eight shuttle flights in the current fiscal
year, which ends Sept. 30. The first was last November, and a second
is scheduled to begin Friday morning. Beggs estimated that the
shuttles would fly 11 times in fiscal 1985 and 16 times in 1986,
''working up toward a planned 24 flights a year.''
    Even with the space station in the picture a decade from now, the
potential capabilities of a four-shuttle fleet should be adequate for
NASA's requirements, Beggs said. He explained that each shuttle
should be good for eight flights a year, a total of 32, and that
servicing the space station would require only seven missions.
Twenty-four regular flights plus seven for station-servicing adds up
to 31.
    The bottom line on NASA's new budget is $7,370,000,000, an increase
of 4 per cent over the 1984 level. Beggs said he foresees a ''real
growth'' of 1 per cent a year for the rest of this decade. Taking
inflation estimates into account, this would bring NASA's budget for
fiscal 1989 to $9.2 billion.
    END
    
nyt-02-02-84 0408est
**********

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 84 18:55:52-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Planetary Program
In-Reply-To: Article <586@seismo.UUCP>

If I read Ted Flinn's argument right, one should plan a second experiment
(in this case a planetary probe) before really understanding the first
because it takes 15 to 17 years to fly a space craft.  Maybe the real
answer is to cut that time down to something reasonable, say 3-5 years.
The 15-17 years was broken down into 10 years of milling about and 5-7
years of work.  I don't know what to do about the milling about, we
certainly do a great deal of that here (I must admit I've contributed
by share); but it seems to me that it should be possible to speed
design and implementation, since we've already built
several deep space probes and presumably learned enough to speed
the process.  

There is another approach to getting more missions without designing
new probes before examining the data from old ones.  There are 
a lot of objects in the solar system, nine planets, our moon, several
other moons, comets and asteroids.  While Jupiter may be more glamorous,
good science could be done with Lunar, cometary, and asteroidal probes.
The moon hasn't had much attention since Apollo and the comets and asteroids 
have never been visited.  Doesn't it make sense to go out there and take
a look?

Actually, things have worked out so that there has been time 
to examine the data.  Galileo has been delayed enough to incorporate
Voyager results and the Mars new start comes several years since the last
probe to Mars.  The planetary program proposed by that NASA committee
(I can't remember the name) seems balanced and sensible.  

What I do object to are those that claim that the U.S. space program is falling
apart.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The program is strong,
vigorous, well funded and has mainained a continuous stream of
accomplishment from Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Viking, Voyager, Skylab,
IRAS, shuttle, spacelab and on to space telescope, Galileo, and space station.

My other pet peeve are space scientist trying to sabotage manned programs
such as space station.  It we had a space station, Solar Max would have
been fixed years ago, IRAS could be 'refueled' with coolant and work for
years instead of months, and we could accumulate instruments in orbit
instead of using them for a few months or years and then abandoning them
for lack of simple repairs and resupply.  This sort of accumulation could
dramatically lower the cost of doing space science and open the field to
far more researchers.  In addition, many important space science projects
requiring very large structures are impossible without a space station.

 Well, I'll get off my high horse.  Bye.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 84 13:25:14-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!wsc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Destroying Planets
In-Reply-To: Article <5032@uiucdcs.UUCP>

In refrence to the analogy of destroying beaver dams and destroying planets,
I agree whole-heartedly that we should do everything in our power to better
our way of life, BUT (just as a thought), when the beaver dam overflows into
an area which us humans need, we turn around and destroy the beaver dam.
With further quests into the stars, whose to say we won't be messing up
"somebody's back yard"? And furthermore, what are "they" going to do to
remove our "beaver dam".........Again just a thought.......

                        The Pessimistic Astronaut

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 84 14:49:58-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space stations.
In-Reply-To: Article <578@pyuxqq.UUCP>, <1177@aluxp.UUCP>

The reason why nobody is looking at ring-shaped space stations is
that the current space-station plans do not use centrifugal force
to supply artificial gravity.  Currently-planned stations will have
a free-fall environment throughout.  Interest in artificial gravity
declined steeply in the 60's, when experimental evidence confirmed
that human beings were not seriously affected by moderate periods
of time in free-fall conditions.  It may well be necessary in the
more distant future, when really long stays start to become a serious
possibility, but current plans aren't that fancy.

There is also a secondary issue here:  current thought is that if
people are going to be coming and going between a rotating section
and a free-fall section, the rotation rate should be quite low.
This is not a mechanical question but a matter of worries about
things like inner-ear upsets.  Last I heard, the best guess was that
if you want arbitrarily-chosen people to come and go between the two
environments over long periods, anything above 1 RPM is dubious.
Given the nice simple relationship between spin rate, radius, and
acceleration, it turns out that a 1-RPM structure giving a useful
fraction of 1G has to be *big*, hundreds of meters at least.  This
is a bit too big for timid NASA planners just now.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 84 14:55:09-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: O'Neill's GEOSTAR
In-Reply-To: Article <16100@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Another advantage of Geostar is that a substantial fraction of the
proceeds from it go to the Space Studies Institute.  If Geostar makes
it big, this could pump a lot of money into private space development.

The way I heard it, the obstacles to Geostar are not really a question
of the government banning it.  They're just the usual problems of having
only so many orbital slots and so many frequencies available, and lots
of different proposals for how to use them.  Geostar is in competition
for orbital slots and frequency assignments with various other things,
some of which have lots of backing.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Feb-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #111    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
			       NASA lexicon
	       Re: The missing "a", other Apollo questions
			      Apollo Trivia
			      Re: sunspots?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 84 9:06:34-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!ames-lm!statvax!eugene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: NASA lexicon

A number of us who deal with NASA HQ got lots of laughs off the Flinn's
first list, but the consensus was that much of the terminology is a year old.
Because we (and others) can use buzz phrases in string manipulation
languages (like MLISP), I am collecting at NASA Ames, and other NASA centers
some of the current `jargon.'  If you have dealings with NASA HQ,
please feel free to mail to me, and it will post the total
to net.space to add to Flinn's list.  Give me about one month.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 84 0:34:01-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!jax @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The missing "a", other Apollo questions
In-Reply-To: Article <2501@azure.UUCP> <1176@aluxp.UUCP>

	What I heard was, " One small step for a man ..."
	I never understood why the MEDIA reported what I did not hear, but
	I assumed that they were reporting the preprinted script and Major(?)
	Armstrong screwed up and spoke wrong. I greatly preferred the "A"
	version.
	
	The Wanderer				aluxp!danhart
---------

FYI,

Neil Armstrong was a *civilian* test pilot before becoming an
astronaut.  He set foot on the moon as a civilian working for NASA.

-- 
.jax

	Jack T. Inman
	Sequent Computer Systems
	Portland, Oregon 97229
	...ogcvax!sequent!jax
	(503) 627-9810

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 84 0:42:02-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!jax @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Apollo Trivia

	What I heard was, " One small step for a man ..."
	I never understood why the MEDIA reported what I did not hear, but
	I assumed that they were reporting the preprinted script and Major(?)
	Armstrong screwed up and spoke wrong. I greatly preferred the "A"
	version.
	
	The Wanderer				aluxp!danhart
---------

FYI,

Neil Armstrong was a *civilian* test pilot before becoming an
astronaut.  He stepped on the moon as a civilian working for NASA.

It was a gaint step.
-- 
.jax

	Jack T. Inman
	Sequent Computer Systems
	Portland, Oregon 97229
	...ogcvax!sequent!jax
	(503) 627-9810

------------------------------

Date:  5-Feb-84 02:53 PST
From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc.  Cupertino CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Re: sunspots?
To: edl@sri-tsc
Cc: space@mit-mc, sky-fans@mit-xx
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-4237B>

There...got the info.  You can get a free subscription to "Preliminary Report 
And Forecast Of Solar Geophysical Data" from...here goes...

U.S. Department Of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Research Laboratories
Space Environment Laboratory

Space Environment Services Center
325 Broadway, R/E/SE2
Boulder, Colorado 80303

This publication is published weekly by the Joint NOAA-USAF Space Environment 
Services Center.  It has a one page general forecast of solar activity and 
geomagnetic fields, alerts, weekly energetic event summary, flare list, 27 day 
ap & 10cm forecast (whatever that is), weekly region summary and a recent 
monthly solar indices (preliminary).  So, if this is light in your 
life...subscribe to it.  --Bi<<

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Feb-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #112    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:
				  LAUNCH
				Re: LAUNCH
		      Shoddy AP news-reporting again
			Second Deployment Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 84 13:10:29-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: LAUNCH

The Challenger launched on schedule today, at 0800 EST.
Soon after launch, NASA recovery ships located and
secured the SRB's for tow back to port.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 84 17:20:10-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mark @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: LAUNCH
In-Reply-To: Article <2569@alice.UUCP>

Does anybody know how they are going to navigate this untethered
spacewalk?  Personally, I'd be scared stiff trying to shoot around
in a jet pack in zero G with no ground to drag my feet on.  Do the
astronauts get real good at a spacewar video game, or is the whole
thing controlled by a computer, or what?  What happens if a jet pack
fails or runs out of fuel while they're out on EVA?  (The same thing
that happens if the engine fails or runs out of fuel in an airplane,
I guess.)

------------------------------

Date: 6 February 1984 02:35 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Shoddy AP news-reporting again
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I saw the following story in the Peninsula Times-Tribune, noticed the
discrepancy in hundredths vs. thousandths of seconds, went online to
check the original story, found the same discrepancy:
    a222  1408  03 Feb 84
    AM-Space Shuttle, Bjt,790
    URGENT
    Shuttle Back in Space, Deploys Satellite
    By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
    Associated Press Writer
	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The shuttle soared back into space
    Friday ...
    ... ...
	The 10th space shuttle mission, this one with Challenger, got off to
    a perfect start in weather that could not have been better. The clock
    at liftoff stood at 8:00:00:575; the 100-ton shuttle was 57.5
    thousandths of a second late getting off. It soared to an orbit 190
    miles high, exactly as planned.
Apparently Harry Rosenthal can't do 5th-grade arithmetic with decimal.
Obviously that's 575 thousands, or 57.5 hundredths, not 57.5 thousands
as he reports. If so, why is he writing these scientific stories,
trying to impress the readers with his (faulty) arithmetic, and not
asking somebody a little better at grade-school arithmetic to check
his work? (I know I'm nitpicking, but really publishing something on a
news service that has such an illiterate/dumb error can only confuse
the poor reader who isn't as smart as I am and actually believes the
erroneous calculation; Maybe our school kids are unable to learn
because TV and newspapers are barraging them with such mis-information
that undermines their attempt to understand anything technical?)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 84 8:39:28-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Second Deployment Delayed

NASA today postponed by at least one day the deployment
of an Indonesian satellite identical to Westar VI, launched
and lost yesterday.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Feb-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #113    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
				MMU walks
			What's happening up there?
		       Article on maneuvering unit
			  Re: LAUNCH -- MMU Info
			 Western VI Lost in Space
			     Missing satelite
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 06 Feb 84 07:53:41 PST (Mon)
To: space@Mit-Mc
Subject: MMU walks
From: Mike Iglesias <iglesias@uci-750a>

Anybody know the schedule for the MMU walks on the shuttle flight?
Are any of the networks planning to cover it?

------------------------------

Date:  6 Feb 1984 1112-PST
From: Wmartin@OFFICE-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: What's happening up there?
To:   space@MIT-MC

Would anyone with knowledge of what's going on with the current shuttle
mission, or access to news service articles on the subject, please post
all the info you can on the problems that are going on, with the
satellite(s) and anything else.  I haven't seen any television news
coverage on this, and only heard a few sparse reports on radio.

I am getting the impression that this mission has been an unmitigated
disaster, and I hope to hear that things are not as bad as they seem.

Also, I foolishly lost or misplaced the list of frequencies on which the
space flight center ham radio club is retransmitting the NASA audio feed
of the ground-to-shuttle communications. Could someone please post that
list?  Thanks much!

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date:  6 Feb 1984 13:12:52 EST (Monday)
From: Stephen X. Nahm <sxn@bbncc-washington>
Subject: Article on maneuvering unit
To: ihnp4!cbosgd!mark@ucb-vax
Cc: space@mit-mc

There's a lengthy article on the manned maneuvering unit in last week's
Aviation and Space Technology Week (January 23, 1984).  It covers in
detail how the astronauts trained for the mission, and there are some
photos of the training aparatus.  They showed a mockup of the Solar
Max satellite - I was surprised to see how large it is.  For some 
reason I had the idea that it was about the size of a breadbox  (rather
than an elephant).

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 84 18:46:02-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: LAUNCH -- MMU Info
In-Reply-To: Article <927@cbosgd.UUCP>

The jet pack (MMU for manned maneuvering unit) is considered
safe by NASA.  A primitive version of it was tested inside
of Skylab in the 1970's.  The pack delivers 6 pounds of thrust,
and, together with the astronaut, must propel about 15 to 20 slugs.
Therefore, NASA says there is ''no chance'' that a malfunction
could send the astronaut soaring away into space.  As for fuel,
there is more than enough for the planned 1.5 and 3 hour flights.
In case the astronaut becomes stranded in space, the shuttle will
maneuver close enough for another astronaut in the cargo bay to
latch onto Buck Rogers and pull him in.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 84 18:42:30-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Western VI Lost in Space

The Challenger crew toady ejected Western VI, a Western
Union satellite, from the cargo bay today on schedule.
The ejection and initial firing of the satellite kick motor
went well, but somewhere into the ascent to geosynchronous
orbit, all contact with the satellite was lost.  At the
moment, there is no further information on what happened,
and the satellite is considered lost in space.  Western
Union paid $10 million for the launch.

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 7 Feb 84 03:36 EST
From:  Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject:  Missing satelite
To:  Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840207083605.484192@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

As I follow the (poor) news stories here, the missing satelite has been
located in an orbit very like that of the shittle. Correct?

Is there a good reason why they don't just go back and pick it up??

                              Paul

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #114    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
	   Westar VI Possibly Found -- Palapa B to be Launched
				MMU Tests
			     Shuttle Follies
			Shuttle audio frequencies
			      One small step
			   1984 Space Lectures
		   What's happening up there? / summary
			     Missing satelite
	 Re: Westar VI Possibly Found -- Palapa B to be Launched
				Re: LAUNCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 84 9:13:49-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Westar VI Possibly Found -- Palapa B to be Launched

NORAD radar said yesterday that two of the seventeen chunks of
debris orbiting above and behind the Challenger were big enough
to be the remains of Westar VI and its rocket.  Yesterday, ground
stations received faint signals on the Westar frequency, too faint
to lock on to.  Western Union has said that if it is indeed the
satellite, which it looks like it is, it is useless anyway, since
there is now way to move it to geosynchronous orbit.  There are
speculations that the PAM malfunction, sending the satellite
pinwheeling instead of soraing up.

Meanwhile, Indonesia gave NASA permission to deploy its satellite
Monday morning at around 1100 EST.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 1984  10:00 EST (Tue)
Message-ID: <DMS.11989844133.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Siegel <DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: MMU Tests
To:   space@MIT-MC

I just watched some of the live TV coverage of the MMU workouts.  They
really looked like they were out of a science fiction movie.  The
success of the MMU tests make up for the satellite booster problems.
Be sure to catch the TV coverage of the testing being done on
Thursday. 

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 1984 8:56-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA.ECLnet
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Shuttle Follies
Reply-To: dietz@USC-ECL.ARPA

Well, now they've lost two satellites and a balloon (the spacewalk seems
to be going well, though).

The satellites used identical PAM's, with fuel from the same batch.
This seems to be a problem with the shuttle: since satellites are
launched in groups if problems are found with one you can't easily fix
the others without bringing them back to Earth and lanuching again --
very expensive.

One news story I heard suggested the PAM nozzles shattered.  Could the
PAM failures have been caused by damage inflicted during the shuttle
launch?  I wonder -- maybe the vibrations were very bad in the payload
bay this time.  Were the satellites stored at the rear end of the cargo
bay?  This would be very bad news for the shuttle program (and very
goods for Ariane).

The use of a balloon for a radar target was pretty stupid.  Why not
just use a radar corner reflector?

The Westar (at least) seems to be in a low elliptical orbit, reachable
from the shuttle.  Unfortunately, no one imagined that the satellites
could end up in such orbits, so neither satellite has an adaptor for
repairmen to grab onto (like Solar Max does).  As a result, they can't
be despun safely to be put back into the shuttle.  I've heard future
satellites will have such devices, which should help reduce insurance
rates.

Some other shuttle problems (not related to this flight):  recall that
UV telescope on the Spacelab mission?  It failed completely.  One
theory on why it failed was interference from the surface glow detected
on forward facing shuttle surfaces, possibly caused by the interaction
of high velocity oxygen atoms with the shuttle.  There is some concern
that this glow will make the Space Telescope useless in low orbits (in
orbits the shuttle can reach).

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 84 10:40:46 PST (Tue)
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
Subject: Shuttle audio frequencies
To: space@mit-mc

According to a (locally retransmitted) ARRL bulletin, an amateur radio
group in Maryland will retransmit the shuttle audio for the spacewalk
and the shuttle landing.  (Note that one spacewalk has already occurred
as of this writing.)  Frequencies are (all MHz, single-sideband):

	3.860, 7.185, 14.295, 21.390, and 28.650.

For those in the D.C. area, retransmissions will also appear on 147.450 MHz
(simplex).

Times are as follows:

	Spacewalk:	1200Z (7 a.m. Eastern, 4 a.m. Pacific)  10-Feb
	Landing:	11-Feb (time unknown)

The message I copied was ambiguous as to time of landing; it may also be
at 1200Z.

				Andy Cromarty, N6JLJ

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 7 February 1984 18:30:17 EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mc
Subject: One small step
Message-ID: <1984.2.7.23.16.33.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS>

"That may have been one small step for Neil, but it was
one heck of a big leap for me."

		-- Bruce McCandless, upon shoving off untethered
		   from Challenger
		   (My apologies for any transcription errors.)

P.S.  I have heard several replays of Armstrong's words, and have never
been able to make out the "a".  He probably just slightly flubbed his
line.  But there are precedents for correcting a speech for the written
record.

P.P.S.  I can't remember his words, but Bryant Gumbel said some inane
thing to the effect that the spacewalk was dangerous because the
astronaut was not being held up by the shuttle.

------------------------------

Date:  7 Feb 1984 1612-PST
Subject: 1984 Space Lectures
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF>
To: bboard@USC-ISIF, bboard@USC-ECL, space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC, sf-lovers@RUTGERS
cc: katz@USC-ISIF

This year, the Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization
and Settlement  (OASIS/L5) will be presenting a monthly lecture series
entitled "Beyond 1984--Visions of the Future."  The first of these
lectures will be:

		Space and the Nuclear Arms Race

			Dr. J. Peter Vajk
	    (Author of "Doomsday has been Cancelled")

The lecture will begin at 7:00 pm on Saturday, Feb. 15 at the California
Museum of Science and Industry's Kinsey Auditorium.  Admission is $2.00
for OASIS/L5 members and students and $3.00 for all others.

Future lectures in the series include:

Ray Bradbury, March 27, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
George Butler, April 28, back at the Kinsey Auditorium on Space Stations
Kraft Ehricke, May 19, at Rockwell International's DEI room
Gene Roddenberry, July 17, at the Glendale High School Auditorium, as
     a part of the Spaceweek celebration honoring the 15th anniversary 
     of the first moon landing.  (NOTE:  For the Roddenberry lecture,
     advanced purchase of tickets will be required).

The OASIS/L5 phone machine is at (213)374-1381.

In my opinion, the lecturers for this series are among the best
and most interesting speakers on Space.  Tell your friends.


				Alan (Katz@ISIF)

------------------------------

Date: 8 February 1984 01:03 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: What's happening up there? / summary
To: Wmartin @ OFFICE-3
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Summary (for those who don't want to wade through AP/NYT stories at
300 baud):

First satellite had a bad rocket, so instead of a circular 22,500-mile
(I don't know whether that's above the ground or above the center of
the Earth, do you know? There's a 4000-mile difference, about one part
in five, which is pretty significant.) orbit it got only to a
100-by-300-mile (appx) orbit (these are miles from ground, not from
center of Earth!).

Balloon to use as radar practice target burst, but they got servicable
results from the remains as they drifted away.

Second satellite went just like the first. - Both satellites seem to
be functionning but in useless orbit. (I wonder if they'll go up and
snarf up those two satellites and fit them with new rockets and try
again, before it's too late and they burn up in the atmosphere?)

Spacefloat (not walk!) went perfectly this morning.

------------------------------

Date: 8 February 1984 01:09 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Missing satelite
To: Schauble @ MIT-MULTICS
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date:  Tue, 7 Feb 84 03:36 EST
    From:  Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
    As I follow the (poor) news stories here, the missing satelite has been
    located in an orbit [corrected: with perigee near the STS orbit;
    and both satellites, not just one]
    Is there a good reason why they don't just go back and pick it up??
At perigee, the satellites are traveling much faster than STS (enough to
drive them up a couple hundred miles higher at apogee), while at apogee
the satellites are too high up. I doubt it's feasible to fetch it back
this mission, but with suitable planning and a "space bicicle" it may
be possible to snarf both satellites some later mission, at least I
hope. If that mission were done, it would really prove the use of the
manned STS as contrasted with unmanned Arianne and Atlas/Saturn/...

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 84 13:30:13-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mark @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Westar VI Possibly Found -- Palapa B to be Launched
In-Reply-To: Article <2574@alice.UUCP>

What are the chances of the shuttle picking up one or two large
pieces of the Westar from orbit and either repairing it or bringing
it back down to Earth for repairs by WU?  I seem to recall that
this was one of the purposes of the shuttle - repair of faulty
satellites.  Since the remains are a few hundred miles behind the
shuttle, is it possible to slow down briefly to wait for it, or
would this destroy the orbit?  Or could they pick it up on the
next mission?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 84 5:43:00-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!denelcor!lmc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: LAUNCH
In-Reply-To: Article <927@cbosgd.UUCP>

I'm not really sure myself how they navigate a space walk, but I watched
Vance Brand and several other astronauts navigate a mockup of the
Teleoperator Retrieval System (you know, the one that was supposed to save
Skylab) about 4 years ago.  We programmed the worst case coning motion into
the Skylab, and those people could hit the docking ring without hesitating,
time after time. (The TRS was a rocket motor carrying a TV camera and a
docking ring, controlled from the Shuttle flight deck with two joysticks
for 6 degree-of-freedom control.) The champion at the time was the
astronaut who was pilot for the US-USSR docking - seems he spent a year
with the controls glued in his hand.  Since most TV games have two degrees
of freedom, I guess you can see the point.
-- 
		Lyle McElhaney
		(hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #115    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:
		       Westar found: what a relief
		     Re: inter-stellar travel - (nf)
			bring back the satellites
			   The Lost Satellites
			 A movie not to miss.    
				Soyuz, 3M
			  Correction on lecture
			     Re: NASA lexicon
			  Palapa B Fate Unknown
		   Slight Correction of PAM Monitoring
			Re: Orbiting Debris Found
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 84 7:17:18-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxa!trough @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Westar found: what a relief

Whew! I'm glad Westar finally showed up! I was afraid that someone's
antisatellite weaponry was more advanced then we thought! :-)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 84 4:05:11-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!fortune!rpw3 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: inter-stellar travel - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1633800:fortune:10200010:000:737
fortune!rpw3    Feb  7 03:44:00 1984

If I remember correctly, there was a pair of Fred Hoyle (or Hoyle and Hoyle)
novels a long time ago (one of them called "A for Andromeda") in which we
started hearing signals from "out there" which we decoded into instructions
for making a computer which first tried to take over, and when that didn't
work, got us to "build" a biomechanism that was in fact a pretty girl,
alive and active.

Piers Anthony's "Macroscope" had a similar theme, as did John Varley's
"Ophiuchi Hotline" and related stories.

Now, if we can only find another race to beam ourselves too...

Rob Warnock

UUCP:	{sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:	(415)595-8444
USPS:	Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 1984  10:11 EST (Wed)
Message-ID: <DMS.11990108197.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Siegel <DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: bring back the satellites
To:   space@MIT-MC

The two satellites have a small supply of fuel. They say there is not
enough fuel to get them to geosyncronous orbit, but I bet they have
enough to get them in an ideal orbit for the shuttle to grab them.
Even though no special hook to attach on to was designed into the
satellites, I would guess they could find something to grab.  So, why
not plan a mission to bring them back?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 84 10:30:24 PST (Wednesday)
From: Jef Poskanzer <Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
Subject: The Lost Satellites
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 08 Feb 84 03:03 PST
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA

I'll bet the ham radio people could make use of the satellites.
However, I doubt they will be allowed to.  Oh well.

------------------------------

Date: 08 Feb 84  1351 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: A movie not to miss.    
To:   space@MIT-MC

a018  2330  07 Feb 84
PM-Space Shuttle, Bjt,600
Today's Shuttle Highlight: Movie Stars in the Stars
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Challenger's astronauts star in a
panoramic movie being shot by colleague ''Cecil B.'' McNair as their
schedule called for rest and experiments today before the next
tetherless space walk.
    The set was the biggest ever, the world below, the stars above.
    The space travelers, after five bittersweet, busy days in orbit,
welcomed some relaxation before winding down the journey with more
outside tests of their jet-pack on Thursday, a news conference from
space Friday and the shuttle's first landing in Florida on Saturday.
    Today's filming sessions, with a special Cinema-360 camera, were to
capture footage for a half-hour documentary, ''The Space Shuttle: An
American Adventure.''
    The finished film, which will put audiences in the center of the
360-degree action, is designed for projection onto the domes of
specially-equipped planetariums. It is to be completed after two more
shuttle missions.
    Mission specialist Ronald McNair is the man behind the lens,
prompting his colleagues to call him ''Cecil B. McNair'' after famed
movie director Cecil B. de Mille.
    Most of today's footage will be of activities inside the cabin. Some
of the most spectacular film was made Tuesday by a second Cinema-360
camera, located in the open cargo bay and operated remotely from
inside the shuttle.
    That captured man's first free flights in space, as astronauts Bruce
McCandless and Robert Stewart unhooked their lifelines and maneuvered
away from Challenger, propelled by a $10 million jet-powered backpack
to a distance greater than the length of a football field.
    McCandless flew the jet-pack for 90 minutes, calling it a ''nice
flying machine.'' Stewart glided around for 65 minutes and said it
operated ''beautifully.''
    When the space-walkers re-entered the cabin after 5 hours, 55
minutes outside, mission control congratulated them on a super job.
    ''It was a real thrill,'' responded McCandless. ''A real honor to be
up there.''
    McCandless and Stewart are scheduled to be back outside Thursday for
five more hours.
    The backpack will be used for a satellite repair mission planned on
the next shuttle flight in April.
    On that flight astronaut George Nelson is to use the jet-pack to
retrieve a 4-year-old satellite named Solar Max, bringing it into the
cargo bay for replacement of a defective electronics box.
    McCandless and Stewart on Thursday will use a spinning device to
perfect techniques for securing the slowly rotating Solar Max and will
test tools needed for the repair job.
    The rescue of the Solar Max satellite also will be filmed by the
Cinema-360 cameras.
    The successful space walks erased some of the disappointment the
astronauts felt at the failure of the two communications satellites
they launched for Western Union and the Indonesian government earlier
in the flight.
    The astronauts deployed the payloads properly, but the satellites
did not reach the desired orbits because rockets aboard each misfired.
    
ap-ny-02-08 0229EDT
**********

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 1984 11:58-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA.ECLnet
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Soyuz, 3M

The Soviets launch of three cosmonauts brings the number of people in
space to 8, a record.

3M and NASA have made a joint announcement about a 3M program to grow
organic crystals and thin films in microgravity.  3M could have an
experiment on an August shuttle flight.

------------------------------

Date:  8 Feb 1984 1950-PST
Subject: Correction on lecture
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF>
To: bboard@USC-ISIF, bboard@USC-ECL, space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC, sf-lovers@RUTGERS
cc: katz@USC-ISIF

The date for the Peter Vajk lecture SHOULD have read Feb. 25 (Saturday night)
at 7:00 pm.  The rest of the dates are correct.  Sorry for the typo!

				Alan

-------

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 84 16:22:44-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA lexicon
In-Reply-To: Article <117@statvax.UUCP>

Not only are most of the terms in the NASA buzzword collection a year
old, the majority of them are at least eight years old - I started
the collection when I first went to NASA in 1975.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 84 12:39:06-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Palapa B Fate Unknown

The Challenger crew today dispatched Palapa-B from the shuttle
and this time kept the shuttle oriented so that they could see
the PAM fire.  The firing went well, but nearly three hours
later, Indonesia still had not received confirmation from the
satellite that it had achieved the proper orbit, a message that
usually comes 90 minutes after the firing.  Officials are
hoping that the satellite is just oriented wrong, but they
do not know.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 84 13:50:44-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Slight Correction of PAM Monitoring

I erred slightly.  The Challengeer was not oriented so that
the crew could see the PAM burn; NASA has always kept the
shuttle turned away to avoid windshield damage.  However, a
camera was mounted on the end of the RMS and pointed so
that it could capture the PAM burn on film.  That is how
NASA and the astronauts saw the firing.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 84 17:14:57-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!aluxp!wrbull @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orbiting Debris Found
In-Reply-To: Article <2573@alice.UUCP>

NASA reported that the second satellite also failed to achieve its 
intended orbit. One of the network news reported that the PAM was a 
solid booster, but I find that hard to believe since solids are not
solid booster, But thats hard to believe since solids are not really 
that "delicate" to put a payload in geosynch. Does anybody know what
propellant the PAM uses?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #116    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
			Re: Orbiting Debris Found
		     Palapa B Found in Useless Orbit
			Thoughts on Westar/Palapa
	 Re: Westar VI Possibly Found -- Palapa B to be Launched
		       ham use of "lost" satellites
			   "The Sky's No Limit"
		      space balloons and oxygen glow
			     Lost Satellites
			     pam composition
			       EVA Flawless
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 84 19:37:14-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orbiting Debris Found

The PAM is indeed a solid rocket booster.  However, I am
unsure of just what propellant it uses.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 84 19:36:01-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Palapa B Found in Useless Orbit

Palapa B, ejected by the Challenger today, was found in a useless orbit of
172 by 750 miles, far short of its projected 22,300 mile orbit and similar
to that of its twin, Westar VI.  The failure is the third major setback of
41B.

Tomorrow, the astronauts will attempt the spacewalk using the new jet
backpacks.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 84 23:32:49-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Thoughts on Westar/Palapa

A few comments and bits of information regarding the Westar/Palapa
fiasco.

I talked with some of my friends in the satellite business today who
have heard some of the details which don't make it through the "noisy
channel" known as the media. The "working theory" regarding the PAM
failure has to do with an overpressure in the engine caused by a
temporarily blocked nozzle. The nozzle could have been blocked by a plug
of initiator material which could have become rigid if the temperature
was too low.  After the engine had burnt for a while, the pressure
eventually blew the nozzle apart. Once this happened, the chamber
pressure dropped too low to sustain combustion, and the engine "flamed
out".  It seems there was a minor design change made to both PAMs before
this mission, and...

Contrary to what you may have heard, it is indeed possible to stop a
solid fuel motor once it has started in a vacuum by doing just this -
blowing the nozzle off and reducing the chamber pressure.  For example,
the solid fuel kick motor flown on AMSAT Phase 3-A (the one that
was lost in 1980) was originally designed as a terminal vernier for a
Titan ICBM.  It had a deliberate "thrust termination feature" which
involves blowing off the nozzle - needless to say, we didn't need this
feature.

Western Union (and the Indonesian government, assuming their satellite
is in the same condition as Westar) has several options. Westar has
a full load of hydrazine and, presumably, a good apogee kick motor.
With these they could:

1. Circularize the orbit at its apogee altitude of 750 miles. It would
be stable here indefinitely, but not very useful for communications.
2. Fire the apogee kick motor to place the satellite in a highly
elliptical orbit resembling, interestingly enough, that of AMSAT
Oscar-10. Here someone could theoretically get a few hours per day use out
of the satellite while at apogee, where it would move slowly enough to
be tracked.
3. Upon request of NORAD to "keep the skies clean", they could fire the
kick motor to cause the satellite to re-enter the atmosphere and burn
up.

Obviously, all of these suggestions remove any possibility of shuttle
retrieval.  However, if I look at my STS user's manual, I note that the
shuttle is in fact capable of reaching fairly high apogees in ELLIPTICAL
orbits.  With integral tanking, it could carry a full load to a 28 deg
185 x 900 km orbit assuming that the deorbit burn is done from apogee. With
several OMS kits (extra fuel tanks) in place of payload, it could reach
1500 km (1 tank) 2250 km (2 tanks), etc.  On the other hand, it would be
much easier if the satellites could be dropped back to their circular
185 km orbits just before retrieval.  I don't know if there is enough
hydrazine on board to do that.

In any event there would be a LOT of practical problems (how do
you grab the satellite, reattach a new PAM, refuel the hydrazine tanks,
and re-deploy the satellite when it wasn't designed for this kind of
operation?)  Still makes an interesting problem for speculation, and
at a total stake of $200 M, who knows?  They might just try it.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 84 3:20:23-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!gamma!exodus!mhtsa!mh3bs!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Westar VI Possibly Found -- Palapa B to be Launched

Westar VI, being a geosynchronous satellite that was supposed
to be in an orbit inaccessible to the shuttle, was not designed
to be rescued in space.  Satellites, such as solar max, which are
to be picked up by the shuttle, have special hardware (such as
things for the RMS to grasp) for that purpose.

As for moving the shuttle to Westar VI this mission, NASA said
that would take too much fuel.

------------------------------

From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX
Date: Thu, 9-Feb-84 03:50:18-PST
Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX>
Subject: ham use of "lost" satellites
Message-ID: <8402090350.00196cVT2.1@vortex.UUCP>
To: SPACE@MC

Actually, some of us have talked about this, and the poor things really
won't be useful.  First of all, hams aren't licensed for 4/6 GHz.
operations.  Secondly, the antennas on those birds are too directional
to be useful from such low orbits -- they were designed for use from
22K miles out ... not 150.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 84 20:41:00-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: "The Sky's No Limit"

I'm sure there's going to be a lot of flaming on this topic, so I just
wanted to be the first to pan it.

I came home this evening to find the aforementioned made-for-TV movie on
CBS.  It was a "fictionalized" account of the trials and tribulations of
the first three female shuttle astronauts.

Nano review: Space-adaptation-syndrome inducing (ie., nauseating)

Micro review: Charlie's Angels do The Right Stuff with Sensitivity and Feeling

Short review (lest I get too worked up):

This is exactly the kind of trash I've come to expect from network TV. I
just hope that the average person is intelligent enough to realize that
this movie is a pure Hollywood fantasy (i.e, complete bullshit).  While
it purports to champion wonderful advances by women, it drips with
condescension, terrible acting and an incredibly corny, melodramatic
script. ("Will the brave young astronautess overcome the crushing loss
of her astronaut husband in an air crash? Will she stick with the
grueling program despite the hypochondriac ploys of her chauvinist pig
father who has tried to stop her every achievment in life? Can her
husband talk her out of dropping out of the program? Will she get out the
"ring around the collar" of her spacesuit without spoiling her hairdo?")

Ugh. Zero stars.  Stinker of the week.

Your faithful movie reviewer,

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 1984 09:57-EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: space balloons and oxygen glow
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <445186645/dmw@CMU-CS-VLSI>

Using balloons as radar reflectors is not a stupid idea.  It is an old
idea that's worked before.  Remember Echo?

The main proponent of the oxygen glow off the shuttle ruining the UV
telescope experiments is the experimenter.  Lots of other people think
that he just overexposed.  Other experiments weren't affected.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 1984 1309-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Lost Satellites
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 9-Feb-84 13:09:32.WMARTIN>

Re the statement in Space #114: "Indonesia gave NASA permission
to deploy its satellite Monday morning..."

Did the Indonesian government or telecommunications authority
have a chance to review the data about the launch and loss of
Westar, or was this "permission" something more like a long-since
pre-arranged "Go ahead, our ground stations are ready", as
opposed to "We have analyzed the data and think a deployment is
worth the risk of losing the satellite"?  If the latter, how does
this affect the insurance payment -- if I was the insuror, I
would charge them with participatory negligence (or some such
legalese) to try to get out of paying.  Who is the insuror,
anyway?  Lloyds of London?

Who owned the Indonesian satellite, by the way?  Did the
Indonesian PTT or government take title before deployment, or
does it still belong to the manufacturer?  If I was buying one, I
would think that I would not accept title or delivery until a
fully-functioning satellite was in the proper orbit, but I guess
that would be the most expensive way to go.  Assuming the risks
should drop the price, I suppose.

If whoever had the authority had had the sense to cancel the
deployment of the Indonesian satellite and left it in the cargo
bay to be brought back, what problems would that cause?  It's "n"
kilograms of unplanned weight still aboard for landing -- would
that have had any effect?  How about the still-fueled booster?
(I'm thinking here of the way military planes dump unexpended
ordnance before landing -- is there a similar danger?)

How long would it take to check out a returned satellite/booster
and reschedule it for a future shuttle mission?  How long will it
NOW take to build another satellite and booster and schedule it
for a future deployment?  (Plus the time to redesign those lousy
boosters...)  Are these commo satellites being churned out on an
assembly line now, or are they still handcrafted one-of-a-kind
made-to-order items?

The balloon burst was embarassing, but still an internal NASA
problem.  The satellite losses, even if thy were no fault of
NASA's, are failures to deliver the results promised (or at least
strongly implied!)  to customers.  This is BAD NEWS from a PR and
future sales standpoint.  Especially if it turns out that
something like launch vibrations screwed up the boosters, NASA
won't be able to get out from under the blame by claiming to just
be "delivery truck drivers".  If they didn't have any
restrictions on getaway specials and cargo items, and just sold
space aboard at set prices on a first-come, first-served basis
[yeah, probably the USSR would buy up all the facilities!], they
maybe could get away with that attitude.  But they don't do that,
so they get stuck with the responsibility.  If I was the insuror,
my lawyers would be tying NASA up in legal actions for years --
how extensively were the boosters tested, what information did
you have after the first deployment, what did you tell the
parties involved, etc., etc.  And the insurance rates for any
future shuttle satellite deployments would be astronomical.

I fear this mission is going to have long-lasting ill effects on
the future of the shuttle's commercial use.  It will take two or
three absolutely perfect missions in a row to erase this stigma.
The saddest part is that I doubt that NASA was at fault, so they
are getting shafted without any justification.

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 1984 19:01-EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: pam composition
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <445219295/dmw@CMU-CS-VLSI>

The PAM rocket (as described in the New York Times, Aviation Week, any
major paper, etc) is a solid rocket made by Morton-Thiokol, who makes
lots of solid rockets (I don't remember if they make the SRBs).  The
PAM module itself is made by Douglas.  Geosynchronous orbit isn't
achieved with just one burn.  There is another smaller rocket inside
the satellite that fires at apogee to circularize the orbit.  Plus
there are thrusters, so you don't have to hit orbit all with one shot
(you can't get a circular orbit that way anyway).

And since many folks don't seem to read the paper, I might as well add
that the two rockets that failed came from a batch of 5, and so they
are going to look at the remaining ones to figure out what went wrong,
before the next PAM-launched satellite mission in May or June.

As to grabbing the satellites and bringing them back, the standard
Hughes design used for both satellites has a smooth photocell exterior
that spins at a pretty good rate, and surface telescopes down to expose
more photocell area, so the only real place to grab on is near the
antennas.  It is not clear how you'd stop the smooth spinning exterior.
For Solar Max, an astronaut will just hook on to the side and fire some
thrusters on the MMU to stop its spin.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 84 3:20:24-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: EVA Flawless

Two Challenger astronauts yesterday became the first
men in history to walk untethered in space.  Propelled
by their backpacks, they strayed 300 feet from the shuttle
before turning back.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #117    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
			 Grabbing Lost Satellites
		     [REM: bring back the satellites]
			   satellite insurance
			      Burst Balloon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 9 Feb 84 22:14 EST
From: Charles Weems <weems%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
Return-Path: <weems%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@CSNet-Relay>
Subject:  Grabbing Lost Satellites
To: space@mit-mc

It's not as simple as just grabbing them any old place you can get ahold
of them and pulling them back into the payload bay of the shuttle.
The satellites are purposely spun up to a fairly high rotation rate
(I saw the figure 50 RPM quoted in one article).  The problem is that
you must grab onto them at a point on the spin axis and gradually slow
them down before they can be brought into the bay.  A sudden stop would
destroy the satellite.  This requires that there be something to grab
onto at only one of two points.  One of those points is at the "top" of
the satellite where antennas and such are deployed.  Grabbing onto
something here would probably do a great deal of damage.  On the other
end is the point that the PAM connects -- but nobody knows for sure now
just what is there.  Mangled booster pieces?  Another problem is that
most of these satellites are programmed to fully deploy antennas and
booms and such some fixed time after the burn.  This way even if things
don't quite go right (an understatement in this case) the satellite
can start transmitting and trying to pick up corrective orders from
the ground.  How much volume does a fully deployed communications
satellite take up?  Can it fit back into the shuttle without "breaking
pieces off"?  If not, it will have to be brought home for repairs,
thus requiring a total of three shuttle launches to get it into orbit
(not to mention the cost of all of the repairs, testing, reconfiguring
for launch and strapping on another PAM).  Then there is the problem
of getting the shuttle into the "difficult" orbits that the satellites
are in -- and it really must be able to match the orbit closely
because the time required to hook on and spin down will probably be
several orbital periods long.  All in all, it's easier to collect the
insurance.

A note on Solar Max -- it is also true that Solar Max is spinning like
Westar and Palapa-B.  Solar Max, however, was DESIGNED to be serviced
by the shuttle.  It was known that it would be in an orbit reachable
by the shuttle and in an uncharacteristic fit of forethought its
designers built a special adapter into one end of it that will allow
the suttle to grab on easily and spin it down for service (and back up
for redeployment).  Because these communications satellites were
intended to operate at geosynchronous orbit, beyond the range of the
shuttle, it was considered a waste of weight to put shuttle servicing
adapters on them just in case something unlikely (such as what happened)
occurred.  We all have 20-20 hindsight now.

chip weems

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 1984  09:42 EST (Fri)
Message-ID: <DMS.11990627210.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: David Siegel <DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
To:   space@MIT-MC
Subject: [REM: bring back the satellites]

Date: Thursday, 9 February 1984  21:06-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To:   DMS
Re:   bring back the satellites

I suggest making a grappling adaptor. On one end it has a clamp that
will grab ahold of some random part of the satellite. On the other end
it has a standard adaptor like the solar max mission has, for the
shuttle to hook onto. So the astronaut with backpack just docks with
the satellite and attaches the grappling adaptor, then despins the
satellite and proceeds with the usual procedure.

------------------------------

From: vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX
Date: Fri, 10-Feb-84 04:42:23-PST
Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX>
Subject: satellite insurance
Message-ID: <8402100442.00716cVT2.1@vortex.UUCP>
To: SPACE@MC

My guess is that both W.U. and Indonesia will simply take their
insurance money and make no effort to recover or otherwise make use
of their "low-orbit" satellites.  It'll be interesting to see how
much the insurance premiums have shot up for the next deployment.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 1984 8:15-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA.ECLnet
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: Burst Balloon
Reply-To: dietz@USC-ECL.ARPA

As I recall, the Echo satellite also deflated after a short time.

Even if balloons have worked before it's silly to use a complex system
with lots of moving parts (balloon + inflation system) when a simple
device with no moving parts (corner reflector) will do the trick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Feb-84  0325	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #118    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
			      lost satellite
			 Thiokol rocket boosters.
	Re:comsat too smooth to latch onto, and spinning too fast
			   Satellite Rescue   
			   Cancelled flight   
			   Satellite Insurance
		   Owen Garriott to speak at conference
		      What are these stars/planets?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 10 Feb 84 11:25:51-PST
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: lost satellite
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Regarding Will Martin's comment that NASA will be blamed and lawyers
may tie them up for years - - I was wondering what NASA actually promises
these people and who chooses the PAM rockets.  I basically have no idea.
Is it more like "give us a satellite and we'll attach this PAM, carry it
up and fire it off" or is it more like "give us a satellite with a rocket
of your choice and we'll drop it up there and let your rocket do its thing",
or somethin in between?  Certainly, NASA is in more trouble in the former
case. Anyone know the details of these agreements?
David

------------------------------

Date: Fri 10 Feb 84 17:43:04-PST
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BILLW@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Thiokol rocket boosters.
To: space@S1-A.ARPA

BC-MORTON-02-10
    By Daniel Rosenheim
    (c) 1984 Chicago Sun-Times (Independent Press Service)
    CHICAGO - Morton Thiokol Chairman Charles S. Locke said Thursday the
company is exploring all conceivable causes for this week's space
shuttle satellite failures, including the possibility of sabotage.
    Following a presentation to the Investment Analysts Society of
Chicago, Locke told reporters he had no concrete basis to suspect
sabotage, but he added the company hasn't ruled out anything.
    ''It is just one of the things we're wondering about,'' said Locke,
whose company makes the rocket motors used to propel the satellites
into orbit. ''I have no specific reason for mentioning it, but what
happened sure is strange.''
    A board of inquiry into the failure to launch successfully Westar 6
and Palapa B-2 has been assembled by McDonnell Douglas Corp. and
includes the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Air
Force, Hughes Aircraft Co. and Morton Thiokol.
    While Locke stressed the investigation is in an early stage, he said
the most likely cause of the aborted satellite sendoff appears to
have been the failure of ''exit cones,'' which direct the thrust of
rockets used in the launch. The cones were built for Morton Thiokol
under a subcontracting arrangement with Hitco, a unit of Armco Inc.
    ''If an exit cone shatters, it weakens thrust,'' said Locke, noting
this week's twin fiascos followed 55 successful test launchings.
''So, we got a satellite in a 200- by 600-mile orbit instead of a
200- by 23,000-mile orbit.''
    Locke said Morton Thiokol experienced a comparable problem last
summer, when a potentially dangerous weakness developed in a heat
shield protecting a shuttle booster-rocket nozzle. He said a probe
found the heat shield's construction formula had been changed by
another subcontractor, Beatrice Foods Co.'s Fiberite unit.
    Although Locke said the ''entire space program rests on being able
to solve'' the satellite problem, he expressed confidence in the
outcome and added that he expects no negative repercussions for
Morton Thiokol.
    ''You are bound to have problems such as these,'' agreed William
Blair & Co. analyst Robert Bartels, who recalled the persistent
difficulties with heat-shield tiles slipping off earlier shuttles.
     Locke said the cost of the failed satellites will be borne by
insurers, notably Lloyds of London, asserting there is no possibility
of recourse against the firm.
    Noting that Morton Thiokol has 100 percent of the market for space
shuttle rocket booster motors, Locke said any NASA attempt to develop
a second supplier would cost a virtually prohibitive $200 million and
probably take five years. Indeed, Locke said he expects Morton
Thiokol's aerospace revenue to grow from $700 million in fiscal 1984
to $1 billion within ''the next couple years.''
     A large portion of that increase will be derived from the company's
solid-rocket booster motors, which supply 80 percent of the thrust
needed to put space shuttles in orbit, and which gross Morton Thiokol
$18 million per launch.
    Despite the possibility that persistent failures could cause delays,
NASA currently estimates the shuttle prorgam will grow from last
year's four launchings to nine this year to 24 by 1987.
    Morton Thiokol - which has salt, specialty chemicals and household
products divisions, in addition to aerospace - has gone through an
extensive restructuring in the past seven years, culminating in the
1982 merger between MortonNorwich and Thiokol Corp. Locke expressed
satisfaction with the company's present composition and said he
expects neither major acquisitions nor divestitures in the
foreseeable future. Separately, Locke said he expects Morton
Thiokol's earnings per share to grow 20 percent to 26 percent to
between $6.20 and $6.50 for the fiscal year that ends June 30.
    Locke also said the household product division has 15 new products
in various stages of development. Test-marketing of its Vivid liquid
bleach has been sufficiently promising that the product may be rolled
out nationally before the end of the year.
    
nyt-02-10-84 0541est

------------------------------

Date: 11 February 1984 18:30 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re:comsat too smooth to latch onto, and spinning too fast
To: Hank.Walker @ CMU-CS-VLSI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

If an astronaut can find even one place to latch onto the antenna or
whatever, perhaps with gentle anti-torque force the satellite can be
gradually slowed down in spinrate? Or maybe drape a large net over it
and let brushing with the net equalize spinrates between net and
satellite, then the astronaut can latch onto the net instead of the
satellite directly for despinning it?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 84  1325 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
Subject: Satellite Rescue   
To:   space@MIT-MC

AM-Shuttle-Satellites, Bjt,650
Rescuing Failed Satellites Possible, But Maybe Not Feasible
By PAUL RECER
AP Aerospace Writer
    SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - NASA could use the shuttle in an
attempt to salvage the two $75 million communications satellites now
drifting in useless orbits about the Earth, but the difficulty and
expense might outweigh the benefits, experts say.
    The Westar VI and Palapa-B satellites - owned respectively by
Western Union and the government of Indonesia - failed to reach their
designated 22,300-mile-high orbits after they were launched from the
shuttle Challenger on the flight that ended Saturday.
    Officials at Hughes Aircraft Co., which made the satellites, said in
both cases rocket boosters snuffed out early, stranding the
satellites in lopsided orbits that bring them as close as 165 miles to
Earth at times, and as far as 650 miles at others.
    Data from the craft indicate they are healthy and could function
normally if they were in the high orbit. But neither has enough
remaining rocket power to be nudged to the proper elevation, although
NASA did just that with a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite that went
astray after launch last year.
    At a post-landing briefing Saturday, shuttle director Lt. Gen. James
A. Abrahamson called the idea of using the orbiter to rescue the
satellites ''an exciting prospect to think about.''
    ''If they (the owners or insurers) ask us to look into it, then
we'll begin to do more serious planning,'' he said.
    The shuttle is already planning to rescue a satellite in April, but
that assignment poses far less difficult problems.
    On that mission, Challenger will rendezvous in low orbit with the
Solar Maximum, a science satellite that stopped working because of an
electrical problem. Astronauts using a jet-pack and a robot arm will
bring the Solar Max into the cargo bay for repairs and then release
it back into orbit.
    Such a rescue is possible on Solar Max because - unlike the
communications satellites - it is in a low orbit and was designed to
be snared by the shuttle if necessary.
    Before salvage of the communications satellites could start,
scientists would have to bring them to a lower orbit within the
shuttle's range, by firing rocket thrusters on board the craft.
    The shuttle, by special thrusting at launch, can reach an orbit of
about 260 miles - as it will on the April flight.
    ''If the satellite was brought down to an orbit of 260 miles or so,
it would be theoretically possible,'' said Dick Young, chief of the
flight planning branch at the Johnson Space Center.
    But even if the satellites were within rendezvous range of the
shuttle, there would be significant hardware problems.
    Both satellites are spinning at about 50 rpm, a twisting motion that
keeps them stable but is far too fast for safe approach. There are
rockets on board designed to stop the spin, but these might be
expended in lowering the orbit, according to Bill Ziegler, a Westar
expert with Western Union.
    Terry Neal, a Johnson flight crew equipment expert who helped plan
the April mission, said that even if the spin could be stopped, there
would still be the problem of grabbing and holding the satellites.
    ''It would take some modifications to the orbiter (shuttle
spacecraft),'' said Neal. ''And there would have to be some sort of
grapple device attached to the satellites.''
    Once such a device is attached to the satellite, the shuttle robot
arm could grasp the craft and bring it into the cargo bay. Then, said
Neal, there would have to be some sort of ''cradle'' to hold the
satellite securely in the cargo bay.
    If the satellite could be secured in the cargo bay, said Neal, it
could be brought to Earth for repairs.
    All this would be expensive for the satellite owners. Total cost of
a launch now runs to an estimated $250 million.
    Ziegler said salvaging Westar ''probably wouldn't make economic
sense at all,'' but, he added, it ''would certainly be fun.''
    
ap-ny-02-12 1316EDT

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 84  2120 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
Subject: Cancelled flight   
To:   space@MIT-MC

AM-Shuttle-July,330
Hitch in Shuttle Cargo Reported
    HOUSTON (AP) - The Air Force has postponed the launch of a secret
military satellite which was to be put into orbit in a July space
shuttle flight, a newspaper says.
    The decision could cause the cancellation of the flight, the Houston
Chronicle said in a story in its Tuesday editions.
    The Chronicle said an Air Force spokesman at the Johnson Space
Center, who was not identified, confirmed Monday that the payload has
been pulled from the July flight. That spokesman could not say for
certain the flight had been canceled.
    The source said the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration were negotiating a new launch date.
    But NASA officials told the Chronicle they have not been informed of
the Air Force action and that as of now the flight is on their
schedule.
    Air Force officials said they could not say, because of security
reasons, why the cargo had been removed, the Chronicle said.
    But it noted that space agency officials said last week the secret
mission was in jeopardy because it was to use an Interim Upper Stage
rocket to put the satellite into stationary orbit. One of these
rockets failed last April and put its $100 million satellite into the
wrong orbit, requiring a long and costly rescue effort.
    ''If you don't have a cargo, you either seek an alternate mission or
cancel the flight,'' John McLeaish, head of public affairs at Johnson
Space Center, was quoted as saying.
    Glynn Lunney, program manager of the shuttle system, has not yet
been told that the Air Force has canceled its cargo, McLeaish said.
    Cancellation of the mission will leave astronauts Thomas Mattingly,
Loren Shriver, Ellison Onizuka and James Buchli without a flight for
the second time. They were to have flown the shuttle on a military
mission last fall. That flight was canceled because of the rocket
problems.
    Cancellation of the flight will leave eight missions on the launch
scheduled for this year.
    
ap-ny-02-13 2330EDT

------------------------------

Date: 14-Feb-84 02:51 PST
From: William Daul  Tymshare OAD  Cupertino CA  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Satellite Insurance
To: space@mit-mc, human-nets@rutgers
Cc: DIA.TYM@OFFICE-2, SGK.TYM@OFFICE-2, PAMV.TYM@OFFICE-2
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-4437W>

From COMPUTERWORLD (Feb 13, 1984 p. 11)

   Will mishap hike insurance rate?

      NEW YORK -- The insurance industry is feeling repercussions from the 
      failures to properly launch two $75 million communications satellites from
      the space shuttle Challenger this month.

      The Westar VI communications satellite owned by Western Union Co. was 
      insured for $105 million; Western Union had paid a premium of about $5.5 
      million for the policy.  Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc., a New York 
      brokerage company, was the underwriter for the policy, according to a 
      Western Union spokesman. ...

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 1984 0558-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Owen Garriott to speak at conference
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Space at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]14-Feb-84 05:58:35.WMARTIN>

Just noticed this item in looking at the announcement for the
Tenth AIAA Communication Satellite Systems Conference, to be held
at the Sheraton Twin Towers, Orlando, FL, 19-22 March 84:

Special Presentation, Wednesday, 21 March, 5:30PM:

Astronaut Participation in Communications Experiments

Dr. Owen Garriott, NASA Scientist/Astronaut and Stanford
University professor, will describe his communications and
scientific experiments on the recent STS-9 mission, illustrated
by film clips taken on board the shuttle and Spacelab.
[***End extract***]

This conference may be of interest to many readers of Space; it's
not expensive -- AIAA student memebers = free; student nonmembers
= $12; AIAA members or program participants = $140; nonmembers =
$190.  Not bad for 4 days of conference sessions, technical
exhibits, and a bound volume of available papers.

There's also two pre-conference colloquia on Sunday, 18 March 84,
for $45/$55 (members/nonmembers) on satellite communications
basics or on dbs antenna design.

Info from:
	
AIAA
Communication Satellite Systems Conference
1633 Broadway
New York, NY  10019
(no phone number given)

Regards,
Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Feb 84 18:40 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <rsf@diablo>
Subject: What are these stars/planets?
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: rsf@Diablo

Early this morning (3am PST), after returning from a late night hack attack,
I noticed two very bright stars/planets in the south-eastern sky. They
seemed to have the same (apparent) brightness. The objects were very close
together (slightly less than the width of my index finger at arms length);
it was this fact, along with their similar brightness, that made them
so noticeable. I couldn't find them on a star chart, so I presume that at
least one of them is a planet.

Could someone identify these? They're almost impossible to miss.

	Ross.

ps. They weren't moving, so they can't have been planes, satellites or UFOs!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #119    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:
			 Letter to the President
			    Orbital Artillery
		       Re: Grabbing Lost Satellites
		     Recovery of the Lost Satellites
			 RE:What are these stars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 1984 11:04-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA.ECLnet
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Letter to the President

I'm sending the following letter to President Reagan.  You may want
to rephrase it and do likewise.

----------------

Mr. President,

I'm writing you this letter to tell you about a project that could save US
taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, save thousands of lives and bring
billions of dollars into the US economy.

It's called Geostar.  Geostar is a system using four satellites in
geosynchronous orbit to precisely determine the position of aircraft.
Invented by Gerard O'Neill at Princeton, Geostar is far cheaper than
any other proposed air traffic control system.

Geostar uses triangulation to determine the position of aircraft to within a
few meters, once a second for every aircraft.  The positions of all aircraft
are kept track of in a ground computer, which detects possible collisions.
Messages can be relayed back to the aircraft through the satellites.

Geostar is very inexpensive.  The transceiver unit that would fit in the
aircraft would cost $500.  The satellites would be similar to currently
available communications satellites and would cost several hundred million
dollars.  The ground computer systems would cost a few tens of millions of
dollars.

In contrast, the FAA's current plans for upgrading air traffic control will
cost tens of billions of dollars and will be far less reliable, far
less accurate and will take far longer to bring on-line.  The FAA's system
will be labor intensive, inefficient and, as you well know, subject to
crippling strikes.

If Geostar had been guiding Korean Air Lines flight 007 it would never have
strayed into Soviet airspace.  Two hundred and sixty nine lives would have
been saved.

Geostar would allow full instrument landing capabilities at any airport in
the US (or, in an emergency, on any farmer's field).  Mid-air collisions
would be greatly reduced.

A competitor to Geostar is the military's Global Positioning System (GPS).
Geostar tranceivers will be far less expensive than GPS units, and Geostar
cannot be used surreptitiously by an enemy to guide missiles or bombers.  In
addition, Geostar will allow transmission of messages to individual
aircraft, something GPS cannot do but that is necessary for air traffic
control.  The Geostar satellites will be much cheaper than the GPS
satellites.

Geostar is being developed by Geostar, Inc., a start up company organized by
Gerard O'Neill.  Investors in Geostar include Nobel Prize winner Dr. Luis
Alvarez and Dr. Tom Paine, former NASA administrator and president of
Northrup Corporation.  Geostar has successfully tested a mockup of their
system in California, with mountain top stations substituting for orbiting
satellites.

The United States has an undeniable lead over any other country in
the key technologies needed for Geostar (communications satellites,
high speed computers and microwave technology).  The potential market for
Geostar overseas is large -- many billions of dollars.  Many jobs would be
created and the trade deficit reduced.

Ultimately, the market for Geostar could be much larger.  Truck companies
and railroads could use Geostar units to track trailers and boxcars.
Lightweight Geostar tranceivers that one can hold in one's hand will guide
ships and cars, police and rescue personnel.  Geostar could make personal
automated aircraft feasible by allowing automated takeoffs and landings.

Bureaucratic inertia and lack of imagination at the FAA are preventing the
adoption of Geostar.  I urge you to prod the FAA into using Geostar.
Not only would this cut the budget deficit over the next decade by tens of
billions of dollars, but it would also provide business for the space
shuttle and eventually provide satellite repair business for the space
station.

The Geostar system would provide a clear symbol of American technological
prowess, a demonstration to the rest of the world that there are still
things that Americans, and only Americans, have the skill, know-how and
imagination to do.

Information on Geostar can be found in the March 1981 issue of @i(Astronautics
and Aeronautics), the July 1982 and September 1983 issues of @i(AOPA Pilot)
magazine.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 1984 6:34-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Orbital Artillery

Watching news accounts of the New Jersey's shelling of Lebanon, it
occurs to me that this job could be done from space with mass drivers.

A kilogram of mass, falling to earth from infinity, has a kinetic
energy of over 62 million joules, about the same as the explosive
energy liberated by 15 kilograms of high explosive.  The energy from
geosynchronous orbit is almost as high.  To put this number in
perspective, 62 million joules is enough energy to lift 62 metric tons
of matter 100 meters, if it were to be converted into potential energy.
That 1 kilogram of mass will dig a big crater, assuming it survives the
atmosphere.

Mass drivers being discussed for lunar mining have a mass flow of about
10 kilogram/second at a velocity of about 2 km/sec, with mass being
accelerated in 1 kilogram chunks.  Orbital velocity at geosynchronous
orbit is about 3 km/sec, so a mass driver with an exhaust velocity of
around this much is needed to put mass onto trajectories intersecting
earth.

Assuming a 10 kg/sec mass flow, the geosynchronous mass driver can
deliver the equivalent of 150 kg of high explosive to the earth each
second, or .54 kilotons per hour.

In contrast, a shell from the New Jersey's 16" guns has a mass of about
a ton; around 500 shells were dumped on Lebanon in a 12 hour period.
(I'm not sure how many of these shells were 5" shells.)  This
comparison isn't really fair because a large number of small explosions
will do more damage than if the same explosive force is detonated in a
smaller number of large explosions; blast damage scales as the 2/3
power of explosion energy.  Taking this law at face value, and assuming
the New Jersey can fire one 16" shell every 30 seconds, the mass driver
has about 18 times the firepower.

At 11 km/sec, the ultrahypersonic projectiles will be in the atmosphere
for only a few seconds.  Some mass loss to ablation is acceptable. The
projectiles should be long and thin to minimize drag forces, yet should
be designed to fragment when a solid surface is encountered so their
energy is deposited near the surface.

>From 40,000 km away, accuracy is a problem.  Assuming an average
velocity of 5 km/sec, the projectiles will reach Earth in under three
hours.  This time can be reduced at the cost of a larger mass driver
and higher power requirements, but remember that projected mass drivers
for asteroidal mining have exhaust velocities of ~10 km/sec.  Engineers
working on lunar mass drivers are confident that lateral velocity
errors of only a few meters per hour are achievable, leading to an
error of perhaps 10 meters after three hours.  Longitudinal velocity
errors are harder to correct.  An error of 1 meter/second will cause
the projectile to arrive about 1 second off the target time; the
earth's motion will cause the target to move 450 meters during this
second.  This problem can probably be solved by arranging for
"achromatic" trajectories that focus projectiles of slightly varying
velocities.  Errors due to atmospheric forces will be neglible if the
projectiles enter head-on; maintaining projectile orientation could be
a problem (spin?  tail fins?).  All other errors (deviations from
symmetry in earth's geoid, lunar and solar gravity, magnetic fields,
light pressure) can be accounted for fairly precisely.

Assume that most of the projectiles land in 1 km x 1 km area.  During a
24 hour bombardment, some 864,000 projectiles will be launched, or one
projectile for every 1 or 2 square meters of target area.  Saturation
bombing indeed.

Mass for projectiles would most likely come from nickel-iron asteroids
(for density).  Retrieving the asteroid is no problem with the mass
driver assumed here.  The asteroids would also yield ballast mass to
anchor the mass driver in orbit against the reaction produced when the
it is fired, and to shield the mass driver against hostile attack.

Power requirements are not excessive.  Launching 10 kg/sec at 5 km/sec
requires 125 megawatts of power (at 100% efficiency).  A nuclear source
is probably best.

The mass driver could defend itself against attack by shooting clouds
of sand at oncoming missiles or satellites, or by shooting projectiles
at larger targets.  Sand injected into earth-intersecting orbits would
be a nice touch for the 4th of July.



Date: 13 Feb 84  2120 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
Subject: Cancelled flight   
To:   space@MIT-MC

AM-Shuttle-July,330
Hitch in Shuttle Cargo Reported
    HOUSTON (AP) - The Air Force has postponed the launch of a secret
military satellite which was to be put into orbit in a July space
shuttle flight, a newspaper says.
    The decision could cause the cancellation of the flight, the Houston
Chronicle said in a story in its Tuesday editions.
    The Chronicle said an Air Force spokesman at the Johnson Space
Center, who was not identified, confirmed Monday that the payload has
been pulled from the July flight. That spokesman could not say for
certain the flight had been canceled.
    The source said the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration were negotiating a new launch date.
    But NASA officials told the Chronicle they have not been informed of
the Air Force action and that as of now the flight is on their
schedule.
    Air Force officials said they could not say, because of security
reasons, why the cargo had been removed, the Chronicle said.
    But it noted that space agency officials said last week the secret
mission was in jeopardy because it was to use an Interim Upper Stage
rocket to put the satellite into stationary orbit. One of these
rockets failed last April and put its $100 million satellite into the
wrong orbit, requiring a long and costly rescue effort.
    ''If you don't have a cargo, you either seek an alternate mission or
cancel the flight,'' John McLeaish, head of public affairs at Johnson
Space Center, was quoted as saying.
    Glynn Lunney, program manager of the shuttle system, has not yet
been told that the Air Force has canceled its cargo, McLeaish said.
    Cancellation of the mission will leave astronauts Thomas Mattingly,
Loren Shriver, Ellison Onizuka and James Buchli without a flight for
the second time. They were to have flown the shuttle on a military
mission last fall. That flight was canceled because of the rocket
problems.
    Cancellation of the flight will leave eight missions on the launch
scheduled for this year.
    
ap-ny-02-13 2330EDT

------------------------------

Sender: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Date: 15 Feb 84 10:42:18 EST (Wednesday)
Subject: Re: Grabbing Lost Satellites
In-reply-to: Charles Weems (Thu, 9 Feb 84 22:14 EST)
To: weems%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@CSNet-Relay.ARPA
From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.henr@parc-Maxc.arpa>
Reply-To: Heiny.henr@parc-Maxc.arpa, Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA,
 DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, REM@MIT-MC.ARPA

As I understand it, the satellite/PAM pair looks something like this:
            ---------
            |       |
            |       |
            |  sat  |
	    |       |
	    |       |
	    ---------
	   -----------
	   |   PAM   |
	   -----------
(I'm not sure if this is accurate: the illustrations in the local paper
are not very good).  Could a satellite grabbing device that looks
something like this be constructed:
	>              <     =
	\              /
	 \------------/     part1
	  |          |
	  |          |
	  ------------       =
	  ------------       =
	  |          |      part2
	  ------------       =
	       |
	       |            handle
	       |
	       0


Part1 has several things for grabbing the sides/edges of the PAM, plus
equipment to spin part1 up to match the satellites spin, and then despin
both part1 and the satellite.  If necessary when winding part1 up,
angular momentum can be stored in part2, which would rotate counter to
part1 (but leave the handle unrotating).

To retrieve a satellite, an astronaut pulls the sgd (satellite grabbing
device) from the shuttle to the satellite.  After lining up the axes of
the satellite and the sgd (this has to be done first, because the
spinning parts of the sgd will act as a gyroscope), part1 is spun up to
the satellites rotational speed.  The astronaut the pushes the sgd into
position beneath the pam, the sgd grabs the pam, and rockets (brakes?)
in part1 (plus any spin in part2) get used to despin the satellite.  The
astronaut the uses the handle to tow the satellite back to the shuttle.

The question is: would this work (and could it be built?), or should I
stay away from the opium in the future?

			Chris Heiny
			Xerox Corp, Rochester, NY

ARPA: Heiny.Henr@Parc-maxc.arpa
USnail: 125 Clooney Dr,
	Henrietta, N.Y.
		14467

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 1984 15:32:52 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Recovery of the Lost Satellites
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

FROM AVIATION LEAK, FEBRUARY 13, 1984, P. 23:

NASA Studies Recovery of Westar, Palapa

Washington  - NASA is considering the use of propellant  remaining  on 
the Hughes HS 376 Westar 6 and Palapa B-2 communications satellites to 
circularize  the  elliptical orbits of the spacecraft for recovery  by 
the space shuttle during the next year.
     James M.  Beggs, agency administrator, suspects material flaws in 
the Morton Thiokol Star-48 nozzles on the McDonnel Douglas PAM-D upper 
stages  were the cause of nozzle-wall burn-through  during  deployment 
into  transfer  orbit  of  both spacecraft from  the  shuttle  orbiter 
Challenger.
     This  could  result  in oscillations in  the  vehicle  trajectory 
during  the  early  stages  of  the  solid  rocket  motor's  burn  and 
subsequent ceasing of combustion as the pressure drops forward of  the 
nozzle throat.
     Beggs  said  this could account for the low elliptical orbits  of 
both spacecraft at approximately 700 mi apogee and 200 mi perigee.
     Beggs  said the two Star-48 motors were part of a five unit  lot, 
and  anomalies  in the curing of graphite epoxy composite  could  have 
left pockets of volatile gas in the nozzle walls of all five motors.
     The  agency  has  shceduled  time in a  test  chamber  at  Arnold 
Engineering  Development Center,  Tullahoma,  Tenn.,  to evaluate  the 
other  three  motors in the lot.   Beggs said the  problem  should  be 
resolved by the next use of the upper stage on the shuttle in June.
     NASA  will  design a grapple device to snare the  spacecraft  and 
place it in the shuttle orbiter cargo bay,  Beggs said.   The recovery 
mission  should  be  scheduled within a year because the  orbits  will 
decay  to  an unacceptable degree for recovery within  two  years,  he 
said.
     The value of the hardware would not justify a dedicated  mission, 
so  recovery  would  be in conjunction with launch and  deployment  of 
other payloads, according to Beggs.
     ...

_______
This ought to answer some questions that were flying across the  net.. 
(Westar,  not Western (good grief!);  yes,  Virginia,  they were solid 
fueled boosters).

-Sheldon Meth
-------

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 16 Feb 84 00:36 EST
From: Charles Weems <weems%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
Return-Path: <weems%umass-cs%UMASS-CS@CSNet-Relay>
Subject:  RE:What are these stars.
To: space@mit-mc

What you saw was a conjunction of Mars and Saturn (You lucky devil, it's
been raining here!).  On the night of the 14th to 15th they passed within
0.8 degrees of each other -- this is as close as they will get until March
of 1992.  This was a great opportunity to be able to compare them in the
same field of view with a small telescope.  They will remain fairly close
together for the rest of the month.  An interesting thing to watch for is
that they will (from night to night) appear to drift eastward against the
background stars (this will be fairly easy to see because they are near the
two brightest stars in Libra -- called Zubenelgenubi and Zubeneschamali).
Near the end of the month, as they pass quadrature, they will appear to
reverse direction against the background stars and head westward.  Saturn
passes quadrature on the 24th and Mars passes quadrature on the 4th of
April.  (Simply explained, if you take the line from the Earth to the Sun
and draw a line perpendicular to this through the Earth, a planet crossing
this line is said to pass quadrature.  Only the outer planets can do this.
If you draw the geometry on a piece of paper, you can see why they appear
to reverse direction.  It's a rarity to get to see two planets do this
when they are so close together.)

chip weems

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Feb-84  1007	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #120    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
		      What are these stars/planets?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 84 1218 EST (Thursday)
From: Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Subject: What are these stars/planets?
CC: rsf@SU-HNV
Message-Id: <16Feb84.121833.CE10@CMU-CS-A>

The Old Farmer's Almanac (1984 edition) lists a conjunction of Mars and
Saturn for 15 Feb, when Mars was less than 1 degree south of Saturn.
They both were reflecting similar brightnesses.  Since they both rise
around midnight now, it's reasonable that you saw them in the southeast
sky at 3 am.
		Craig Everhart

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #121    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:
			Re: projectiles from space
			  plants living on Venus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 1984 09:23-EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: Re: projectiles from space
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-Id: <445875793/dmw@CMU-CS-VLSI>

I believe this concept is referred to as the "anti-tank spike."  You
have large numbers of girder-sized spikes in LEO.  They have
retrorockets, an infra-red guidance system, and a manuevering system.
In order to stop a tank attack, you radio for lots of these spikes to
deorbit into the right region, and the infra-red seekers guide them to
a tank.  It would probably look really impressive when they hit.

------------------------------

Date: 17 February 1984 08:15 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: plants living on Venus
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

The other day I came up with a neat idea. Let's build plants that can
live on Venus, not on the solid surface under the clouds, but on the
top of the clouds, with roots that extend into the clouds to suck up
sulfur and other nutrients and with solar panels (leaves) that collect
solar energy and radiate back microwave and far infrafed, and of
course bubbles of hydrogen (which must be actively maintained) for
maintaining flotation.

We'd program these plants to have electronic genes and to mate and
reproduce, and those which can't maintain flotation will sink and die,
leaving more room at the top for those which can, and these creatures
might survive long after Earth cremates itself in a nuclear war. Maybe
someday the plants will consume so much of the atmospheric nutrients
that it'll be thinned to where plants can touch ground and maybe even
take root the way Earth plants do, being able to see the Sun from the
ground and being able to do away with their flotation bulbs.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #122    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
				 Landing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 84 4:28:12-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!ulysses!gamma!exodus!mhtsa!mh3bs!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Landing

The Challenger made a picture perfect landing
today, 6 seconds early.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Feb-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #123    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
		     More thoughts on space artillery
			 Re: plants around Venus
	       cosmic causes for mass extinctions on Earth
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1984 10:34-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: More thoughts on space artillery
Reply-To: dietz.usc-cse@RAND-RELAY.ARPA

After giving more thought to the space bombardment system, it occurs to
me that the system could be made much cheaper by placing the launcher
on Earth.  Railguns currently can accelerate 2 gram projectiles at 10^7
m/sec^2, reaching orbital velocity (7 km/sec) in 2.5 meters(!).
Assuming we can accelerate 1 kilogram projectiles at only 10^6 m/sec^2,
the launcher would be 25 meters long -- quite feasible.  Assuming a
launcher efficiency of 50%, launching 10 kg/sec would require 490
megawatts of power, which could be taken from the power grid or from a
dedicated gas turbine.   Increasing power consumption to 4.9 gigawatts
allows one to launch 100 kg/sec - about 100 times the firepower of the
New Jersey.  This power is consumed only during full use, of course, so
the average power consumption over the life of the launcher could be
much less (but see below).  The ground based system would also get
around the Outer Space Treaty, which bans the placing in space of
weapons of mass destruction.

Projectiles could be much cheaper than current artillery rounds (which
cost on the order of $500 each).  They would probably be made of steel,
perhaps with an ablative coating.  Projectiles would be launched in
highly elliptical orbits so they leave/reenter the atmosphere at near
vertical angles.  The launcher should probably be placed on a high
mountain near power lines, perhaps in California near the Pacific
Intertie.

Assuming the system is feasible, cost should be relatively low --
certainly far less than an equivalent force of battleships or bombers
with nonnuclear bombs.  The launcher could probably be used to send
mass to a "catcher" in orbit when it wasn't being used as a weapon.
Used continuously, a 100 kg/sec launcher could lift over three million
tons to space every year, at a cost in electricity of perhaps $3
billion/year (at around $.05 per kw-hour).  Three million tons is
enough to build a small space colony (shielded, space for 10,000
people) or thirty solar power satellites.  Probably only bulk materials
could be lifted this way, to be used to fabricate useful components
in orbit.  Delicate or weak materials, gases and people will have to be
lifted by rocket or obtained elsewhere.

Hank Walker: Guided anti tank spikes would not have to be very large to
penetrate armor (a few kilograms, at most).  At 7 km/sec the spikes
will have some 25-50 times the energy of conventional kinetic energy
rounds of equal mass.  The problem is guidance, which makes the spikes
very expensive.  It's not clear how an IR sensor would see through the
very hot shock waves around the reentering projectiles anyway.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1984 12:00-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: rem@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: plants around Venus

Sagan had this idea years ago.  Venus's problem is the almost total
lack of hydrogen (and water) in the atmosphere, as well as far too much
oxygen and carbon.  The clouds on Venus reflect most of the sunlight
reaching the planet; removing them might increase the surface
temperature.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 84  0111 PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: cosmic causes for mass extinctions on Earth
To:   space@MIT-MC

n027  0940  19 Feb 84
BC-EXTINCT
By WALTER SULLIVAN
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - Periodic passages of the solar system through the
dust-laden plane of the Milky Way Galaxy roughly once every 30
million years result in bombardment of the Earth by comets and other
objects, causing mass extinctions, according to a hypothesis of two
scientists of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    The Sun, Earth and other planets, they say, are currently undergoing
such a passage. The galaxy is a flattened system of spiral arms
within which are concentrated many stars, as well as clouds of dust
and gas from which new stars and planets form.
    The Sun and its assembly of planets weave back and forth across this
galactic plane. According to the best current evidence, according to
the space scientists, upward or downward crossings occur every 33
million years, with an uncertainty margin of 3 million years.
    The authors of the idea are Michael R. Rampino and R.tB. Stothers at
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute
for Space Studies, 112th Street and Broadway in New York.
    They cite a report by two university of Chicago specialists
suggesting that, over 250 million years, mass extinctions of marine
species have tended to occur every 30 million years, with deviations
of no more than eight million years to either side of that repetition
rate.
    While crossing the galactic plane, according to the hypothesis, the
solar system is likely to collide with or pass near clouds of dust
and gas whose gravity would alter the orbits of the solar system's
comets, causing more of them than normal to fall onto the Earth and
other planets.
    In each crossing at least one explosive impact sufficiently
catastrophic to darken the Sun and cause mass extinctions would be
probable, they say.
    Finally, in estimates of the age of the Earth's impact craters, they
see a dominant cycle of about 31 million years between bombardments.
The peaks in activity coincided with crossings of the galactic plane.
    The University of Chicago study on extinction cycles was performed
by David M. Raup, chairman of the department of geophysical sciences
there, and J. John Sepkoski Jr. of that department.
    Asked last week when the solar system would next cross the galactic
plane, Rampino said, ''It's there now.'' However, since the clouds
are scattered randomly above and below, as well as within the
galactic plane, the probability of a close encounter is spread over a
prolonged period.
    A period of mass extinctions has been recorded for the Miocene, 11
million years ago, and Dr. Rampino suggested the Sun and Earth at
that time were already close enough to the plane to be vulnerable.
    Such random scattering of the clouds, according to the scientists,
would also explain why the cycle is not more clear-cut. The Chicago
analysis cites an extinction cycle closer to 26 million years than to
30 million years, but with much variability.
    
nyt-02-19-84 1224est
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Feb-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #124    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
			    Shuttle Laser Disc
			  Re: Shuttle Laser Disc
			  Re: Shuttle Laser Disc
			  STS-11 Mission Scapped
			Re: STS-11 Mission Scapped
			 How to land on the Moon
		      A lunar chauvinistic statement
		      Billion Dollar Space Programs
		    Re: What are these stars/planets?
		    Re: What are these stars/planets?
			  Private space ventures
			Launch Loop author replies
		       Re: Grabbing Lost Satellites
		       Space salvage rights? - (nf)
			 Re: Satellite insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 84 14:24:39-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!ralph @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Laser Disc

   I've just discovered a marvelous chunk of visual information for
hardcore shuttle fans. It is a laser video disc that covers the
flights known as STS-5,6, and 7, and is put out by a company called
Video Vision Associates LTD. The disc is in CAV format, and that means
that you can do freeze frame, slow motion, fast motion, random access
of any frame on the disc, etc. all with the razor sharp clarity provided
by the laser disc medium. In addition to footage of launching and
landing, they have films from the fixed cargo bay cameras and the
hand-held cameras onboard. There are marvelous sequences of the SRB's
splashing down, satellite launchings, bay doors opening and closing,
main tank sep, EVA, and the crews living and playing in space. Along
with the moving pictures, there are some 800 still frames taken by the
35mm and 70mm still cameras on board. Each one is indexed and titled
in a booklet that comes with the disc, and you can punch up any one
of them, or just flip through them like an album. An address is
included so that you can order a slide or print of the original for 
any still frame that you are really taken with. I haven't seen most
of this stuff anywhere else (not available in any store, only through
this great TV offer...), and I have to say again - excellent! Rush
out in a buying frenzy and latch onto this one:
		Space Archive Vol. 1
		Mission Reports STS-5-6-7
		Video Vision Associates Ltd.
		7 Waverly Place
		Madison, NJ  07940
I'm hoping this outfit will stay in business so I can get my hands
on their next release.

				Ralph Keyser
				AT&T Consumer Products
				...!inuxc!ralph

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 84 16:58:59-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sun!gnu @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Laser Disc

It would be appreciated when posting announcements of commercially
available neat things, if you'd give the price, or at least the order
of magnatude, or the phone number we could call to find out.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 84 13:00:31-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!ralph @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Laser Disc

Well, you can't have everything, but you can have this laser disc for
$39.95 plus tax.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 84 8:38:25-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!dsd!avsdS!avsdT.willett @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS-11 Mission Scapped

STS-11 Has been scapped?  Due to the malfunction of rocket engines on the
satalites of the STS-10 space mission, the STS-11 mission to place the Top
Secret(?) military satalite into orbit has been post- poned until the
rocket engine faults can be rectified.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 84 9:02:23-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!philb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: STS-11 Mission Scapped

My understanding was that STS-11 was canned because of continuing problems
with the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) which is a VERY different booster that
the smaller Payload Assist Module (PAM).  The top secret bird apparently
is large enough to need a IUS instead of a PAM which is used on smaller
payloads such as those deplyed on the pervious orbiter missions.

						Phil Biehl
						Tektronix, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 83 13:44:26-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!onyx!dual!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!vice!keithl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: How to land on the Moon

   The September 1983  "Acta Astronautica" (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY 10523,
$30/y for AIAA and AAS members) contains an article by Krafft Ehricke
describing the Slide Lander and the Drop Delivery systems for landing vehicles
on the Moon.  These are systems intended to reduce the amount of waste gasses
and debris associated with lunar landings.  Ehricke is well known among the
space community for his inventive new ideas, and these are no exception...

   The Slide Lander puts bulldozer-like blades on the bottom of the vehicle,
which skids to a stop on a 100 Km long runway on the flat sandy surface of a
lunar mare.  The vehicle's kinetic energy heats up and scatters the sand; the
vehicle slows from 1700 m/s at up to 2.4 gees.  Ehricke assumes the blades
pick up a protective layer of sand, which keeps them from melting.  Surface
features like small hills are avoided by jumping over them.  The author 
suggests some good flat spots on the Moon to do this (there aren't many).

   The Drop Delivery system assumes the vehicle is slowed to a horizontal
stop with horizontally firing rockets (the gasses and exhaust will leave the
Moon). The vehicle then drops from an altitude of about 10 kilometers into a
tower of stacked nets 60 meters high.  It punches holes in the nets as it
falls, losing energy in the process.

   I don't know whether these ideas will work, but they're fun to think about.
There is a lot more information in the articles, and a juicy quote I'm putting
in the next article.  Look for "Acta Astronautica" in a good university library.

Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!vice!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 83 13:47:50-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!onyx!dual!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!vice!keithl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: A lunar chauvinistic statement

   The September 1983  "Acta Astronautica" (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY 10523,
$30/y for AIAA and AAS members) contains an article by Krafft Ehricke
describing the Slide Lander and the Drop Delivery systems for landing vehicles
on the Moon, which I mentioned in a previous article.  It also had a quote
useful for amusing (or raising the hackles of) a typical orbital space colony
freak like myself:

	"Just as solar energy tunnel vision concluded that the 14-day long
	lunar night disqualified the Moon as basis of a comprehensive
	extraterrestrial industrial system, dogmatically refusing to
	consider the obvious advantages of nuclear power, so does failure
	to consider progress beyond LM-type landing and ascent lead to an
	appraisal of the future course of lunar activities that envisions
	exactly the opposite extreme of the "colony" concept.  While the
	latter began with large numbers of peoples before considering what
	they should do other than exist, the other concept envisions 
	essentially no people, only robots and self-replicating robots.
	More likely, however, future astronautics will neither be an
	existentially anemic orbiting Nirvana nor armchair industrialization.
	Advancements in cislunar transportation can and will improve lunar
	access so that an optimally cost-effective human-cybernetic mix
	can be present during the lunar industrial buildup phase; thereafter,
	permitting a lunar population to be supported by a strong, viable
	industrial infrastructure and a commitment to advancing science and
	technology - outgrowth of the potentially noblest dimension of
	extraterrestrial advances, the evolution of a polyglobal civilization.
	This presumes, of course, that such us still at all within the grasp
	of a humanity being visibly alienated from cosmopolitan perspectives
	and persistently traumatized into intolerance and hostile retrogressive
	parochialism."

	-- Krafft Ehricke, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 10 No. 9, page 644.
	
   Well, I thought it was hilarious, but then, I get a giggle from the front
page of the newspaper.  It's fun to see stuff like this in the middle of a
technical paper.

   From the existentially anemic keyboard of:

Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!vice!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 83 6:45:06-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!onyx!dual!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!vice!keithl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Billion Dollar Space Programs

This is a followup to a discussion in net.sf-lovers. I figure it belongs 
here.

In support of Tom Craver, who claimed that a reasonable space effort could
be made with ~$10M, it is likely that space launch could be MUCH cheaper if
provided by private industry;  government may be the worst thing that ever
happened to the American space effort.  A simple calculation:

 (1/2) * (M=30000Kg = shuttle payload) * (V=8000m/s = orbital velocity)^2
 ~= 1e12 Joules

 1 gallon gasoline + oxidizer ~= 1.3e8 Joules ~= $1.30

therefore the cost of the payload kinetic energy from a shuttle launch is
about $10K. The rest is inefficiency and waste.  (Incremental costs for a
shuttle launch are about $200M.  Amortized costs are much higher.) Granted
it's harder to do orders of magnitude better with present technology, but 
present technology (read: modified war rockets) isn't the best answer.

   If some people lack the imagination to think of ways to reduce that $200M
number, others don't: there are half a dozen small companies working on that
right now.  Do they need lavish federal subsidies?  

   Stephen Bennett, head of Arc Technologies in California, recently said
before a Senate subcommittee that he could make a profit in space launch,
without federal subsidies, tax exemptions, or help of any kind.  All he
wants is the freedom to do so.  Many other firms are also operating without
federal funds; others have been stopped by government intervention. 
  
   It is a pointless exercise to second-guess history; without the massive,
weapons-related government investment in rocket technology, the history and
technology of space development would have turned out much differently.  I
suspect that without that investment, private industry would have a much
more aggressive attitude towards space, and the potential for development
would be far greater than it is now.

   I will follow the private path; others can follow the tax supported one.
If others want to shore up the decrepit structure of NASA, that's their
business; just keep it out of my way.

Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!vice!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 84 8:21:01-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: What are these stars/planets?

>>	They are probably Mars and Saturn. Mars is the one closer to the
>>	horizon. Almost all of the planets are visible in the SE-sky before
>>	sunrise.

Of course the poster meant all the planets visible to the naked eye are in
the same general region of the sky at this moment.  Mars and Saturn passed
within 48 minutes (0.8 degree) of arc about a week ago.  Look for a
yellowish Jupiter a bit to the East of Mars and Saturn (and a bit lower in
the sky), and a bright Venus to the East of Jupiter (that's left for most
of you).  Venus rises ABOUT 0500 local time, and is visible on a clear
morning until 0630 or even 0700.  Also in this region are several planets
not visible to the naked eye, including Pluto and Uranus (or is it Neptune--
or both?).  But I know Mercury isn't in this general area.  Perhaps someone
with the numbers will post them.  If you know where Libra is, you're
looking at Mars and Saturn.
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 84 14:28:40-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: What are these stars/planets?

Indeed, Mars and Saturn are both rising at about midnight, and in fact
had a conjunction on Valentine's Day (the significance of which eludes me).
The redder of the two would be Mars.

Further discussion should probably move to net.astro.

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 84 11:58:32-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!ames-lm!statvax!eugene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Private space ventures

It surprises me to read this Bboard sometimes.

Today I see yet-another failed attempt private attempt to get into space.
I think they can appreciate how difficult it is to scale technology when
physics does not scale as well.  It surprises me that I haven't seen more
about private space ventures in this Bboard.  I wish them all the luck in
the world.

I choose to work for NASA because it gets past many of the hurtles that
private space ventures have to overcome, but I wonder if my talents would
not be better served by ESSA or the Japanese space agency.  Any discussion
of this would be appreciated (as well as private space).

Lastly, the infamous shuttle tiles were developed here (I have learned).
I know that are lots of reject tiles.  I have a friend with lots of money.
For $50,000 starting funding, he would be interested in making a `model'
reentry vehicle with the use of student labor.  We have made informal
approaches to the physics Depts at Caltech and UC Santa Barbara.  The idea
is taken from model airplanes.

The idea would be to `crack' the ionization reentry communications problem
on a small scale.  Current NASA procedures does not allow reentry craft to
leave the Shuttle, but this will eventually change.  To assist my friend,
I gave him a contact at NASA HQ where we obtained the payload contact list
(This list is not an open list, sorry).

Anyway, getting back to the tiles: remember Paul MacCready and the
Gossamer Penguin (solar powered airplane).  The solar cells used to power
that plane were reject JPL solar cells.  Our thinking is to use reject
shuttle title material for re-entry craft.  This is totally in the realm
of capability.  The U of Utah is doing a solar sail project entirely on
private funding.

Interested parties should contact me directly as my friend is not on the
net.  This isn't enough to take me out of NASA, but it is an interesting
idea that I would put some personal time into it.

--eugene miya
  NASA ARC

------------------------------

Date: 22 Nov 83 23:24:02-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!onyx!dual!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!vice!keithl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Launch Loop author replies

I wrote the Analog article under discussion;  I thought I'd sit back
and watch people argue for a while.  It's been fun watching; I think
I'll jump into the coriolis whirlwind (  :-)  ).

First, I must have missed the reasons for moving the Launch Loop to the
northern temperate zone; I know it puts you closer to Earthside business,
but it has problems:
   1) More plane changes are required to GEO, lunar destinations.
   2) Militarily, the Loop is more threatening and an easier target.
   3) Off-equator weather is NASTY.
   4) Less over-ocean area, more populated areas in launch path.
There are more problems, but you get the idea.

Coriolis "forces" are not a problem, directly. The path followed by ribbon
and track is more-or-less a ballistic one; the ground track is CURVED the
same way the ground track of an inclined satellite orbit is.  Sure, lots
of side forces would be required to make a Loop follow a latitude line,
but there is no reason to do so.

Another way to think about it is to imagine an ~8000 m/s (orbital
velocity) gun at West station, and a target at East station.  With proper
aiming, and the right velocity, you can hit the target at East station,
wherever that is, with no further forces applied to the projectile.  The
ribbon path is "aimed" in a similar manner.  Note that the return track
must be lighter than the forward track, the ballistic effects are similar
to a projectile velocity change.

The real problem is that the retrograde "return" ribbon will have a
different curvature than the prograde "forward" ribbon.  The two tracks
will form a complex lens shape:

               ^^^ to pole ^^^

  forward    ....................               - - - - latitude line
        .....                    .....
     ...          reverse             ...       greatly exaggerated in
   ..          ----------------          ..     horizontal direction
  .      ------                ------      .
 .   ----                            ----   .
. ---                                    --- .
West Station                          East Station

The return track is used in the Loop as a stable measurement platform,
to gauge the amount of correction force that must be applied before the
forward ribbon reaches East station.  If the tracks are further apart,
the measurements become more difficult.  If the Loop is at the North Pole,
the spacing between the tracks is approximately 5 kilometers in the middle;
the measurement interferometers will have to track well.

Forcing the tracks into the same path does require a significant force;
the mechanical coupling implied by that force can lead to gross system
instability (perturbations do not propagate properly to the stations).

All in all, I think I'll stick to the equator.

Further information on the Launch Loop is in the December 1983 Analog,
on sale near you, with a supplemental article available from 

    Launch Loop, P.O. Box 1538, Portland OR 97207

(by the way, if you send netmail, please include a complete return address
to a few major USENET nodes;  the header doesn't often work).

Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!vice!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 84 1:17:52-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!richard @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Grabbing Lost Satellites
In-Reply-To: Article <16589@sri-arpa.UUCP>

The groups that lost Westar and the Indo sattelite can't just "claim" the
insurance money.  If you had a minor fender-bender and decided to scrap
the car, would you're insurance pay up?

As I understand it, insurance for each sattelite was spread over several
underwriters, Lloyd's of London being the central agency.  If the insurers
determine that the sattelites can be salvaged for less than the
replacement cost, they will only pay for the salvage effort.  If, after
the attempt, it has failed, they then have to pay replacement.

I'm hoping that Lloyds and whoever decide to get NASA to salvage the
things - if they can, it'll be a great way of turning bad luck into a
selling point.  The insurers might want to see how NASA does with Solar
Max before they decide.  But if the sattelites can be recovered, it would
probably be worth it to bring 'em down and send 'em back up, since
replacement is over $100 Meg, and would have to include another launch
anyway.

Good Luck, NASA!

			from the confused and bleeding fingertips of
				...!sequent!richard

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 84 4:29:37-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!minn-ua!sew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space salvage rights? - (nf)

When do the various failed satellites become candidates for salvage by
whoever can grab them?

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 1984 2206-PST
Subject: Re: Satellite insurance
From: Ian H. Merritt <SWG.MERRITT@USC-ISIB>
To: HUMAN-NETS@RUTGERS, SPACE@MIT-MC

Ouch!
			<>IHM<>
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Feb-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #125    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
			 How to land on the Moon
		      A lunar chauvinistic statement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 February 1984 05:27-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: How to land on the Moon
To: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!onyx!dual!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!vice!keithl @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Hmmm, so you use a bunch of stacked nets to break the fall of the
incoming payload. The nets of course are damaged by having the payload
break through them, and you're just getting started so you don't have
a way to manufacture or repair nets on the moon. So guess what's in
the payload? (Answer, replacment nets!)

Now the question is, are more nets supplied in the payload than would
be needed to break the fall, thus allowing breakeven with margin for error?

------------------------------

Date: 24 February 1984 05:33-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: A lunar chauvinistic statement
To: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!onyx!dual!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!vice!keithl @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I agree with that fellow, that a hybrid of humans and robots will be
optimal for many tasks including manufacturing in space and on the
Moon. I still think the following is worth consideration: on surface
of moon robots only, in orbit around moon communications relay
satellites and humans working remote-controllers for the on-moon robots.
This circumvents both the 2.5-second turnaround delay for Earth-based
telepresence and the great cost of supporting humans on the lunar surface.
For tasks where the 2.5-second delay doesn't prevent effective work,
Earth-based telepresence could be used.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #126    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
		   Searching for Planets of Other Stars
			       Launch Loop
			 Shuttle laserdisc sequel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 1984 11:09:04 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Searching for Planets of Other Stars
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

A while age I sent a message regarding the Space Telescope's ability
to detect planets around stars.  Here's an update:

From the 1983 Planetary Detection Workshop

The Space Telescope (ST) will be capable of astrometrically searching
approximately 10 nearby stars for planetary companions at an accuracy between
0.2 milliarc seconds and 0.6 milliarc seconds, which is the accuracy needed
for discovery of Saturn or Jupiter mass planets (although many years of
observations will be necessary).  For ground based systems the theoretical limit
due to atmospheric turbulence is thought to be 0.1 milliarc seconds, and
current capability is about 3.0 milliarc seconds.  

With respect to direct imaging detection, it is only under the most optimistic
assumptions that ST would make a discovery.

The bottom line is that ST may indeed detect planets around nearby stars,
but a comprehensive search for other planetary systems (necessary to truly
understand the origin of our solar system) is not possible with ST.

The above is quoted from a letter from Scott M. Rathjen, Planetary Detection
Study Manager, to Hans Mark, Deputy Administrator of NASA.

-Sheldon Meth
-------

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 1984 14:44-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Launch Loop
Reply-To: dietz%usc-cse@RAND-RELAY.ARPA

The Lofstrom Launch Loop looks like it will be much easier to build on
the moon.  There's no atmosphere to worry about, so the loop can be at
ground level (and the "track" can be ground supported).  Lunar escape
velocity is only ~2.4 km/sec (vs. ~11.2 km/sec for earth).  The mass of
the loop itself, the energy used and the mass of the magnets scale as
the square of the loop speed, so a lunar loop will cost perhaps 5% as
much as a terrestrial loop (ignoring the cost of transporting the loop
to the moon).  Energy stored in the loop scales as the fourth power of
the loop speed, so a lunar loop is much easier to start up (vacuum
helps here, too).

The lunar loop is about 200 km in circumference (bent into a 100 km
hairpin), with 1.2 km diameter "racetracks" on the ends to recirculate
the loop.  Assuming it can launch a 5 metric ton payload once every 5
minutes, the mass flow rate is 16.6 kg/sec, better than a mass driver.
Unlike a mass driver, the system does not require a "mass catcher" at
the L2 point, since the payload can be equiped with a guidance system.
Payload carriers would have to be reused, so a lunar landing system is
needed.  The payload carriers are equiped with underside magnets to
engage the launch loop and can be landed electromagnetically on an
aluminum runway.

The launch loop just described accelerates payloads at 3 gees; higher
accelerations would allow proportionally shorter loops.  The loop can
handle people and manufactured goods, unlike a mass driver.

Ultimately, a lunar equatorial loop (length 11,000 km) could be used to
carry power from the lunar dayside to nightside.  Some mountains would
have to be moved, but that could be done with nuclear charges or with
masses tossed on suborbital trajectories from a launch loop, or from
space.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 84 8:28:05-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!urban @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle laserdisc sequel

Video Vision, the people who produce the "Space Shuttle Mission
Reports" laserdisc, also sell an APPLE/laserdisk-player
interface.  Their recent mailer also says:

`This March, we will release the second volume of our SPACE
ARCHIVE series, "Apollo 17: Mission to Taurus Littrow."  This
new CAV laserdisc will chronicle the achievements of the last
manned mission to the moon, and will include an image directory
and a map of the lunar landing site of the Apollo 17.'

As I think I've mentioned before, if you really want to sell
your friends on what a nifty item your laserdisc player is,
just show them the Shuttle disc.

	Mike

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Feb-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #127    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
			  41-C Slightly Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 84 20:50:08-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 41-C Slightly Delayed

NASA today announced that 41-C, originally scheduled to launch
on 4 April, will instead launch on 6 April.  The later launch
date is to provide better conditions for the Solar Max rendezvous.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Feb-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #128    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
		      PAM firing pix via RMS camera
			    O'Neill's New Book
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 84 7:57:12-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!decwrl!lipman @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: PAM firing pix via RMS camera

From: dvinci::fisher  (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, 231-4108)

I have heard in several places that during the last shuttle flight,
the one of the remote manipulator system cameras was pointed at
Palapa when its PAM engine fired.  (The firing cannot be seen directly
because NASA insists on turning the shuttle belly toward the PAM
to avoid window abrasion.)  What I have NOT seen nor heard anywhere is
what was seen by this camera?  Has any one seen pictures or descriptions?

Thanks,
Burns

	UUCP:		... decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
		   or	...allegra!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
		   or	... ucbvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

	ARPA:		decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@Berkeley
		   or	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@SU-Shasta

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 1984 9:37-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: O'Neill's New Book
Reply-To: dietz%usc-cse@RAND-RELAY.ARPA

Gerard O'Neill's new book, "The Technology Edge: Opportunities for
America in World Competition", is now available.  O'Neill discusses
America's problems in competing with the Japanese, and suggests six
high technology areas that could lead to hundred billion dollar
industries by the end of the century:  microengineering
(O'Neill's term for microelectronics), robotics, genetic engineering
(O'Neill thinks this one won't grow too large), magnetic flight,
general aviation (as opposed to airliners) and space industries (lunar
resources for powersats).

O'Neill also covers what America can do best (venture capitalism is
uniquely American) and what US companies do poorly (managing production
in relatively mature industries).  The latter occurs for a number of
reasons, among them being a shortage of engineers.  These viewpoints
are easy to understand: O'Neill himself has started a high-tech company
with venture capital (Geostar), and the biggest stumbling block to his
High Frontier/SSI program is the huge amount of engineering talent it
will require (assuming powersats are competitive with other energy
sources).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #129    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
			  Pix of Satellite Burn
			      comet mission 
			 Comet mission planned   
		    Re: PAM firing pix via RMS camera
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Feb 1984  9:23:04 EST (Wednesday)
From: walt lazear <lazear@mitre>
Subject: Pix of Satellite Burn
To: space at mit-mc

During a talk at our company by astronaut Col Gregory, he presented TV
and 16mm movies of the last shuttle flight.  Among the shots was the
sequence of the second satellite PAM firing.  The details were lost in
the poor resolution of the TV camera, but a pulsing flicker of the
rocket blast was evident, as was the premature shutdown of the rocket.
Col Gregory had no specific analysis of the incident, but did mention
that NASA's contract with clients is to successfully get the payload
off the shuttle, period.  The guidance they work under is to deploy the
payload, even if there are problems, so the client does not have to
cancel the contract and pay for another launch after the problems are
fixed.  If deployed, the malfunctioning payload is then subject to
insurance coverage and negotiation with the insuror.

The 16mm film of the MMU tests was spectacular, much better quality than
the TV picture.  There also was a camera on the MMU (upper right), but
we didn't get to see any of those shots.  We also got to see out the
cockpit windows during re-entry and landing.  For us pilot types, the
view of the Kennedy runway while on final looked really strange, due
to the altitude and high drop rate the shuttle experiences.  The window
during re-entry appeared as continuous flames, as the nose heated up.

	Walt Lazear

------------------------------

Date: 29 Feb 84  1053 PST
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI>
Subject: comet mission 
To:   space@MIT-MC

n029  1006  29 Feb 84
BC-SCIENCE-WATCH (UNDATED)
(ScienceTimes)
c. 1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    A team of 20 American and European astronomers has chosen a bright,
short-period comet named Kopff as target for a mission to intercept
the comet, fly around it at a range of six miles and then sail along
with it at a greater distance as it approaches the sun.
    The spacecraft, a projected design of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
known as the Mariner Mark II, would be launched in 1990 to meet the
comet four years later. It would be the third comet to become target
of intercept missions but the first to be joined in its orbit by the
probe.
    The International Cometary Explorer of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration has been aimed to fly past the comet
Giacobini-Zinner next year. In 1986 European, Japanese and Soviet
spacecraft are scheduled to rendezvous with Halleys Comet. But these
are ''fly-by'' missions in which the spacecraft have only one look at
their target.
    Comet Kopff was chosen by a committee convened for that purpose by
NASA at the California Institute of Technology. According to the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, which is operated by Cal Tech, the spacecraft
is expected to remain with the comet for several years, observing its
response to the effects of sunlight and other forms of solar
radiation as it approaches and loops around the sun.
    Unlike most comets, whose orbits around the sun are measured in
decades, centuries or millenia, this one circles the sun every 6.5
years. The rendezvous would be performed two years before the comet
makes its closest approach to the sun.
    After making observations while orbiting a few miles from the comet
the craft would be commanded to move to a greater distance as the
comet, under the influence of increasingly intense solar heat and
radiation, develops a cloudy envelope, or coma, and a tail.
    Such is the timing of the mission that it would allow the spacecraft
to take ''close looks'' at two asteroids, Namaqua and Lucia, while en
route to the rendezvous.
    The Mariner Mark II is envisioned as a ''bargain basement''
spacecraft, using electronics and other components from existing (and
more elaborate) models, such as the Vikings that went to Mars and
probes to the other planets - Voyagers, Galileo and the Venus Radar
Mapper.
    Other targets for the Mark II design could include the Saturnian
moon Titan, the outer planet Uranus and the asteroids that orbit the
sun in a zone between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Feb 84  1821 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Comet mission planned   
To:   space@MIT-MC

n029  1006  29 Feb 84
BC-SCIENCE-WATCH (UNDATED)
(ScienceTimes)
c. 1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    A team of 20 American and European astronomers has chosen a bright,
short-period comet named Kopff as target for a mission to intercept
the comet, fly around it at a range of six miles and then sail along
with it at a greater distance as it approaches the sun.
    The spacecraft, a projected design of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
known as the Mariner Mark II, would be launched in 1990 to meet the
comet four years later. It would be the third comet to become target
of intercept missions but the first to be joined in its orbit by the
probe.
    The International Cometary Explorer of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration has been aimed to fly past the comet
Giacobini-Zinner next year. In 1986 European, Japanese and Soviet
spacecraft are scheduled to rendezvous with Halleys Comet. But these
are ''fly-by'' missions in which the spacecraft have only one look at
their target.
    Comet Kopff was chosen by a committee convened for that purpose by
NASA at the California Institute of Technology. According to the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, which is operated by Cal Tech, the spacecraft
is expected to remain with the comet for several years, observing its
response to the effects of sunlight and other forms of solar
radiation as it approaches and loops around the sun.
    Unlike most comets, whose orbits around the sun are measured in
decades, centuries or millenia, this one circles the sun every 6.5
years. The rendezvous would be performed two years before the comet
makes its closest approach to the sun.
    After making observations while orbiting a few miles from the comet
the craft would be commanded to move to a greater distance as the
comet, under the influence of increasingly intense solar heat and
radiation, develops a cloudy envelope, or coma, and a tail.
    Such is the timing of the mission that it would allow the spacecraft
to take ''close looks'' at two asteroids, Namaqua and Lucia, while en
route to the rendezvous.
    The Mariner Mark II is envisioned as a ''bargain basement''
spacecraft, using electronics and other components from existing (and
more elaborate) models, such as the Vikings that went to Mars and
probes to the other planets - Voyagers, Galileo and the Venus Radar
Mapper.
    Other targets for the Mark II design could include the Saturnian
moon Titan, the outer planet Uranus and the asteroids that orbit the
sun in a zone between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 84 16:36:39-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: PAM firing pix via RMS camera
In-Reply-To: Article <5861@decwrl.UUCP>

The pictures were shown on all the network news programs the
night of the firing (surprisingly, I did not see them on CNN!)
It was not as spectacular as the event really is.  Since, the
camera was directed up at the PAM, no rocket plume (the
spectacular part) was seen.  What you could see was a flash
followed by a bright ring of material which quickly descended
and widened as the satellite moved away.  The satellite/PAM could
only be seen for about 10 to 15 seconds, further leading officials
to believe that the motors shut down early.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #130    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
		       O'Neill's book -- how to get
			   Water Rocket Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 1984 8:10-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: Howard.Gayle@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
Cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: O'Neill's book -- how to get

Title:  "The Technology Edge"
Subtitle: "Opportunities for America in World Competition"
Author: Gerard K. O'Neill
Publisher: Simon and Schuster
Publishers Address: Simon and Schuster Building, Rockefeller Center,
	1230 Avenue of the Americas, NY, NY 10020
Price: $16.95 (hardcover)
Pages: 299 pp.
ISBN:  ISBN 0-671-44766-1
Copyright 1983, available March 1984 (now).  I bought my copy
at B. Dalton in Canoga Park, CA.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 84 16:11:07 PST (Fri)
To: ham-radio@Sri-Unix.ARPA
Cc:   space@MIT-MC
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!dsd!dna@Ucb-Vax.ARPA
Subject: Water Rocket Report
Posted: Wed  Feb  8, 1984   7:15 AM GMT              Msg: NGIE-1712-8217
From:   JKING

          USING WATER AS A PRIMARY METHOD OF PROPULSION

           FOR SPACERAFT MODIFYING STANDARD STS ORBITS


                        Jan A. King W3GEY

                        V.P. Engineering

             The Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation


The  Space  Shuttle has modified the method by which  space-bound
payloads enter orbit for the forseeable future.   The STS  offers
the  promise of lower payload cost and the ability to carry large
payloads  into  orbit  to  mention  but  a  few  of  its  primary
objectives.   For very low cost payloads such as those  pioneered
by  the  radio  amateur community (the OSCAR  series), the  Space
Shuttle poses,  however, a number of severe engineering obstacles
which  have become major stumbling blocks to the exploitation  of
this valuable resource.   Not unlike most free flying satellites,
the communications satellites launched by radio amateurs and used
in  the Amateur Satellite Service are intended to meet long  life
objectives.   In  addition,  to  meet mission objectives for  the
communications  service  to be provided  either  a  geostationary
transfer  orbit or a sun synchronous polar orbit must be attained
by the spacecraft.   Unfortunately,  neither of these  objectives
can be met by the standard provisions of a Space Shuttle mission.

STS orbits,  typically 296 km in altitude and inclined from 25 to
57 degrees are unstable.   A small spacecraft, with a low surface
area to mass ratio,  will decay from such an orbit in a matter of
months.   This  class of orbits,  with a few exceptions,  is also
unsuitable  for  communications experiments of  interest  to  the
Amateur   Satellite   Service.    It  is  therefor  a   necessary
requirement   for  Amateur  Satellites  and  other  free   flying
spacecraft seeking stable orbits to carry a propulsive capability
if launched by the Space Shuttle.

Having  accepted  the burden of a propulsive system as  an  added
spacecraft  complexity,  yet  another problem  becomes  apparent.
Classical   propulsion   systems  employed  by   satellites   are
characterized  as hazardous devices.   Due to the manned presence
on  board  Shuttle  safety considerations  are  necessarily  more
stringent when using this method of launching a spacecraft.   The
added complexities and paperwork resulting from the inclusion  of
hazardous devices on board Shuttle launched satellites  conflicts
with  the  low  cost nature of these programs and may  make  such
payloads  totally  impractical  or viable  only  if  launched  by
alternative  methods.   This problem is exascerbated by the  fact
that  most orbit alternatives can be reached from Shuttle  orbits
only by multiple delta-V maneuvers.  This requires multiple solid
rocket  engines  or a restartable engine on board the  satellite,
further multiplying the safety hazard problem.

A  solution  is  sought to the  "Shuttle  Dilema."   The  Shuttle
Dilemma may be defined as follows:

     1/   A  Shuttle  payload is always two burns away  from  the
desired orbital elements when separated from the cargo bay.

     2/  The cost of NASA safety approval for a propulsive device
used aboard Shuttle by a low cost user is approximately a  factor
of three higher than the entire cost of the payload itself.

     3/  As a rule of thumb,  the mass of the paperwork necessary
for  NASA approval of a hazardous device for a Shuttle flight  is
greater than or equal to the mass of the payload.

While the above may seem humorous,  these statements are all  too
true and must be dealt with squarely by would-be Shuttle low cost
payload designers.

A  propulsion system that would solve the Shuttle Dilema could be
expected to have the following characteristics:

     1/ The propellant used should not be a chemical,  pressue or
explosive hazard as defined by NASA or the USAF (ref. AFETRM-127-
1).

     2/ The loading of propellant into the spacecraft should  not
constitute  a hazardous activity.    No special safety  equipment
should be required.

     3/  No  portion  of  the propulsion  system  should  contain
hazardous devices of any kind.   Certain exceptions to this  rule
might  be  taken to include category B electro-explosive  devices
such as pyrotechnically operated valves.

     4/ No portion of the propulsion system should be pressurized
or become pressurized even remotely while the satellite is on the
ground,  during  powered flight or during astronaut activities in
orbit,  including those conducted to separate the satellite  from
the Shuttle.

     5/ No portion of the propulsion system should be susceptable
to damage due to the environment of the Cargo Bay during  powered
flight  or  in  orbit  prior  to  or  during  separation  of  the
satellite.


The  Radio  Amateur Satellite  Corporation  (AMSAT),  having  had
practical  experience  with  both  liquid  and  solid  propulsion
systems  on  board  low cost satellites believes that  the  above
requirements  will  prove to be virtually mandatory for low  cost
payloads flown by the Space Transportation System.   Two  methods
have  been considered for some time by AMSAT that appear to  meet
the  above  five conditions and produce satisfactory  performance
for space applications.   Both involve using water as a fuel  and
both  have been considered by other groups from time to  time  as
methods of space propulsion.

PROPULSION VIA WATER ELECTROLYSIS:

The  propulsion  of  a  space vehicle  via  hydrogen/oxygen  fuel
produced from the electrolysis of water is far from a novel idea.
Hughes  Aircraft Company,  Space Systems Division documented  the
results  of  an internal research and  development  IR&D  project
which  developed a working model of a water  electrolysis  rocket
during the first half of 1964 (1,2,3,4).   Using this technique a
single  pressure  vessle  acts as storage for  the  water  and
electolyte,  as an electrolysis chamber and finally as a pressure
bottle for the combined electolyzed gases.   The premixed gas may
be  fed  via a single line into the injection chamber of a  small
rocket  engine  or  thruster.   In their  final  report  on  this
technology Hughes stated, "The Water Electrolysis Rocket has been
explored  in  sufficient depth to verify the feasibility  of  the
concept.   Furthermore,  it  has been determined that this system
offers  significant  advantages over  other  presently  available
reaction control systems.  Among these advantages are:

     1/ Higher specific impulse

     2/ Lower system weight

     3/ Lower power requirements

     4/ Extended life in space

     5/ Improved system reliablity

     6/ System simplicity "



It  is interesting to note that at the time of the writing Hughes
did not cosider the safety advantages of the system which are  of
prime  interest  to  AMSAT.   The  specific impulse  of  a  small
electrolysis motor of the type required for a low cost  satellite
mission is between 330 and 360 sec.   This is considerably better
than   either  an equivalent solid or bipropellant  liquid  motor
system   (270   and   305   sec.    respectively).    Preliminary
investigations  by  AMSAT  suggest that  the  power  required  to
electolyze one kilogram of water is approximately 5,000 WH.  This
may  be related to delta-V for a specific satellite case as shown
in Table 1.  A minimum system schematic is shown in Figure 1.

It  is  not known why Hughes did not continue  to  develope  this
technology  to  the point of commercial  introduction.   Clearly,
however,  monopropellant hydrazine systems replace other  methods
for  reaction control starting about the same time as the  Hughes
research on water electrolysis motors.   Since this work was done
there  have  been  dramatic  improvements  in  both  electrolysis
electrode  and thruster technologies.   AMSAT has also  conducted
preliminary  studies on an advanced method of drying the hydrogen
and   oxygen   gas  which  should  lead  to   improved   thruster
performance.   This  was  one  problem  reported  by  the  Hughes
research team.


PROPULSION BY STEAM EXPULSION:

A  second  method of exploiting water as a safe propellant is  by
means of a small steam engine integral to the thruster in a water
fed propulsion system.   Water is allowed to superheat in a small
chamber adjacent to an expansion nozzle.   Thrust is produced  by
the acceleration of water molecules as they exit the nozzle.  The
specific  impulse  of  this  technique is  far  poorer  than  the
electrolysis method (107 sec.), however, the system complexity is
very low indeed and the energy required to liberate a kilogram of
water  into  steam is only 750 WH,  considerably less  than  with
electrolysis.   The specific impulse for a motor of this type can
be shown to be governed by the equation:


               |  2 C K Tb (1 - <Pexit/Pchamb.>**C-1/C)|
    Isp = SQRT |  ________                             |
               |  (C-1)n m                             |


     where:

     C = Heat capacity of propellant (water = 1.3)

     K = Boltzman Constant = 1.38E-23 J/K

     Tb = Gas Temperature = (approx.) 400K

     n = molecular weight of propellant (water = 18)

     m = mass of a hydorgen atom = 1.66E-27 Kg

     Pexit = Nozzle exit plane pressure (assumed = 0.01 Bar)

     Pchamb. = Thruster chamber pressure (assumed = 5.0 Bar)


As  can be seen,  the specific impulse depends inversely  on  the
molecular weight of the fuel used,  taken to the 1/2 power.  This
favors  the use of low molecular weight fuels.   As can  be  seen
water  is nearly optimum for an engine of this type  particularly
when  the other physical properties of this fluid are taken  into
consideration in a practical system.

While, on balance, a system using steam as a propulsion technique
is far from optimum with respect to Isp it is simple enough to be
included  on  even  GAS CAN mission and can  solve  a  reasonable
number  of  propulsion problems for small spacecraft.   Figure  1
reviews the performance of this system for a variety of  missions
of  interest to AMSAT and gives a comparison to the  electrolysis
method.
ORBIT CORRECTION TECHNIQUE USING WATER PROPUSLION METHODS:

A  salient characteristic of both propulsion techniques  reviewed
is  that they take electrical energy from the solar arrays of the
spacecraft  and convery it into potential energy (either  in  the
form  of  stored  gas  to be burned  or in  the  form  of  stored
electrical  energy).   Thrust  is best produced in a  burst  mode
rather  than  with  a  continuous  firing.   This  is  a  typical
operating  mode  for  a  reaction control  system  (RCS)  but  is
somewhat unusual for an orbit transfer maneuver.  In effect, time
is  traded  against  the burn duration (power production rate  of
the  satellite)  so that a reasonable compromise  for  the  total
duration  of the propulsion phase of the mission is reached.   An
important consideration for such a mode of operation is that  the
total  delta-V  achieved  per  day during the  maneuver  must  be
greater than the deceleration per day due to drag in the  Shuttle
base orbit.  The orbit transfer strategy for circular orbits with
a spinning spacecraft is shown in Figure 2.   Two small thrusters
at  either  end of the satellite are  employed.   Firings  always
occur  at the line of apsidies.   Alternate thrusters are used so
that  a first firing occurs at perigee thus raising apogee and  a
subsequent  firing occurs at apogee now raising  perigee.   Mini-
Hohman transfer maneuvers are repeated until the desired circular
altitude  is  reached.   Eliptical orbits can be achieved with  a
single  thruster fired at consecutive perigees thus  continuously
raising apogee.  Inclination changes with this technique are also
possible  and  are  most efficiently  applied  when  apogee  also
coincides with the ascending node of the orbit.


SUMMARY:

The techniques reviewed have been considered in the past by space
research  projects  and by commercial  spacecraft  manufacturers.
While  these  propulsion technologies have never been reduced  to
commercial  practice,  sufficient study has been done  to  verify
their  applicability to space missions.   If the STS is going  to
fulfill  its  mission as a launcher for ALL space  interests then
some  acceptable methods of propulsion must be found for  smaller
payloads.   These  methods  must take into consideration the  low
cost  nature  of  such projects and  the  very  stringent  safety
constraints  imposed  by NASA on all STS users.   In view of  the
above AMSAT believes that water propulsion technologies should be
revisited because they have the potential of solving the "Shuttle
Dilema"  for a class of users that can bring significant  benefit
to the space program as a whole.


REFERENCES:

1.  Newman, Daniel D., Study of the Water Electrolysis Propulsion
System- Final Report, Engineering Record No. 151, Hughes Aircraft
Co.,  S.S.D.,  Propulsion  and Power Systems Laboratory,  5  June
1964.

2.    Water   Electrolysis   Rocket,   Hughes  Aircraft   Company
Proposal, 63H-7438/9419 (Dec. 1963).

3.    Electrochemical  Service  Unit,   Hughes  Aircraft  Company
Proposal, 64H-2115/A3951-001 (April 1964).

4.   Water Electrolysis Rocket, Hughes Aircraft Company Proposal,
64H-2510/A4682-001 (May 1964). .

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #131    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Orbital Artillery
		     Discovery Maiden Flight Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 84 9:18:37-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!judd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orbital Artillery
In-Reply-To: Article <16648@sri-arpa.UUCP> <164@ames-lm.UUCP>

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 84 15:24:40-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Discovery Maiden Flight Delayed

The maiden flight of the Discovery, originally set
for 4 June, has been delayed until at least 19 June.
THe postponement is necessary because several com-
ponents, including an orbital maneuvering pod, a main
engine, and all three APU's, have had to be taken from
the Discovery for use in the Challenger.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #132    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
	       Details of upcoming Solar Max repair mission
			   Water Rocket Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 05 Mar 84  1335 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI>
Subject: Details of upcoming Solar Max repair mission
To:   space@MIT-MC

BC-SPACE-FIX 2takes
By PATRICK YOUNG
Newhouse News Service
    WASHINGTON - Astronaut Bruce McCandless called it ''a nice little
flying machine'' when he tested the free-flying manned maneuvering
unit in space in early February. Astronaut George D. Nelson now is
preparing to put the MMU to its first real test.
    On the next space shuttle mission, set for launch April 4, Nelson is
to fly the MMU to the crippled Solar Maximum Mission satellite, then
try to dock with the craft and stop its slow spin. If he succeeds,
Solar Max will be loaded aboard the shuttle for repair and later
reorbited.
    That's no mean feat, and no small step for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration as it seeks to prove another of the
shuttle's much-touted capabilities and to win congressional approval
for the permanent manned space station President Reagan proposed in
January.
    ''This mission is a milestone for the concept of on-orbit service
and maintenance,'' says Donald N. Turner, NASA's project manager for
Solar Max repair.
    NASA has long argued it would be cheaper to service satellites in
space than to simply abandon them if something goes wrong. Solar Max
cost about $80 million to build, but replacing it would cost $200
million or more.
    And the service-repair concept is vital to building the space
station and other large orbiting structures, as well as some
envisioned space-industrialization schemes.
    ''The thing now is to show people can actually do nuts-and-bolts
things in space,'' says executive director Mark R. Chartrand of the
National Space Institute, a nonprofit space advocacy group. ''It's a
precursor to building a space station, where someone is going to have
to assemble and bolt things together.''
    Some NASA officials are so confident the mission will succeed that
they are talking about going after the two communications satellites
launched by the last shuttle. These went into low orbits because
their booster rockets failed. The two craft were not built for
recovery in space, but engineers think it could be done - if the
satellites' owners want to pay for it.
    Solar Max is the first satellite designed for on-orbit repair.
    It was launched four years ago to explore the sun's magnetic fields,
sunspots, solar flares and energy output. But 10 months later, Solar
Max lost its fine pointing control, rendering four of its seven
instruments useless.
    Since then, one of these four has died and a second has developed
electronics trouble. Exhaust leaks are interferring with a third
instrument.
    If the repair mission works, Solar Max's precision aiming and six of
its instruments will be restored to perfect order.
    Full repairs will require two days. But to even reach Solar Max will
require the steepest, most precise shuttle launch yet. The satellite
is orbiting 309 miles above earth, far higher than the shuttle has
flown.
    Repairs will begin on the flight's third day. Mission commander
Robert Crippen is to guide the shuttle to within 300 feet of Solar
Max and Nelson will fly over to it without a lifeline.
    Nelson will use the MMU to get his body rotating in synchronization
with the satellite, which turns around once every six minutes. This
done, he will move in and lock onto the craft with a device mounted
in front of the MMU.
    ''Then he uses the jets on his backpack to stop the spacecraft's
rotation and stabilize it,'' says F. J. Logan, deputy manager of
satellite servicing at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in
Greenbelt, Md.
    Once Solar Max stops spinning, Crippen will ease the shuttle to
within 30 or 40 feet. Astronaut Terry J. Hart, working inside the
shuttle cabin, will swing the shuttle's 50-foot manipulator arm over
to the satellite, lock onto it and load it into the shuttle's cargo
bay.
    Nelson then is to take off the MMU and place himself at the base of
thecrad e-like device holding Sola
 Max. Astronaut James D. van
Hoften, locked in a foot restraint, will ride the manipulator arm
like a cherry picker as the two replace the satellite's attitude
system, which controls the precision aiming of its instruments.
    Van Hoften will use a special tool to loosen the two bolts holding
the four-foot square, 18-inch-thick unit in place. Nelson will hand
him the replacement to bolt on. Although it weighs 450 pounds on
earth, the control-system module is essentially weightless in space.
    ''This is the prime (repair) mission, and if we went to only one EVA
(space walk), that is the one we'd do,'' Logan says. ''This will give
us five instruments.''
    Next, the astronauts are to do a simple fix. They are to clip a
baffle around an exhaust port to prevent fumes from leaking back into
Solar Max and interferring with the soft X-ray polychromator.
    Finally, before quitting for the day, the astronauts will begin
their most complex repair - replacing the failed electronics for the
coronagraph polarimeter, which records visible ejections from the sun.

    The CP's electronics box was never intended to be changed in space,
and doing so will require some intricate maneuvers and uncommon
dexterity.
    The insulation covering the roughly one-foot-square panel must be
taken off, 22 screws undone to lift it out and a hinge installed to
hold the panel while electrical wires and a ground are disconnected.
Its eleven electrical connections are held together by 22 small
screws, which must be removed.
    ''This gets a little touchy,'' Logan says. ''Remember these guys are
working in space suits with gloves pressurized to five pounds. It's
not like working in mittens, but like thick gloves.''
    Most of the CP repair will occur during the second EVA, set for the
flight's fifth day. Once it's finished, Solar Max will be tested to
see whether the fixes worked.
    If not, the shuttle's arm will push the satellite out to full length
and its solar panels will be jettisoned by firing the exploding bolts
that hold them in place. Then Solar Max will be packed in the cargo
bay for return to earth.
    If the repairs succeed, the astronauts will fly the shuttle up to
about 328 miles and release Solar Max to resume its watch on the
sun's violent surface.
    ''I think we'll fix it,'' Logan says. ''We have work-arounds you
wouldn't believe. We have back-up ways to do everything.''
BJ END YOUNG
(DISTRIBUTED BY THE INDEPENDENT PRESS SERVICE)
    
nyt-03-05-84 1357est

------------------------------

Date: 6 March 1984 04:18-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Water Rocket Report
To: hplabs!hpda!fortune!dsd!dna @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Could higher specific impulse be obtained in the steam method if after
vaporizing the water a high-voltage current were passed through the
steam to ionize and then greatly heat it? Perhaps a capacitor could be
charged enough that ambient ionization would create runaway conduction
(current causes increased ionization which decreases resistance which
at constant voltage of charged capacitor causes increased current
which increases RATE of heating which means increased rate of
increased conduction which soon approaches infinite current) which
would discharge the capacitor in a flash and provide both the high
temperature and burst mode that are desired.

Note that RF voltage superimposed on the DC can cause corona discharge
which can trigger the runaway conduction. This can be accomplished by
putting an RFC in series with the capacitor and arc-chamber, and
putting an RF source in parallel with the RFC. Gary Ford (currently of
Calgary Alberta, but of San Jose CA at the time) did experiments where
ordinary air could be made to undergo runaway conduction by this
method, using an automobile ignition circuit and low-current arc-gap
such as spark plug to feed the RF energy across the high-current RFC
in series with high-current arc-gap and 1-farad multi-kv power-line
capacitors. If it works for dry air then surely it should work for
water vapor. The advantage of this method is that switching is done by
the RF energy causing runaway conduction rather than by a
semiconductor or physical switch that is opened or closed, thus
greatly reducing wear on the switching circuitry, giving reliable
repeated operation without maintenance.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #133    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:
	       Details of upcoming Solar Max repair mission
			      Shuttle APU's
	     Re: Civilians in space (From NASA Activi - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 March 1984 10:03-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Details of upcoming Solar Max repair mission
To: RSF @ SU-AI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

	NASA has long argued it would be cheaper to service satellites in
    space than to simply abandon them if something goes wrong. Solar Max
    cost about $80 million to build, but replacing it would cost $200
    million or more.
I find these figures hard to believe. True inflation would increase the
current cost compared to the cost then, but not by a factor of 2.5
since it was built only a few years ago. I'd believe a factor of 1.5.
But since the design work wouldn't have to be redone, only the actual
fabrication&testing, much of the cost could be saved, probably more
than offsetting inflation. So what's the justification for the $200
million figure??

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 6 Mar 84 13:09 EST
From:     Alexander Wolf <wolf%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       space%mit-mc.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Shuttle APU's

Does anyone have any info on what is actually wrong with the APU's?  They seem
to have caused trouble on just about every Shuttle flight (or non-flight!);
why are they so unreliable?

If I remember correctly, APU's have throughout the manned-flight space
program been the source of much trouble (i.e., even on Mercury -- or was it
Gemini?).

                                                           Alex.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 84 19:30:34-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!leimkuhl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (From NASA Activi - (nf)

#R:statvax:-12600:uiuccsb:6800002:000:427
uiuccsb!leimkuhl    Mar  6 20:13:00 1984



They really mean Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather or James Michener or ?

The idea is that a great communicator would enter space as a better
representative of the American people.  Obviously NASA needs the 
PR.  The research displaced by Dan Rather might be amply justified
in the long run by the construction of another space shuttle or 
space station because of the public interest kindled by such a mission.

Ben Leimkuhler

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #134    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:
		   Re: No More Space Weapons Treaties!
			  Re: Orbital Artillery
			       Death Star?
			     Applying to NASA
		    Re: 70mm shuttle film to be made!
		     No More Space Weapons Treaties!
			 NASA Applications - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 84 4:47:35-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!richard @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: No More Space Weapons Treaties!

>>                                               ....  They have
>>  already referred to the Shuttle as a space weapon, and they're
>>  hard at work building their own!

If you don't believe the shuttle is a space weapon, you're pretty 
innocent.  What do you think our Pentagon boys are so interested
in it for?

"Death-rays don't kill people, people kill people."

___________________________________________________________________________
The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the
employers or associates of the author.    It is solely the belief...

			from the confused and bleeding fingertips of
				...!sequent!richard

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 84 4:42:49-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!richard @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orbital Artillery

>>  The old problem arises again.  If you ban weapons from space how
>>  do you verify compliance??  This is even harder in space since
>>  many usefull tools are also weapons (eg. small rocket engines).

This would indeed be a problem, if the primary concern were weapons to
be used against other space entities.  But the weapons that are the
primary concern are those that have the power to effect earth-based
objects, or missiles/planes in flight.  Anything with this kind of
power is still neccessarily large - farily easy to detect.  The only
type of space-space weapon of concern is a satellite-killer.  This
poses a more serious problem, but still, "tools" won't usually
qualify as anti-sat devices.

If the ban you're speaking of is, indeed, a personal-weapons ban,
measures on the order of the airline security checks should do
for quite some time.

___________________________________________________________________________
The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the
employers or associates of the author.    It is solely the belief...

			from the confused and bleeding fingertips of
				...!sequent!richard

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 84 12:25:17-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Death Star?

[Reprinted from Newsweek, March 5, 1984]

A Death-Star Theory Is Born:  Nemesis

     The *really* bad news last week was from scientists reporting that
a "death star" periodically wipes out much of the life on earth.  The
suspect, a.k.a. Nemesis, has yet to be found, but when it is, astronomers
don't expect it to look like a killer-just a mousy little orb one-tenth
the size of the sun.  The problems start, though, when Nemesis's wide-
ranging orbit takes it through the Oort Cloud, a sort of holding pen
for some 200 billion comets at the outskirts of the solar system.  What
occurs is the cosmic equivalent of a bar fight as the star's gravity
picks up billions of comets and sends them plunging out of the cloud.
Most miss the earth, but two dozen or so land direct hits.  The impact
fills the atmosphere with dust and poisons, changes the planet's climate
and, in time, causes the extinction of myriad species of plants and
animals.
     So, at least, goes a new theory that seeks to explain mass extinctions
of life on earth.  The best known impact wiped out the dinosaurs and other
creatures 65 million years ago; other cataclysms occurred about 12 million,
38 million, 92 million and 125 million years ago.  The regularity was
first noted by paleontologists J. John Sepkoski and David Raup of the
University of Chicago, and it sent astronomers scurrying to find a
cosmic event with the same frequency as the extinctions.  The smoking
gun was the impact craters from comets and meteors that scar the
earth's surface:  the ages of seven of the largest coincide with the
dates of mass extinctions.  NASA scientists suggested that the
impacts, and the craters, occur when the solar system passes through
the debris-laden plane of the Milky Way galaxy.  But "we are [doing
that] now," argues astrophysicist Richard Muller of the University
of California, Berkeley, and aren't getting a comet barrage.  Muller,
colleague Marc Davis and Piet Hut of the Institute for Advanced Study
propose instead the Nemesis theory:  that a companion star to the sun
whose orbit takes it through the Oort Cloud every 28 million years
is responsible.
     If the Nemesis theory is correct, it would mean that the pace and
direction of evolution are determined partly by an extraterrestrial
force.  Survival of a species would depend as much on luck as on
fitness-living far enough away, in space or time, from a comet's
impact.  Muller and his colleagues are poring over records of star
sightings to find evidence of Nemesis and are awaiting the results of
upcoming unmanned space missions to comets to see if these wanderers
have the rocky cores necessary to cause such destruction.  Even if
there is a Nemesis, it's a little early to build comet shelters.  The
next barrage is due in 14 million years.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 84 21:35:14-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!ames-lm!statvax!eugene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Applying to NASA

Applying to NASA is like applying to any other Federal Agency.
(Ideally).

First, you obtain a standard form 171 from any Federal Agency.
Fill this out.  Then submit it to any of the nine major NASA centers.
(Along with a resume.)  Then wait.  It despends on your background and what you
want to do, and what that NASA Center does.  (Has anybody described
the organization of NASA to the net in recent days?  If not, send me mail
and I will post a terse description, I have work at four for various
lengths of time.)

You will get paid Civil Service wages which are maybe competittive in the
computer field for about 2 years, after which you will make more than
industry, so don't join for the money.
The Other problem is that NASA tends to be somewhat backward in using
computers (I note the earlier news about turning a perfectly good
autonomous system into one which men could manipulate, this is true.).
UNIX is unknown turf for lots of NASA people.  Seems to be a problem
with those who pioneered (not just NASA) computers, seems to stay with
existing equipment and vendors (and software).
However, things are changing, NASA realizes this and is making efforts to
change, so you have a nice badwagon opportunity, if you can stand the wait.

If the money is a problem, (I know the wife and kids) you can perhaps
join as a contractor to NASA with certain organizations who contract to
NASA: IBM, GE, Rockwell, Informatics (who runs this machine), etc.
and various universities (Caltech who runs JPL), etc.  This is a little
bit harder as you must seek out these contractors.  Also, unfortunately,
contractors as seen as second class civil servants.  Few wield `power'
(Although I know many who actually are sharper than the surrounding
CSes or contractors).

Lastly, there are special Institutes and Centers which is many cases are
contracted.  These are like the Lunar Receiving Lab, ICASE (At Langley RC),
RIACS (Here at Ames).  These are run by contractors, but have slightly
better status.  JPL sort of falls into this class (They have third party
contractors to NASA).

One last point to make about NASA Centers, most are located in the
S and SE parts of the country.  There are exceptions: Ames and JPL are
on the West Coast.  Lewis RC is in Ohio, and the Goddard Space Flight Center
is in MD.  NASA HQ is variously in the N or S which ever is convenient
at the time.  If you are interested in Ames, send me a resume, we can
vtroff it (Let me know the macro package).  If there is a need to describe
which Center does what, I will post a short description.

--eugene miya
  hplabs!menlo70!ames-lm!statvax!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 84 8:35:57-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelca!t4test!chip @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: 70mm shuttle film to be made!
In-Reply-To: Article <219@ll1.UUCP>

> I just read in the Chicago Sun-Times a day ago that on the
> rest shuttle flights this year the are going to be filming interior
> and exterior sequences with a special 70mm camera.  Some time next 
> year NASA plans to release the film to theaters, but the only ones 
> that will be able to show it are those equipped with one of those 
> concave wide screens.

What is special about the camera is that it has an extremely wide 
field of view.  The film is intended for release to planetariums.  
I hope the folks in Rochester, NY keep an eye out for this.  You 
people have the most fantastic planetarium I have ever seen.  But 
given the nature of the city (e.g. R.I.T., Kodak, etc.), that's no 
surprise.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 84 6:31:37-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: No More Space Weapons Treaties!

	I agree with Judd Rogers that a space treaty would be very hard to
enforce, especially with the Soviets.  They have already referred to the
Shuttle as a space weapon, and they're hard at work building their own!
	I don't think we should sign any space weapons treaty, since space
weapons can reduce the chances of an ICBM hitting me.  There's already a treaty
banning nuclear weapons in space, and that leaves satellite killers and ABM
weapons.  I think the Soviets are getting worried about our growing space
weapons effort, and want to stop us before we gain an advantage.

						Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 84 19:54:39-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!markcoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: NASA Applications - (nf)

#N:uiucuxc:12600009:000:135
uiucuxc!markcoe    Mar  2 15:45:00 1984

 Application to NASA

    Hello, is there anybody out there who can tell me the proper
procedure for application to the space program?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Mar-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #135    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:
			       Death Star?
			       Death Star?
		      CalSpace Winter Schedule 1984
		      More Space Weapons Discussion
	     Re: Civilians in space (From NASA Activi - (nf)
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #134
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 March 1984 07:19-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Death Star?
To: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

About a week apart I heard two new theories about cretaceous
extinction et al: (1) Sun orbits galaxy out of plane, crossing the
plane twice each orbit, during which time the chance of passing by
another star (which disturbs Oort cloud) is enhanced; (2) Sun has
companion "death star" in long ellyptical orbit, which disturbs Oort
cloud at each perihelion.

Neither theory mentionned the other as an alternative, and both are
explained by exactly the same data, the periodicity of major
extinctions. So as far as I can tell it's a "ratings week" on TV news
and/or a big-lie battle between scientists, with no way to distinguish
the two theories (or should I say two flavors of one theory) that they
are willing to reveal to us J.Q.Public.

------------------------------

Date: 9 March 1984 07:30-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Death Star?
To: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

The previous message was something I wanted to say for a week or so
but forgot. Now I've read the news story that ihuxb!alle sent us, and
I have one more thing to say: It seems the original gallactic-plane
was half-baked, since it was immediately refuted by the fact we're at
this very time passing through the plane of the galaxy but not getting
the comet barrage, while the new theory is just grasping at straws to
try to cover up the first theory. The whole periodicity observed in
the first place might just be sampling error, everything looks vaguely
periodic when examined in retrospect, yet only true periodicities can
be used to predict the future. The scientists need to do a test of the
periodicity by dividing the geologic history of Earth into two equal
time periods, using Fourier analysis of the older data to predict a
periodicity in meteor/comet impacts and then comparing that predicted
periodicity with actual events during the latter half. I seriously
doubt that has been done, but I don't know.

In any case, if we're still alive a few million years hence, I think
we'll be able to defend against the comets. I'm worried more about the
next 5 years (subject of Arms-D).

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 84 10:02:55-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!coleman @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: CalSpace Winter Schedule 1984

###

     I recieved this yesterday, and I thought that some of you out there 
might be interested.  As a note for those who don't know what CalSpace is,
it is sort of the 'Far Out' Wing of NASA.  NASA uses it to do all the things
that might make NASA look funny(ie: doesn't have to answer to the Proxmiers
for it).
			      
---
don
   coleman@sdccsu3.ucsd
   sdcsvax!sdccsu3!coleman@berkely.arpa
   [ ihnp4|decvax|ittvax|ucbvax ]!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!coleman.uucp
###

28 February 1984

				CALIFORNIA SPACE INSTITUTE
SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY-UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

		  WINTER/SPRING SCHEDULE 1984
		12 Noon - 1pm Wednesdays*

	      La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA
		      Info: (619) 452-4937
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 March		 Peter Muller (IBM Scientific Research Centre, UK)
		 "Dynamics of Jupiter and Saturn fro Remotely Sensed Data"
		 PLEASE NOTE: This is a joint Pysical Oceanography/Cal Space
		 Seminar on FRIDAY, 3:30 PM
		 Room Location:  IGPP Conference Room

7 March      Roger Lynch (General Dynamics)
	     "Atlas-Centaur: Commercialization"
	     Room Location: T-29

14 March     William Haynes (Aerospace Corp)
	     "Man vs. Machine, Why the Controversy?"
	     Room Location: T-29

21 March     Janos Kocsis (Taplow Flight Inc.)
		 "A Trans-atomspheric and Trans-orbital Transportation System"
		 Room Location: Marine Biology Conference Room

28 March     Mark Henley (General Dynamics-Convair)
		 "The Prospect of Platinum-Group Elements on the Moon"
		 Room Location: T-29

4 April		 Robert Bernstein (Cal Space)
		 "Remote Sensing"
		 Room Location: T-29

11 April     Edward Bock (General Dynamics-Convair)
		 "Centaur Upper Stage for the Shuttle: A progress report"
		 Room Location: Marine Biology Conference Room

18 April      Robert Waldron (Rockwell)
		 "Space Chemical Processing"
		 Room Location: T-29

25 April	 William Baity (CASS)
		 "Scientific Applications of the Space Station/Platform"
		 Room Location: T-29

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tentative Speakers for May: Harris Mayer (Aerospace Corp.), Gregory Benford (UC
Irvine), Neal Hulkower (Jet Propulsion Lab.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Note: Seminars are held in T-29 (Martin Johnson House at SCRIPPS) from
	     12-1 on Wednesdays unless otherwise indicated.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 84 7:36:41-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: More Space Weapons Discussion

	Any reduction in number of warheads that could reach us seems to
	be a good idea to me.  The other delivery methods the Soviets
	have are a small fraction of their total capability, and there are
	known countermeasures for bombers & subs.  The cruise missiles are
	only dangerous because they are hard to detect, and a recent
	AW&ST articles describes a satellite planned to find and track them.

	As for the gigawatt lasers mentioned before, a few miles of atmosphere
	should provide enough protection against them or particle beam weapons.

	If anyone wishes to continue this discussion, please reply by mail or
	suggest a better newsgroup, such as fa.arms-d.

					Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 84 6:24:18-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houxb!lmg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (From NASA Activi - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article uiucdcs.6050

#
	If NASA wants to send a Great Communicator into space,
I'm sure the Democratics can think of one they'd like to send,
especially if a one way trip could be arranged :-).

					Larry Geary
					AT&T Information Systems
					Holmdel, NJ ...houxb!lmg

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 84 09:20:34 PST (Friday)
From: rounds.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #134
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 09 Mar 84 03:03 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: rounds.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

I came to Xerox from NASA Ames only one month ago.  I also worked for
two NASA Contractors (Informatics and Bendix).  I would be happy to fill
anyone in on how to apply for work with NASA.  I can even give you some
names which would help.  I might add that I left the Government.

NASA Ames does have a very big UNIX contingent and its getting bigger,
especially within the Numerical Aerodynamics Simulator Project.  There
was some idle talk about put UNIX on a CRAY.  They thought the better of
it, however.

NASA needs technical people, especially at Ames.  As a Civil Servant, I
think you'll find yourself managing the work of contractors.  You'll
become a project facilitator more than a technical person.  This can be
very rewarding, depending on what you like.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Mar-84  0305	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #136    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
		      CalSpace Winter Schedule 1984
	    Another reason to take the "death star" seriously
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
		       Re: shuttle films to be made
			 re: space station alert
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
		       Re: shuttle films to be made
			   Calls to Congressmen
		   Number for Space Station Subcomittee
			    Re: Space Station
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
	     Re: Civilians in space (From NASA Activi - (nf)
			    Re: Space Station
			Space Station (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 March 1984 07:39-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: CalSpace Winter Schedule 1984
To: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!coleman @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Looks like a fine set of lectures. Could you or somebody attending
take notes and send a summary of each lecture to this digest? I'm
especially interested in materials from Moon and new transportation
systems, but the rest are probably of value to the readership too.

------------------------------

From: Joe Buck <buck@NRL-CSS>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 84 13:27:14 EST
To: SPACE at MIT-MC
Subject: Another reason to take the "death star" seriously


The search for the planet Pluto started because of disturbances in the
orbit of Uranus and Neptune. However, estimates of the mass of Pluto
seem to go down every time more information comes in, to the point where
it hardly qualifies as a planet any more. This suggests that there is
another massive object out there somewhere, and that its location might
be found by calculation, as Neptune's was.

By the way, if the "death star" is much larger than Jupiter, shouldn't it
radiate a lot of infrared from gravitational contraction (Jupiter radiates
more energy than it receives from the sun, apparently for this reason)?
If so, it should be very bright to an IRAS-type sattelite.

-Joe

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 84 15:53:26-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!clyde @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
In-Reply-To: Article <2570@rabbit.UUCP>

<<!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>

> To all U.S. taxpayers: There is a significant effort in the House Space
> Science Subcommittee to cut funding for a space station by 50%.  A
> strong showing of public opposition to a space station is critical now,
> just before Congress takes its first vote on the issue. The Administration
> request for Fiscal 1985 space station definition studies is $150
> million.  HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP STOP THIS WASTE OF MONEY:

>	1. IMMEDIATELY CALL OR SEND A MAILGRAM to the following two
> Congressmen, stating briefly in your own words that you oppose any
> funding for a space station or increased funding for NASA:

>	(Posted in response to an opposing viewpoint on net.space.
>	Flames to /dev/null.) *****

No such luck, sucker!
If this trash was supposed to be in sarcastic mode, you failed miserably.
If this piece was SERIOUS, you are in even a deeper ditch.

The building of a space station is long overdue.
The U.S. should have built a space station YEARS ago.  Going to the moon
was fine, but a space station would have set us up for some serious
space exploration.

Each any and every penny spent on space exploration in general and a space
station in particular is WELL worth it.  Those who do not believe this
are hopelessly stuck in the past (though there will always be those who
are - the best we can hope is to prevent them from stopping us).

What alternative do YOU suggest to building a space station? 
-- 
Clyde W. Hoover @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
(Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots)
"The ennui is overpowering" - Marvin 
clyde@ut-ngp.{UUCP,ARPA} clyde@ut-sally.{UUCP,ARPA} ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 84 7:03:00-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: shuttle films to be made
In-Reply-To: Article <219@ll1.UUCP> <374@t4test.UUCP>

Another place that such films could be viewed will be in the planned addition
to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.  This theater is just one
of many things to be in the new wing they are planning to add to showcase
space exploration.  Many of the exhibits apparently are planned to give
museum visitors the feeling of being an astronaut through simulation.
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 84 13:23:43-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!pyuxvv!brt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re: space station alert

@ <- receive thy gift, o blank-line eater, and let me by..

I've just called the phone number for the Science and Technology Committee 
(provided by Allen England ihnp4!ihuxb!alle). When I asked the receptionist
how many people have called in their support, she said that she didn't know,
but that their workload had increased significantly and they will definitely
have to work overtime and weekends to catch up. She even wondered whether the
callers had intended to slow them up.
			B.Reytblat
			...!pyuxvv!brt

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 84 8:51:41-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!wolit @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT

>  The building of a space station is long overdue.
>  The U.S. should have built a space station YEARS ago.  Going to the moon
>  was fine, but a space station would have set us up for some serious
>  space exploration.
>  Each any and every penny spent on space exploration in general and a space
>  station in particular is WELL worth it.  Those who do not believe this
>  are hopelessly stuck in the past (though there will always be those who
>  are - the best we can hope is to prevent them from stopping us).
>  What alternative do YOU suggest to building a space station? 
>  -- 
>  Clyde W. Hoover @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas  
>  (Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots)

My, what persuasive arguments you have!  I still haven't heard what
we'd be getting from a space station that's worth even ONE penny, no
less "each and every".  Just a lot of arm waving and shouting (as if
to dead parrots), but no particulars.

On the other hand:

1.  We've done just fine exploring space without a space station.  In
    fact, we've done just fine without people in space at all.  Examples:
    the Pioneer, Viking, Explorer, Ranger, etc., series.  We've
    returned lunar soil samples with robot probes, photographed the
    moons of Saturn, all for a LOT less than it would have cost for
    manned missions, and all without a space station.

2.  Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space
    science.  Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on
    exploration, and they're not talking about pennies, but billions
    of dollars.  Ask an astronomer, planetologist, climatologist,
    etc., what she'd rather have the money spent on.  Scientists are
    not the ones behind a station.

3.  Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push
    high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their
    commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to
    swallow.  Face it, they want a military base in space before the
    Russkies get one.  They also want it in NASA's budget so the War
    Department's budget doesn't look quite so bad, and so us geeks can
    feel like we're supporting science instead of a military machine.

4.  If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the
    companies that will benefit from a station fund it.  That's called
    "investment", and it's the basis of capitalism, which is good,
    right?  Frankly, I don't see the market for perfectly round
    plastic beads as so promising, but if DuPont wants to pay for it,
    more power to them.  We didn't pay for all the communication
    satellites that are up there making money, why should we suddenly 
    be getting into the space business business now?  (Answer:
    because the companies concerned either don't think there's any
    profit in it any more than I do, or they'd rather have us suckers
    shoulder the risk so they can reap the profits later.)

OK, let's hear your arguments, if you have any.

	Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 84 10:48:23-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!louie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: shuttle films to be made
In-Reply-To: Article <219@ll1.UUCP> <374@t4test.UUCP>, <385@ihlts.UUCP>

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 84 6:06:03-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!daemon @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Calls to Congressmen

From: dvinci::fisher  (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, 231-4108)

>	(approximate quote)  The people in Fuqua's office said I should have
>	contacted the Science and Technology office.  The S & T office said
>	they were counting calls and states to pass on...

My call to Volkmer was taken by the person who answered the phone.  The Fuqua
phone answerer forwarded me to the S & T office.  Everyone was very polite,
and sounded like they had dealt with a good many of these calls, but no one
asked for my state.  I wonder if this means anything (for example, that the
phone messages are immediately deposited in the circular file, or that the
decision has already been made).

Burns



	...allegra!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 84 14:47:38-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Number for Space Station Subcomittee

	The correct number to call to show your support of the Space Station
	program and NASA funding in general is (202) 225-7858.  I tried the
	other number posted previously to netnews and was informed that it
	was incorrect, and I was then transferred to the above number.
	Call now to insure the vital early funding is not cut!

					Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 84 15:50:42-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station
In-Reply-To: Article <2578@rabbit.UUCP>

Quoting from rabbit!wolit:

>>	In fact, we've done just fine without people in space at all.
>>	Examples:  the Pioneer, Viking, Explorer, Ranger, etc., series.

But from where did the technology that enabled us to accomplish these things
come?  The manned space program.  From where did the big push that has
brought computing (and many other sciences) up to their present stage of
sophistication?  The manned space program.  Pioneer and Viking would never
have happened had we not pushed on to the moon.  The earlier examples, all
together, provided us with a small fraction of the data we gathered with a
single moon landing mission.  Future activities in planetary exploration, not
to mention our technology in general, depend upon a healthy manned space
program.

>>	Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space
>>	science.  Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on
>>	exploration . . .

This type of fallacious thinking is all too common.  Manned space exploration
draws money to unmanned space science and produces money for unmanned space
missions.  Unmanned space science budgets have always followed manned space
science budgets, up AND down (except before there was any manned space
exploration).

>>	Scientists are not the ones behind a station.

Bull.

>>	Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push
>>	high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their
>>	commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to
>>	swallow.

That's the most illogical statement I've heard in a long time.  What the hell
do biology texts have to do with space stations?  Secondly, what makes you
think that Reagan's motives are even relevant here?  Manned space exploration
has the potential to be the greatest pacifying influence on mankind ever seen
because of its ability to unite us as one people on a tiny planet and as a
statement about the human spirit.  To forever deny people the opportunity
to boldly go where no human has gone before is to lower them to the level
of the cockroaches.

>>	If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the
>>	companies that will benefit from a station fund it. . . .
>>	We didn't pay for all the communication satellites that are up there
>>	making money, why should we suddenly be getting into the space
>>	business now?

Every time you pay for a telephone call, you help pay for a communication
satellite, whether your call goes by one or not.  That is how capitalism
works.  You have benefitted many times over from the manned space program,
whether you realize this or not.  Manned space exploration overall is a
money MAKING venture, producing in a decade several times what was spent
on it.

If space exploration is left entirely to private companies, then
there will be very little basic space science research going on.  Apparently
you are against this research.  Would you prefer space to be controlled by
individual private interests?
--
Roger Noe		AT&T Bell Laboratories
ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 84 6:15:06-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocse!dls @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
In-Reply-To: Article <2570@rabbit.UUCP>

Cute. 

Why don't you contribute some substantial
criticism of the space station as a probject. I'm
sure we'd all be interested and the net would be
more interesting as a result.

If we(space station advocates) can't convince a person
such as yourself that a space station
is 1)the essential next step in space
   2)extremely important to the human future
   3)likly to produce significant economic return
   4)well worth a billion a year for ten years

then maybe we shouldn't have one. But give
us a chance to make our case.

Dale.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 84 2:58:24-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!wjh12!n44a!ima!inmet!nrh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (From NASA Activi - (nf)

#R:statvax:-12600:inmet:3400003:000:297
inmet!nrh    Mar  7 10:47:00 1984

Actually, what's wrong with "tourists"?  So long as they pay enough
to make it worthwhile.....  Of course, NASA should consider the 
greater impact of allowing a technical type from a large firm that
might use more shuttle space later, but why not allow private individuals
to bid for the spaces?

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 84 20:50:02-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station
In-Reply-To: Article <2578@rabbit.UUCP> <386@ihlts.UUCP>

This appears to be the classic "men in space" vs "machines in space"
debate that has gone on since the earliest days of the space program.
There are merits to the arguments on both sides, but each has some
fallacies as well.

There is no doubt that specific, well defined, purely scientific
programs can be carried out more cheaply with unmanned spacecraft. 
However, as beneficial as they might be to science, unmanned programs
simply don't get the media hype that much less "worthwhile" (to the
scientists) manned projects get.  It is this public support, sometimes
bordering on the romantic, that the scientists must rely on to support
their work also.

I wish the machine-in-space camp would stop complaining about the
relative amounts of money being allocated for the shuttle and the space
station. Their time would be better spent figuring out ways to get as
much scientific mileage out of them as possible, and in presenting the
united front to the legislature that's needed in increasing the overall
NASA budget, unmanned missions included. This is why I suggest that
letters to your representatives endorse support for BOTH manned and
unmanned missions.

Yes, science was almost an afterthought in the Apollo program, but lunar
science is still far better off than if the Apollo program never
existed.  Without Apollo, there probably wouldn't have been a Ranger,
Surveyor or Lunar Orbiter.  Them's the political facts.

On the other side, I'd like to see more accomodations made by the manned
space flight people to the scientists, who are after all doing much
with their limited resources. I cringe when I see all that empty space
in the cargo bay that could have been used by scientific payloads of
opportunity (bigger than GAS cans).  Scientific groups are chronically
poor, and applying the same rates to them as well as to commercial
customers just isn't fair.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 84 8:15:17-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!wolit @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Station (continued)

Responding to Roger Noe (who was responding to me):

> But from where did the technology [for unmanned space probes] come?  
> The manned space program.

First of all, that's wrong.  There were unmanned probes and satellites
long before there were manned ones.  Besides, you could trace all
modern technology back to primitive levers, wheels, etc., and that
still doesn't mean that NASA should spend its money building wheels.

> Manned space exploration draws money to unmanned space science 
> and produces money for unmanned space missions.

This is trickle-down budgeting.  It's also voodoo.  If I have one
dollar for a NASA budget and I give 90 cents to the space station
project, I have only ten cents left for science, not another dollar.

	[Scientists are not the ones behind a station.]
> Bull.

A most concise argument, but not compelling.

> What the hell do biology texts have to do with space stations?  

Very simply, anyone working to have evolution removed from science
textbooks is clearly NOT interested in advancing science, and cannot 
claim that as a justification for a space station.  I thought my point
was clear.  Do you understand now?

> Manned space exploration has the potential to be the greatest pacifying 
> influence on mankind ever seen.

The potential, maybe.  But over two decades of manned space programs
has had anything but this effect in practice.  Certainly, increasing
the role of the military in the US space program, as Reagan wants,
would have exactly the opposite result.

> To forever deny people the opportunity to boldly go where no human has 
> gone before is to lower them to the level of the cockroaches.

I have no desire to deny anyone such an opportunity.  I simply refuse
to pay for what I consider to be a boondoggle.  If you want to build a
Star Ship, and pay for it yourself, go right ahead.  As I said, I'm
100% behind the private commercialization of space.  My company makes
a lot of its money that way.  If the government had built the comsats,
it would have a claim to the profits, which we want for ourselves
and deserve, since we took the risk.  
Claiming that we all benefit from some technology does not mean that 
the government should get involved:  we all benefit from automobiles, 
yet I don't want the US going into competition with General Motors.

(By the way, you might note that cockroaches do indeed have the ability
to "boldly go where no man has gone before" -- try following one some
day!)

	Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #137    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:
	      space station vs "pure scientific exploration"
     Another reason to take the "death star" seriously --> teensy lie
	      Re: SPACE STATION ALERT -> Why space station?
	Public criticism of the space station by space scientists
		Tally for space station, even on Sundays!
			Lie? Them's fightin' words
		     Zen and the art of space travel
		    Re: 70mm shuttle film to be made!
		    Re: 70mm shuttle film to be made!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 1984 04:50-PST
Subject: space station vs "pure scientific exploration"
From: BILLW@SRI-KL
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]11-Mar-84 04:50:48.BILLW>

Isnt it a generaly accepted fact that scientists have enough raw
data from previous and ongoing space research to keep them busy
for years and years?  I think its time for technology, engineering,
industry, and yes, even the military, to catch up!!!!

Lets build the space station.  A space station will provide a lot more
benifit to pure science (as a base for exploration, 0 G lab, etc) than
more pure scientific exploration will provide to the other camps I
have mentioned.  End of debate....

Chops

------------------------------

Date: 11 March 1984 09:58-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Another reason to take the "death star" seriously --> teensy lie
To: buck @ NRL-CSS
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    From: Joe Buck <buck@NRL-CSS>
    Date: Sat, 10 Mar 84 13:27:14 EST
    (Jupiter radiates more energy than it receives from the sun)
This is a famous "lie by understatement" that I pointed out several
months ago on this list. Every planet radiates more energy than it
receives, because every planet has some radioactive materials which
decay releasing energy in the form of heat, and both this additional
heat and all the energy received from the Sun must be radiated or else
the planet will keep getting hotter and hotter and hotter etc. What
actually happens is it keeps getting hotter until blackbody radiation
plus special radiation (such as from lightning etc.) just equals
incoming (solar-mostly) radiation plus radioactive-decay-energy plus
gravitational-collapse energy. At that point it reaches equilibrium
and the following equations/inequalities hold:

OUT = IN + RadioactiveEnergy + GravitationalCollapseEnergy
OUT = IN + PositiveNumber + NonnegativeNumber
OUT > IN

The only spcial thing about Jupiter is it emits A LOT MORE energy than
it receives, whereas other planets only emit A TEENSY BIT MORE than
they receive. 

------------------------------

Date: 11 March 1984 10:22-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT -> Why space station?
To: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!wolit @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I'd gladly pay my share of the station IN ADDITION to what's
already being spent for space stuff ($150 million / 500,000,000 people
= $.30 per capita), in fact I'd gldly pay three times that each year
for the next five years if it would get the station built sooner.

You have some valid arguments for not diverting planetary-program
funds to the space station, essentially arguments about how wonderful
the planetary program is (and I agree, in fact I want more funds for
the planetary program), but no arguments against the space station per
se. You challange us to give arguments in favor of the space station.

(1) zero-gee experiments of long duration, both for materials
processing and biological experiments, (2) a nice place for people
like me with bad backs to have sex and sleep without strain of gravity
making everything painful, (3) rendezvous point for space ships,
including facilities for food and water and toilet and medical
supplies that may be needed in an emergency by some crew whose own
ship has broken down, (4) assembly place for advanced spacecraft such
as proposed modular-spacecraft planetary program, (5) first step in
full industrialization of space using lunar and other non-Earth
materials, (6) eventually place for mankind to survive nuclear war or
other Earth-based disaster.

After we've solved problems of long-duration habitat in space, and
have industry etc. out there, we can move toward longrange plans in
both science and survival (for example: sending crews to explore
nearby stars, setting up large radio and astronomical facilities for
observing more remote stars, shielding Earth from our Sun later in the
Sun's life when it is hotter than at present, moving mankind closer to
the Sun and/or setting upmirrors to concentrate sunlight on Earth much
later when the Sun is dying and not emitting anywhere as much energy
as it does now, and finally moving mankind to another star before our
dying white-dwarf Sun gets to the point where it doesn't produce
enough energy to support mankind any more).

To accomplish all that, we need a lot of things now (yesterday), one
of which is a permanently-staffed space station.

------------------------------

Date: 11 March 1984 11:56-EST
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Public criticism of the space station by space scientists
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

	It is deeply troubling to see members of the space science
community openly urging the cancellation of the space station for a
number of reasons:

1) Politically, it can be disasterous for all space exploration
efforts.  There are many politicians who feel spending money on space
is a waste of money, and will use these criticisms by experts to
justify reduction of all space efforts. Any negative comments like
this are bound to be taken out of context, and the good intentions of
the critics won't mean squat.

2) It is divisive within the space community as a whole. We should not
attacking each other in front of Congress over the small piece of the
pie we get for our efforts; rather, we should work together to get
more money for everyone's projects of interest. Also, it's bad for
morale. The idea that a planetary scientist would write a
Congressional committee urging cancellation of the space station which
I support strongly is first depressing and second angering. These
differences of opinion should be settled outside such an influential
arena.

3) There are many space enthusiasts who want to go into space
themselves, or at least make it possible for their children (that's my
sentiment).  A likely path to this is the settlement of space (a la
O'Neill's High Frontier), and for that path, a space station will be
very useful.

4) The space station proposed by Reagan is a civilian station, no
military involvement. If that attribute can be maintained as the
station is constructed and flown (assuming that it isn't cut), and if
its commercial potential is realized, then there will business
interests in stopping the militarization of space as military and
civilian uses will tend to clash. Remember, the military applications
of the shuttle arose because there wasn't enough support from the
civilian space effort to get past Congress and the administrations. If
DOD changes its mind about a space station and the civilian space
station support is weak, the same thing could happen here.	

5) Historically, (if you can draw conclusions about a 25 year old
program) the fortunes of space science have been closely tied to
manned space programs.  It hasn't been exclusionary (every dollar
spent on manned space is one less spent on unmanned space, as
claimed).  Every planetary probe up to and including Voyager was
planned and started during the time of the Apollo program.  With the
improvement in NASA's fortunes with the flying of the space shuttle,
we now have one new start (Venus Radar Mapper), and possible another
(Mars Geoscience/Climatology).  Trickle down, voodoo space funding if
you will. But, if I were a space scientist, I wouldn't tempt history
and I'd support bigger NASA budgets in any form.

	I could say more, but I've written enough. To Jan Wolitzky,
you did a nasty thing to your brethren. It's unlikely that you'll repent,
but I hope that we can undo the damage you've done. 

------------------------------

Date: 11 March 1984 16:45-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Tally for space station, even on Sundays!
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I took a chance and called that number (202-225-7858) this Sunday
afternoon and they not only were open but answered the phone
immediately. This is a winner!

They seemed in a rush to get a quick tally and then chase you off the
phone, although if you have another point to raise they'll listen to
that too and jot it down, rather than hang up on you.  That means you
can't discuss the subtle points of what you want in space, but you
save money because they don't draw you into a long phone call.  I
think I was able to complete my call (voicing my support for space
program, including space station and lunar polar orbiter) in under a
minute, so it cost me only 29 cents (one minute rate from California).

I don't know if they're open 11pm to 8am during the week, so those of
you who don't get this message until Monday and thus can't call this
Sunday and don't want to wait until next weekend and can't afford
weekday long-distance rates might give it a try at night and report
back whether they answered.

------------------------------

From: Joe Buck <buck@NRL-CSS>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 84 17:40:37 EST
To: REM at MIT-MC
Subject: Lie? Them's fightin' words
Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

Mr. Maas took a statement of mine out of context (that Jupiter radiates
more energy than it receives from the sun) and accuses me of a LIE,
even though the statement is clearly true, by pointing out that other
planets must also radiate more heat than they receive from the sun,
owing to radioactive decay. Since I was proposing trying to detect
Nemesis (the alleged "death star") by infrared radiation in my message,
it was clear from context that I was talking about a SIGNIFICANT level
of radiation. Nowhere did I state or imply that anything was special
about Jupiter, instead I pointed out that Nemesis should be bright in
the infrared for similar reasons that Jupiter radiates.

I feel that Mr. Mass owes me an apology. I occasionally make a mistake;
sometimes even very stupid ones. But I will not tolerate being called a
liar.

ARPA: buck@nrl-css
UUCP: ...!decvax!nrl-css!buck

-Joe

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 1984 21:26:21-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Zen and the art of space travel

I used the above title, for those familiar with the similarly named book
because the preceding arguments on manned vs unmanned (and arguments going
back to the early days with Van Allen) miss a very important point, a very
human point. We go to EXPERIENCE the universe. A photo of Saturn's rings
does little more than whet the appettite to BE there, to see the enormous
rings stretching across a black sky. We are pushing for the space station
because it brings closer the day when those of us bantering on the network
will personally go. Vicarious experience can never hope to match reality.
Worried aboout the tax dollars? Well there is nothing else the government is
doing that I care to have MY tax dollars used for. If we didn't have the
high taxes, economic interference, etc, we would indeed not require federal
help. "Mais, c'est ne pas le mieux des mondes possible, Cunegonde."

						D.Amon, Pgh-L5

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 84 23:42:48-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-vgr!ron @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: 70mm shuttle film to be made!
In-Reply-To: Article <219@ll1.UUCP>

I heard it was going to be IMAX (that's 70mm sideways), which is
the largest cine format in use.  Should be interesting at the next
Dave Yost IMAX festival.

-Ron

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 84 14:50:49-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-vgr!ron @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: 70mm shuttle film to be made!
In-Reply-To: Article <219@ll1.UUCP> <374@t4test.UUCP>

The reason the field is wider is because the actual area of film per
frame greater.  This is accomplished by making the recorded image
70mm (less sprocket holes) high.  This appears to be sideways from
most film formats who use the 70mm dimension as the width of the
image.  Conventional 70mm also has space allocated for soundtrack.
IMAX uses a separate piece of 35mm magnetic coated film (tape?) for
sound.  There is no squeezing of the picture (like cinemascope or
panavision).

There are two modes of operation.  Conventional IMAX is for showing
on flat screens.  These are typically 70' by 50'.  OMNIMAX uses a
different lens that gives a fishbowl effect for showing on round
surfaces (like the inside of a planetarium dome).  I'm not overly
fond of OMNIMAX.

Anyone know if they are going to shoot only IMAX, only OMNIMAX or
a combination?

-Ron

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #138    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Civilians in space (From NASA Activi - (nf)
			      Space Stations
			 Space Station opposition
			      Private space
			Shuttle Lift & Drag Specs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 84 7:54:11-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!urban @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (From NASA Activi - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article uiucdcs.6050 <264@houxb.UUCP>

One suggestion I have heard for NASA fundraising would
be to hold a semi-expensive lottery for a seat on the
Shuttle.  This would be good PR and would probably pay
for itself and more.  Anyone know why this avenue
is not being pursued?

	Mike

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 1984 16:03:07-EST
From: Edward.Tecot@CMU-CS-H
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Space Stations


	Yes, I agree.  This is a trickle-down budget.  However, the $0.90
that would not be spent on a station would not go to science either.
I prefer to have a space station up there than an extra nuclear warhead
in my backyard.

						_emt

------------------------------

Sender: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Date: 12 Mar 84 17:03:45 EST (Monday)
Subject: Space Station opposition
To: allegra!alice!rabbit!wolit@ucb-vax.arpa
cc: clyde@ut-sally.arpa, space@mit-mc.arpa, Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.henr@parc-max.arpa>

Since I don't have an electronic copy of your reply to clydes' reply,
I'll simply list my replies (how recursive...) by index.

1. Name 5 new unmanned interplanetary probes scheduled for the
1980-1990.  How many were launched in the latter 70's?  Is this doing
'just fine'?  How much ore has been refined by unmanned probes?  How
much medicine?  How can an unmanned probe do long term investigation of
weightlessness on humans?

2. It depends on where the money comes from.  It could also slow the
arms race.  Building and launching your unmanned probes in orbit would
significantly reduce their cost: the launch would be less of a shock,
and require less energy.  If the probe could be built with space aquired
materials, it would be even cheaper.  Name two from each category who
oppose it.  Who is behind it (I don't think it's the Illuminati).

3.  I can't argue with your point about the Reagan admin, but look at it
this way:  should we have ignored German rocket technology in the 40's
and 50's because it was used militarily or had potential military use?
By the time the station is built, the Reagan admin will no longer be in
power.

4.  The US now longer operates on a free enterprise system.  Social
control (but no ownership) of most major industries is not an incentive
for private ventures.  Could you afford this with the government sucking
up 40% of the economy?  The market for thin wafers of silicon wasn't
very good in 1955, either.

				Chaotically Yours,
					Chris Heiny
					Xerox Corp, Rochester N.Y.

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 12 March 1984 20:35:33 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Private space
Message-ID: <1984.3.13.1.34.45.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover>

a211  1034  11 Mar 84
AM-Space-Business, Bjt,660
Government Launching Private Companies Into Space Business
Laserphoto WX3
By GENE GRABOWSKI
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - If you want to launch a weather satellite into
orbit or grow herpes vaccine in space you don't have to rely on the
federal government anymore.
    In fact, the government is helping companies get started in the
business of ferrying scientific experiments and communication relay
stations into space in competition with its own space shuttle program.
    By the end of the decade, scientific research firms, oil companies
and weather forecasters are expected to be hiring those companies,
instead of Uncle Sam's shuttle, to launch many of their payloads
skyward.
    President Reagan took the first step toward that goal on Feb. 24
when he created the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, the
only government agency with which a new space transport company must
deal.
    ''Without this office, a company would have to get clearance from as
many as 17 government agencies, like the Coast Guard, the Federal
Aviation Administration, and even the State Department before a
private sector launch,'' says Jennifer Dorn, the 33-year-old director
of the new 15-person office.
    ''That kind of red tape can be overwhelming to a private company and
it can send very bad signals to the investment community, which is
interested in these kinds of ventures,'' she said in a recent
interview.
    Specifically, Ms. Dorn's job is to help new companies take over
building and selling the kind of non-reusable rockets the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration once used in its Mercury, Gemini,
and Apollo space programs. That way, NASA can focus its resources on
developing the reusable shuttle for space exploration.
    But the first companies starting from scratch in the space business
in 1982 and 1983 were forced to hack through a thick jungle of
government red tape. Their calls for help resulted in the creation of
the space office, which is part of the Department of Transportation.
    ''We went to six different agencies and had to wait about six months
just to get preliminary approval for our first project,'' recalled
Charles Cheffer, vice president of Space Services Inc., a Houston
company that plans to launch sensory satellites for oil companies and
agricultural combines by next year.
    ''The government still has red tape because it must protect national
security, but the new space office streamlines the whole operation
and saves us time and aggravation,'' Cheffer said.
    One of the most potentially lucrative markets in space is the
manufacture of drugs that are expensive to make on Earth, but easy and
cheap to manufacture in zero gravity. Industry projections show that
space-made pharmaceutical products could generate annual sales of $20
billion by the 1990s.
    Two of the first drugs that will be produced in zero gravity in mass
quantities are beta cells, expected to be a single-injection cure for
diabetes; and interferon, used for treating viral infections, cancer
and sexually transmitted Type II herpes.
    Most space production of drugs will take place aboard space shuttle
flights, but new firms expect to be launching small orbital labs of
their own at a lower cost to drug companies.
    One of those companies is Starstruck Inc., of Redwood City, Calif.,
which has already advertised its ''Mack truck'' launching service as
an alternative to the space shuttle's ''Porsche'' quality
transportation.
    ''Our Dolphin rocket is still in the testing stages, but it's
designed to carry research payloads more than 100 miles up, where
medicines can be produced in micro-gravity,'' Starstruck Vice
President James Bennett said in a telephone interview.
    ''We're projecting there's going to be a healthy profit for somebody
who can produce reliable service,'' he said.
    Space Services' Cheffer even forsees cooperative ventures where
private companies rocket drug labs into orbit and the space shuttle -
on scheduled flights - retrieves batches of medicine from the labs,
leaving behind ingredients for more drugs.
    ''The possibilities in space transportation are limitless, we just
don't know what's out there yet,'' said Ms. Dorn. ''The potential
markets and the kinds of problems this industry is facing now are
similar to those the railroad industry faced when it was just
beginning.''
    
ap-ny-03-11 1333EST
***************

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 84 01:02 PST
From: DForcine.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Shuttle Lift & Drag Specs
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Anderson.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, DForcine.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Reply-To: Anderson.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, DForcine.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

I'm wondering if anyone out there happens to know the lift and drag
specifications of the space shuttle.  I need the information for a lab
experiment in my fluid mechanics class.  Thanks in advance.

Debbie

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #139    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:
			Ray Bradbury lecture in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 1984 14:01:55 PST
Subject: Ray Bradbury lecture in LA
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF>
To: bboard@USC-ECL, space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC, sf-lovers@RUTGERS, bboard@USC-ISIB
cc: katz@USC-ISIF



		Space and 1984

 	  A lecture by Ray Bradbury


On Tue., March 27, at 7:00, OASIS/L5 will present Ray Bradbury.
The meeting will be held at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's
Von Karman Auditorium in Pasadena.  Admission is free and 
the general public is welcome.

Bradbury will speak to the continuing revolutions in our
American society, including space, the computer, medicine,
jets, immigration, employment, telephones, and freeways. He
is best know as the author of "The Martian Chronicles" and
has published more than 400 short stories and 17 novels.

To get to JPL:  Take the Foothill frewway (210) to the Berkshire 
off ramp , go right on Berkshire, left on Oak Grove up to JPL
(follow the signs).


Tell your friends!

			Alan


-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #140    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:
		    Japanese funding for Space Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 84 8:22:56-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxt!smeier @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Japanese funding for Space Station

I heard on the radio this morning that NASA made a presentation to the 
Japanese Government on the proposed space station.  While the Japanese
thought it was a really great idea, they did not make any commitments
towards funding the station.  NASA had hoped that Japan would commit to 
paying 10 to 15 percent of the cost of a station.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #141    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:
			      space station
		     Re: Shuttle on IMAX and for real
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 84 13:10:48-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: space station


Falacy 1.  We've done just fine exploring space without a space station.  In
	   fact, we've done fine without man at all.

Much of what we know about the Sun is derived from data collected by the
Skylab solar telescope.  Most of what we know about Lunar soil is from
samples returned by astronauts.  We've learned a great deal about the Moon
from experiments carried out in situ and instruments left on the Moon.
Space station is essential to answer many questions life scientists have
about the role gravity plays in living organisms.  There are plans for
several large telescopes that cannot be built without space station or
something like it.  Space telescope will depend on shuttle astronauts
for refurbishment, repair, and instrument changeout.  If all goes well
on the next mission, Solar Max will become useful because of man in
space.

Falacy 2.  Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space
    science.  Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on
    exploration, and they're not talking about pennies, but billions
    of dollars.  Ask an astronomer, planetologist, climatologist.

Space science funding has been a more or less constant percentage of
the total NASA budget.  In the late seventies and early eighties when
NASA's budget declined so did that of space science.  It was blamed
on the shuttle, but the facts are that space scientists were not
making their case before Congess.  Fortunately, this situation
has changed.  If you ask a life scientist or materials scientist about
the space station you might get a very different answer than from the
disciplines you mentioned.  If you really want to take money from
one department and give to space science, why don't you pick on DOD?
If we all pull together we can do great things.  If the space 
science folks insist on back biting space station it will weaken
the entire space effort.

Falacy 3.  Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push
    high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their
    commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to
    swallow.  Face it, they want a military base in space before the
    Russkies get one. 

DOD opposed space station when the chips were down.  They were never
that enthusiastic and eventually gave a presentation against the station
to the White House.  Proof of the pudding is the heavy emphasis Reagan
put on international participation.  DOD doesn't want international
participation for security reasons.  Incidentally, DOD is shying away
from shuttle because of the publicity on the flights.  I suspect Reagan
wants space station primarily for prestige and commercial activities.
A bit of trivia, the final White House vote on space station had only
one aye vote, the President's.  Turned out it was the only vote that
counted.

Falacy 4.  If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the
    companies that will benefit from a station fund it.
    We didn't pay for all the communication
    satellites that are up there making money.

NASA did lead the way in communication satellites and continues to
do research in support of advanced communication technologies.  Building
basic infrastructure, such as space station, and doing long lead time
research and development is a function that government performs well.
The tax return on the increased economic activity usually, and in the
case of the space program has, been in excess of the original government
investment.  The auto industry is a classic case.  The auto industry
would have gotten no where if the government hadn't built the roads.
In turn, the government taxes gas and recoups a sizable portion of
it's investment.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 84 7:33:37-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!mhuxm!rhib @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle on IMAX and for real
In-Reply-To: Article <670@seismo.UUCP>

As someone who has seen a shuttle launch for real as well as "Hail
Columbia" I can make the following observations:
1. A real launch is a totally unforgettable experience and well worth
the special trip; however, you are a long way away, see only launch
and SRB separation and its over in <5 mins.

2. "Hail Columbia" is one of the most enjoyable experiences of modern
times, giving you views of all phases of shuttle mission.  Sound and
photography are unbelievably superb (to put it mildly).  Well worth
the trip to DC just to see it and the NASM (best museum on Earth).

The moral of the story is...	if you love the Shuttle, do both!

	Rich Irving, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill NJ	mhuxm!rhib

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #142    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
		     Rockwell loses Shuttle Contract?
	     RE: Space Station Alert  -- Death of the Species
			    Re: space station
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #141
		     Democratic candidates and space
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #141
			      Space Station
			    Shuttle Contract?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 84 10:55:24-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihnss!knudsen @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Rockwell loses Shuttle Contract?

I heard a rumor that Rockwell had lost the space shuttle contract.
Can anyone answer these questions:
1) Any truth in the rumor?
2) What has Rockwell really lost, since the orbiters are all built?
Maintenance and turnaround?
3) What is the loss worth, ie, is it "major"?

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 84 9:19:26-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: RE: Space Station Alert  -- Death of the Species

>From alice!allegra!ulysses!burl!clyde!floyd!vax135!ukc!qtlon!dave Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
>
>Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station:
>
>1)	feed a few of the starving people in the world
>
>2)	Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-))
>
>3)	Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie Capricorn One?)
>	since no-one will be able to tell the difference.
>
>But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending
>that much money.
>Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in space?
>
>			Yours sadly,
>				Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!ukc!qtlon!dave)

OK.  Let's answer these.
	1)  Let's not do any research on how to grow more food, or how
to get more energy into a useful form (say from SPS).  Let's not
look at the earth through all sorts of space surveying equipment
so that we can find water/arable land/ etc to grow more food.
Let's let the weather wreck everything we grow.  Let's close our
eyes and commit suicide.  All are equivelent statements, as is 
Dave's #1.
	2)  :-) indeed.  Might be worth it, but it wouldn't
cost enough to take a layer of paint off of the Space Station Loo.
	3)  Fine, let's consume more resources in an attempt to
waste as much as possible.  I guess this one is :-), also.

"there are a lot more useful ways ..."

It's clear that some people don't understand that the fallout from
the US space program was in excess of 10-20 times it's cost, and
that the continued fallout is what is responsible for almost all
of today's chip development, miniturization, etc.   

I've said enough, I can't even be polite about this ostrich behavoir
any more.   Up the conservatives, there is indeed NO place like Hume.
-- 
TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--
HUG YOUR OWN TODAY !
(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 84 16:46:46-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space station
In-Reply-To: Article <152@hocse.UUCP>

Why would the pentagon regard a space station as vulnerable?  It really isn't.
There aren't weapon systems designed to attack deep space objects (even
satellite killers only operate in LEO).  Constructing such a weapon system 
could only have one purpose (to attack the space station) and would
be politically difficult.  Finally, the construction of a manned space station 
would make it difficult to attack (thick radiation and meteor shielding,
and perhaps some magnetic field generators to push large spacebourne objects
from a distance).  All these things make a space station MUCH less vulnerable
than many important earthbound targets.

Besides all this -- attacking the space station would be considered an act of
war,  something that would be foolish given the present (and probably future)
state of the world.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 84 07:58 PST (Friday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #141
In-reply-to: OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 16 Mar 84 03:03 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DBraunstein.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

	A further comment with respect to the possible military use  of
of the proposed space station.  If NASA is sucessful in forming a partner-
ship with the ESA, the station cannot be used for military purposes because
the charter of the ESA only permits the development of missions that are
civilian, thus peaceful, and if possible profitable. NASA may have been born
out of a military womb in the middle of the Cold War, and the shuttle may
have been delayed because of military requirements ( -aside from the well
known materials problems), but the space station is one chance to maintain
a peaceful course in the near earth environment, maybe with some profit
on the side!

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 16 Mar 84 11:23 EST
From:  Chris Jones <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  Democratic candidates and space
To:  Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840316162319.727799@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

With the Democratic field for the presidential nomination now down to
three, I'm interested in finding out where Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and
Walter Mondale stand on the various space related issues we discuss.
Does anyone have this information?  (In the case of Hart and Mondale,
it's likely they also have a voting record which would be interesting).

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 84 10:32:20 PST (Friday)
From: Conde.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #141
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 16 Mar 84 03:03 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Conde.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA

In regards to hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax's fallacy #1.

Although I would like to see a space station, I must admit that I, along
with some people in the astronomy department at my old school believe
that unmanned missions are as effective in getting MUCH (but ofcourse
not ALL) of the job done. And they are terribly expensive things to do
when the budget is tight.

The message mentioned that lunar soil was returned by manned missions.
Unmanned vehicles did return lunar soil. However, an astronaut is able
to identify more interesting samples. Better robot technology may help
that, however.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the space station all the way!!

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 84 8:28:54-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!tesla!elias @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Station

Regarding the use of a space station if one is built -- anyone who thinks
it won't be used by DoD, no matter how they complain about it now, is in
terminal dreamland.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 84 16:47:34-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihnss!knudsen @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Contract?

I heard a rumor that Rockwell had lost the space shuttle contract.
Can anyone answer these questions:
1) Any truth in the rumor?
2) What has Rockwell really lost, since the orbiters are all built?
Maintenance and turnaround?
3) What is the loss worth, ie, is it "major"?
4) Who is the lucky outfit that picked up the pieces
(the rest of the contract)?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #143    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
				 answers
			    Re: space station
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
YACC (Yet Another Cogent Comment) on Space Stations/Human Space Exploration
	   Re: RE: Space Station Alert  -- Death of the Species
		   Sending "communicators" into space.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1984 15:05:54-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: answers

Rockwell lost the 3 year, $193M shuttle refurbishing contract to EG&G.

Mondale is a disaster for anyone is pro-space. He was one oof the leaders of
the fight to stop the space shuttle, and was quoted in Parade Magazine,
March 26,1972:

	"...the space shuttle is pie in the sky -- another example of
colossal waste and distorted priorities."

His voting record over the years has been in line with the above statements.

I really don't know Hart's record, but I'll be checking. I have a sneaking
suspicion though, that the only real difference between he and Mondale is
the fact that

	A) Mondale was the front runner and thus has the party/labor
	   behind.

	B) Gary Hart's campaign team has stamped NEW!! IMPROVED!!!
	   across his forehead.

If anyone has detailed information on Hart, I would also much appreciate it.

Off the subject...Any fellow L5 members on the net? Let's get connected!
Send me mail.
				Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 17 March 1984 18:05-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: space station
To: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 13 Mar 84 16:46:46-PST (Tue)
    From:ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg@Ucb-Vax
    Why would the pentagon regard a space station as vulnerable?  It
    really isn't. There aren't weapon systems designed to attack deep
    space objects (even satellite killers only operate in LEO).
The initial space statin WOULD be in LEO, so I don't understand the
relevance between your statement about deep space objects and the
point you're making. Remember, we're not talking about L-5 colonies
here, or even geosynchronous orbit. We're talking about a station that
is built by people on STS flights and regularily serviced by STS.
Remember STS is restricted to LEO, a few hundred miles from the
surface of the Earth.

The other points you raise about the space station being physically
more robust, are valid.  Many methods of knocking out ICBMs depend on
the very thin skin of the ICBM, so thin if you drop a wrench from a
hundred feet above it and it hits the ICBM just right the ICBM
promptly gets a fuel leak followed by explosion. A high speed
projectile (bullet, meteor, fragment of anything at orbigal speeds) or
small explosive would surely kill an ICBM (if the ICBM didn't explode
directly, it'd burn up on reenty due to the pucture in its skin). By
comparison, a solid metal space-station shell might puncture from such
a projectile but not undergo an explosion, and since it doesn't plan
to reenter the atmosphere the puncture would not be fatal.

As for heavy radiation shielding, I think that applies only to later
space stations/colonies such as L-5 et al based on massive amounts of
lunar materials available at low cost. The first space station would
be much more robust than an ICBM, but still somewhat vulnerable if
somebody really wanted to commit an act of war. (At last that's my
personal assessment.)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 84 23:47:15-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!richard @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
In-Reply-To: Article <2570@rabbit.UUCP>, <361@ut-ngp.UUCP> <214@qtlon.UUCP>

>>  Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station:
>>  
>>  1)	feed a few of the starving people in the world
>>  
>>  2)	Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-))
>>  
>>  3)	Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie Capricorn One?)
>>  	since no-one will be able to tell the difference.
>>  
>>  But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending
>>  that much money.  Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before
>>  making new ones in space?

You're missing several points Dave.  The problem with your suggestions
one and two is that it's only a temporary fix.  In another generation,
you'll have an even larger host of hungry to feed, with less earthly
resources to do so.

And any intelligent person knows that there would be no noticable
differance in the behavior of most politicians after a lobotomy,
or even total brain death, for that matter.  :-)

No real reply is necessary for point three.  The important thing is:
The money spent in space is an *investment* that may someday solve
alot of the worlds problems.  Aren't you aware that research in
"closed-loop" systems might provide the knowledge needed to feed
those billions you worry so much about?

And perhaps the psychological research necessary to allow humans to
live in such circumstances might someday obviate the world's need
for politicians in the first place (not to mention psychiatrists
and lawyers - what more could you ask?)

Considering the amount wasted each year (trillion dollar defense
budgets?)  eight billion over a decade is a tiny amount, considering
what it will someday buy.

Some other ideas:
	Materials research that can only be done in space might
	discover a new photovoltaic technique that stops the world's
	dependency on oil reserves - something that will assuredly
	lead to war if left alone.

	Drug research taking advantage of micro-gravity might cure
	cancer, provide better birth-control drugs, or even teach
	us how to enable crops to fix nitrogen from the air, as 
	opposed to fertilizers.

	International competition in space between the superpowers
	might reduce the competition on the ground.

	Orbital analysis of the earth might help us understand
	the ecology of spaceship earth - combine that with the
	"closed system" research, and you might get some interesting
	new data on what we're doing to our nest.

Sit back and think a few minutes, or listen (with an *open* mind)
to some of the pro-space people, and you'll hear so many ideas
it'll make your head spin.

Feeding the poor without attempting to solve the *problem* of
hunger is treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease.
The patient will eventually die.

___________________________________________________________________________
The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the
employers or associates of the author.    It is solely the belief...

			from the confused and bleeding fingertips of
				...!sequent!richard

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 11:41:48-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: YACC (Yet Another Cogent Comment) on Space Stations/Human Space Exploration

I am tired of hearing arguments like "why not spend money to do some good here
on earth instead of throwing it away in space."  Reaching out, stretching
beyond our capabilities, spending effort on activities that are beyond what is
required just for existence is a large part of what makes us human.

How many of us wish that the great cathedrals of the middle ages had never been
built?  Yet the equivalent of millions of dollars were spent on them in the
midst of enormous poverty. 

What finally broke the cycle of the Dark Ages?  Not stopping work on frivilous
pursuits!  It was the Renaissance...the epitome of impracticality.  All that
work put into non-food things like music, paintings, and buildings!

Now don't get me wrong...I am certainly not advocating ignoring the unfortunate.
Another large part of being human is having compassion.  What I am saying is
that it is not an choice of one or the other; they should be companions.  If we
refuse to reach out to accept the challenge of space, we are denying our
humanity just as thoroughly as if we abandon a neighbor or a fellow world
citizen in need.

<climb down off soapbox>

Burns


	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 14:05:59-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!fair @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: RE: Space Station Alert  -- Death of the Species
In-Reply-To: Article <2602@rabbit.UUCP>

I was preparing a blast for Mr. Lukes, but I see that rabbit!jj beat me
to it. I agree substiantially with what jj said... (Hello David. Moved
from Root Computers, I see.)

	Erik E. Fair

	dual!fair@BERKELEY.ARPA
	{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!fair
	Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 6:18:11-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!zben @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Sending "communicators" into space.

This line starts in column one as a problem work-around...

   Current thinking is to send "communicators" -- artists, poets, writers,
   reporters, photographers, etc.  

Shades of the almost legendary short story "A Rose for Ecclesiastes"...!

Ben Cranston

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Mar-84  0305	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #144    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:
			      mars missions
			    Re: space station
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
		      Re: Shuttle Lift & Drag Specs
		       Shuttle on IMAX and for real
			 Re: IMAX/OMNIMAX camera
		       Re: shuttle films to be made
	     Re: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT -> Why space - (nf)
		      STS Launch Schedule Confusion
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
		     Prior Medicine from Space quote
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
			    Re: Space Station
     Computer generated OMNIMAX film being produced for SIGGRAPH'84!!
		      Re: Space Station (continued)
			    Re: Space Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 84 8:19:13-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!watmath!utzoo!dciem!psddevl!milan @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: mars missions

Seeing how it's been proposed to have a manned mission to Mars in the
future, has it also been proposed to build a larger space craft for that
mission? After all, cramped quarters like on the old moon missions tend
to get quite inconvenient. Also consider the time required to get to Mars,
as well as the maximum speed attained in such an expedition.

milan (..!utzoo!psddevl!milan)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 11:44:16-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space station
In-Reply-To: Article <152@hocse.UUCP>, <3392@lanl-a.UUCP>

*

In reference to the objection that space stations aren't >really< vulnerable:
Hoo, boy, are you wrong! You say that satellite killers work only in LEO;
not true, for them to work in higher orbits they need only be put on a 
larger booster. Besides which, the planned station is going to be in LEO
anyhow, making your argument pointless. You say that the thick radiation 
shielding and electromagnetic meteor-replellors would make a station well-
nigh invulnerable; those ideas are pure science-fiction, and don't
represent the state of the art of space station manufacture at all
well. A station would be built in a manner similar to the way Skylab
was, with the thinnest possible structurally sound walls, to save weight,
and with all kinds of necessary equipment (such as solar arrays and
heat radiators) hanging off the sides. This would be very vulnerable
to almost any sort of attack; thrown projrctiles, fragmentation bombs,
laser or beam weapons, etc. Thick shielding will come with later
stations, perhaps those hollowed out of asteroids. At present, however, we
don't have any asteroids to work with.
Lastly, you say that destroying a space station would be an act of war,
and so wouldn't occur in these unstable times, for fear of setting
off The Big One. Friend, the only reason the military would want to be
on a space station, is so that they could use it during The Big One!
If the Enemy were planning a war, and the US military had a satellite
base, the Enemy wouldn't quail at shooting the station down, any more
than they'd quail at shooting up a battleship or an air force base.
How then would the fact of shooting up the station being an act of war,
deter the Enemy from attacking the station during a war? Sheesh!

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 11:15:58-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
In-Reply-To: Article <2578@rabbit.UUCP>, <419@sequent.UUCP>

*

   As a matter of fact, sample-return missions have been flown. The
Russians sent at least one to the moon, I think as part of their
Luna program (yup, I just checked my Jane's; Luna 16 and 20 were successful
sample collection missions). The thing included a sample-collecting
drill, to obtain surface cores, I think to 14 inches deep.

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 11:58:22-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Lift & Drag Specs
In-Reply-To: Article <17496@sri-arpa.UUCP>

*
If anyone out there >does< have acces to the shuttle's lift and drag specs,
I'd appreciate if they'd also post them to me; somebody I know is working
on a shuttle launch simulation program, and at the moment has to
make fairly simple assumptions about aerodynamic characteristics.
Most useful would be a citation for some source in the literature
giving detailed listings of these specs as a function of Mach number,
Reynold's number, angle of attack and sideslip, and variations with
changes in flight-control configurations. (Hey, if they're detailed
enough, maybe I can work them into MY filght simulator!)
Thanks!
-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 8:32:29-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!inc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle on IMAX and for real
In-Reply-To: Article <670@seismo.UUCP> <1215@mhuxm.UUCP>

"Hail Columbia" is also able to be seen:

    -Pacific Science Center, Seattle

    -Science Museum, St. Paul

Does anyone have a full list of places this marvelous film can be viewed? I
have seen it twice, and much preferred the St. Paul showing. Rather than use
the dome of the observatory, they have constructed a special theatre for
IMAX films. The shape is rather more that of a curved rhomboid, and
optimizes the aspect ratio. The one in Washington is of this design.

Gary Benson
John Fluke Mfg.
Everett, WA USA

!fluke!inc
24V,ACXCII

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 84 17:16:12-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: IMAX/OMNIMAX camera
In-Reply-To: Article <670@seismo.UUCP>

I'll believe that the film will be an hour long when I see it!
Current IMAX films are limited to 35 min or so because that much film
fills the film supply reels, which are about 4 feet in diameter and weigh
hundreds of pounds when filled.  To show a 1-hour film they would either have
to modify the supply and takeup reel transport, or have an intermission
while reels were changed.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 84 17:12:13-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: shuttle films to be made
In-Reply-To: Article <871@cvl.UUCP>

"Hail Columbia" is an IMAX/Omnimax film.  I know the IMAX people have
been trying to get one of their cameras on a shuttle flight, perhaps
this is what the news report was about.

Technical details:  IMAX uses 70mm film travelling sideways, 15 perforations
per frame.  There is over twice the film area per frame than "ordinary"
70mm film.  It's designed to be projected on very large screens that fill
most of your field of view.  Omnimax uses the same technology, but the
screen is a hemisphere (usually a planetarium dome or similar) and is shot
with a fisheye lens on the camera.

I wouldn't have high hopes of long sequences of film from the shuttle.
1000 feet is the longest length of film that the camera will take, and
that lasts only 3 minutes.  But whatever they get, it will be spectacular.

	Dave Martindale

P.S. IMAX was developed in Ontario (Canada)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 20:43:41-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!ima!haddock!stevel @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT -> Why space - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1743200:haddock:16000009:000:920
haddock!stevel    Mar 15 11:40:00 1984

What bogus unthought out numbers.

	From:  Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>

        I'd gladly pay my share of the station IN ADDITION to
        what's already being spent for space stuff ($150 million
        / 500,000,000 people = $.30 per capita), in fact I'd
        gldly pay three times that each year for the next five
        years if it would get the station built sooner.

Try $1,500,000,000 dollars per year amoung (thinking non zero
growth) 250,000,000 people.  That makes $6.00 per year. Twice an
order of magnitude in error. This kind of wrong numbers and lack
of being able to look at the next year is what goverment/military
planning is all about.

Did you hear the report that of major military wepons procurment
over the past 20 years only 25% were within budget. And some of
that 25% had to cut back on quantities to do it.

Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ucbvax|ihnp4}!cbosgd!ima!stevel

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 84 10:35:02-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!wd9get @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS Launch Schedule Confusion

<This line intentionally left blank>

Ok...I'm confused.  An article posted to this newsgroup some time ago stated
the maiden flight of the Discovery scheduled for 4 June 1984 had been canceled
due to the DOD pulling their payload.  A more recent article said the flight
has been delayed due to the removal of Discovery's APUs for use on one
of the other orbiters. An article in the March Sky & Telescope shows
the Discovery still scheduled for 4 June and no DOD payload.
   Could someone in the know please set me straight on the latest
launch/payload schedule?

						Keith Brandt
						pur-ee!wd9get

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 84 16:24:01-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!jsq @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
In-Reply-To: Article <2570@rabbit.UUCP>, <361@ut-ngp.UUCP> <214@qtlon.UUCP>

This is unfortunate enough to deserve yet another response:

	From: dave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes)
	Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station:
	
	1)	feed a few of the starving people in the world

The money would not go to feed starving people, it would go for arms.
Even if it would go to feeding people, remember that NASA's budget
has never amounted to a sizeable fraction of the existing social programs.
You don't eat your seed corn, not if you want there to be food later.

The space station is a large step towards the eventual industrialization
and settlement of space, possibly involving the use of solar power satellites
to supplant terrestial sources of power such as fossil fuels, the moving
of much ground-based and polluting industry into space, and access to
very large amounts of resources that are in short supply down here.
Not to mention the immediate development of production of pharmaceuticals
and other products that cannot be produced in quantity (or at all) here.

Any of these things will benefit the starving people of the world.
	
	2)	Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-))

The main reason Margaret Mead, for instance, was interested in the
settlement of space is that it would give a real chance for the study
of many medium to large scale societies in various stages of isolation
from each other:  something no longer possible on this planet.
This would, one would think, have a beneficial effect on the various
social sciences, and might perhaps lead to better political systems.

Considering the way politicians are leading us, societies off this
planet may well be the only ones to survive.
	
	3)	Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie
	Capricorn One?) since no-one will be able to tell the difference.

As Hans.Moravec%cmu-ri-rover@sri-unix.UUCP pointed out:

	    One of the most potentially lucrative markets in space is the
	manufacture of drugs that are expensive to make on Earth, but easy and
	cheap to manufacture in zero gravity. Industry projections show that
	space-made pharmaceutical products could generate annual sales of $20
	billion by the 1990s.
	    Two of the first drugs that will be produced in zero gravity in mass
	quantities are beta cells, expected to be a single-injection cure for
	diabetes; and interferon, used for treating viral infections, cancer
	and sexually transmitted Type II herpes.

While he was referring to private space vehicles, the space station would
be an excellent platform for developing just such pharmeceuticals.  One
would think a number of diabetics and cancer and herpes victims would
notice the difference.

again	From: dave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes)
	But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending
	that much money.
	Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones
	in space?

How about finding about what the space station is for before claiming it
will cause more problems than it will help solve?  You give no real arguments
against a space station; you just assert it's bad.  Why?

				Yours sadly,
					Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!ukc!qtlon!dave)

It's somewhat droll that, being in the U.K., you don't even have to pay for it.
-- 
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, 18 March 1984 20:41:14 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, jsq@ut-sally.arpa
Subject: Prior Medicine from Space quote
Message-ID: <1984.3.19.1.28.15.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>

All this forwading does make it hard to keep track of who said what ...

The references to space production of beta cells and interferon
attributed to me by John Quarterman appeared in an AP newswire
article written by Gene Grabowski forwarded by me to the space
net.   Not that I disagree ...          Hans Moravec

	

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 84 11:21:18-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
In-Reply-To: Article <2578@rabbit.UUCP>

*

We're not going into space simply to do science; the main reason for the
space station (perhaps not in the eyes of the administration) is
to start opening up space for development and (cover your ears!)
exploitation. While all the planetary science is very worthwhile,
advancing our theories of solar system formation and all that,
they are the areas of space exploration that return The Least
to the paying public. Perhaps the scientists who sponsor such missions
should actually be the ones to pay for them? Although on their salaries,
it's take an awfully long time to scrape up half a billion dollars...
(heavy sarcasm)
On the other hand, the space station wil provide a place to start learning
how to do manufacturing in space, including learning how well
people can work there. This will be necessary before such things as
lunar mining bases, and solar power satellites can be made to work.
Of course, if you feel that mankind is destined to stay on the surface of
the earth forever, then perhaps you're right in feeling that
a space station is a waste of money.
-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 84 8:41:07-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station
In-Reply-To: Article <2578@rabbit.UUCP>, <386@ihlts.UUCP>

*

   The recent controversy over the early funding of a space station
is rather disturbing, and reflects a basic split in the space-science
community.  Ever since the end of the Apollo program, funding for
space exploration has been decreasing in real terms (although this
trend may recently have been halted).  As the money source dried up,
two groups of extremists formed from the above-mentioned community,
and started what some of them seem to regard as a fight to the death
(the death of the other fellow's program).
   The two belligerents share a very similar belief: that given a 
choice of manned vs. unmanned space exploration, only one is necessary,
and the other is a complete waste of time.  Back in the glory days, they 
were able to tolerate the other group's wastage; now, however, they
are in direct competition with the wasters for budget money. Every penny
the wasters get is a penny drained away from absolutely vital scientific
endeavours. This cannot be tolerated! The wasters must be hunted down, and 
eliminated to the last man! There's no time to lose! etc.
   Of course, one group beleives in unmanned exploration, the other in
manned. The battle lines have been drawn, both sides have convincing
arguments on their side, and the emotion of the arguments are drawing
many unwary passers-by into the fray. The booty will be next year's NASA
budget, and the more people on your side, the more likely it is that you'll
be able to convince the administration of your point of view (that's
dmcrcy for you).

   Have the people involved never heard of the (Roman?) precept, 
"Divide and Conquer"? This sort of infighting could easily diminish
the space program as a whole. Personally, I think that both aspects
of space exploration are quite necessary, and that each contributes to the
advance of the other. The distinction between the two is an artificial
one; after all, the two disciplines share vast amounts of technology,
they're studying the same phenomena in many cases, and are designed
by the same groups of people. Myself, I'd rather switch than fight...

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 84 13:08:43-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!mwherman @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Computer generated OMNIMAX film being produced for SIGGRAPH'84!!

A special attration at this year's Eleventh Annual Conference on Computer
Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH'84, will be a 10 minute
OMNIMAX film of computer generated animation.   The film is being produced
by SIGGRAPH'84 as a special feature of the year's conference.  The film
will be shown at the Museum of Science and Technology in St. Paul.
 
SIGGRAPH'84 is being held from July 23-27 at the Minneapolis Convention
Center, Minneapolis, MN.
 
Michael Herman  (SIGGRAPH'84 Merchandise Chair)
Computer Graphics Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada  N2L 3G1
{allegra,ihnp4,teklabs,watmath}!watcgl!mwherman 

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 84 9:11:12-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station (continued)
In-Reply-To: Article <2582@rabbit.UUCP>

*

responding to Jan Wolitzky:re:government funding
   Ahem. You seem to be stating that communications satellites were 
developed entirely as a private venture, and thus are a true example of
private enterprise moving into space. Is this strictly true?
For one thing, comsats wouldn't be possible at all, without rocket boosters,
which were developed for the longest time under the aegis of the government.
For another thing (this is where I'm not absolutely sure) didn't NASA,
and the Navy and Air Force for that matter, launch most of the early
"proof of concept" comsats, and do much of the early research? I beleive
this to be so, and also beleive that industry didn't put up a cent of
"risk" capital, until after the government had spent enough money to bring
the risk down to a level that they could accept (ie. a Very Low Level).
Correct me if I'm wrong.
   This seems to be a classical example of how government can help
the country by helping industry. They perform the early, expensive
research, that individual companies can't afford. They have a sufficient number
of programs going that, even if most of them don't pan out, the ones that do
will pay for those that don't. Then, when profitable technologies (such as
comsats) have been identified, they're turned over to the private sector,
practically as a gift.
   This doesn't seem to be a valid argument against a space station. Many
risky technologies will be able to be tested there, and the presence
of men on board will allow for the possibility of repairs to balky
equipment, allowing equipment design to be much simpler, and hence
orders of magnitude less expensive (presumably). Since your central argument
seems to be "if it needs doing, let private industry do it; they've done it
before", and since as far as I know, they >haven't< "done it before",
doesn't this demolish your argument?

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 84 8:55:08-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station
In-Reply-To: Article <2578@rabbit.UUCP> <386@ihlts.UUCP>, <2350@allegra.UUCP>

*

re: Cringing over wasted shuttle payload space

   Hmm. I agree, it'd be a shame for the shuttle to go up with less than a 
full load, considering how much money it costs to launch the thing.
However, it's possible for the thing to look half-empty, and yet be loaded
to capacity. The shuttle has both mass and volume constraints
on its payload; perhaps on the mission you refer to, they were carrying
something relatively small and dense, leaving empty room in the cargo bay,
even though the mass allowance had been exhausted. In that case, they
could have carried up extra payload, providing that it had the density
of styrofoam...
...or, perhaps not. Many scientific payloads contain perishable components,
and so can't be launched at a moment's notice (or even 6 months' notice).
If there are no small payloads available a year or so in advance,
when the manifests are being finalized, the shuttle may end up taking off
even though it has space (and mass allowance) to spare. Perhaps it'll be
on missions like that, that non-NASA personnel will fly as supercargo,
as "Payloads of opportunity".

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #145    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
			Re: space station killing
		    Re: STS Launch Schedule Confusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 84 21:39:22-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!brucec @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space station killing
In-Reply-To: Article <152@hocse.UUCP>, <3392@lanl-a.UUCP> <3646@utzoo.UUCP>

-------------
Thank you, Kieran Carroll, for setting the record straight about how easy it
is to kill a space station.  I was going to make the same points, and you
have saved my fingers some work.  One point I would like to add is that the
simplest satellite killer of all, good against space stations too, is a few
kilos of BBs, put into a nearly identical orbit to the target,
but with the opposite rotational sense.  Total impact velocity nearly twice
orbital velocity (>15 KPS total for LEO) means a lot of kinetic energy.  So
it costs a little more deltaV to get it into orbit because you have the
Earth's rotation bucking instead of aiding you.  You can still carry a lot
of BBs on something the size of a Thor-Delta.

				Bruce Cohen
				UUCP:	...!tektronix!orca!brucec
				CSNET:	orca!brucec@tektronix
				ARPA:	orca!brucec.tektronix@rand-relay

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 84 13:21:31-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: STS Launch Schedule Confusion
In-Reply-To: Article <1698@pur-ee.UUCP>

Don't expect Sky and Telescope to be up-to-date.  Magazines of this form
generally are received at least three months after composition is
completed.
-- 
			Barry Margolin
			ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
			UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #146    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:
			 Rockwell's lost contract
			Re: space station killing
			    LEO vulnerability
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
		   Re: Democratic candidates and space
			  Re: Shuttle Contract?
			    Re: Space Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 20 March 1984 09:34:24 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Rockwell's lost contract
Message-ID: <1984.3.20.14.31.18.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

Rockwell lost the contract to EG&G?  What I read was that Lockheed beat them
for the contract to handle inter-flight turnarounds.

	David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 11:02:38-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!norskog @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space station killing

About putting BB's into space:

The true Bedouin never poisons his neighbor's well,
no matter how he feels about the creep.  

Lance C. Norskog
Fortune Systems, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA
{cbosgd,hpda,harpo,sri-unix,amd70,decvax!ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!norskog

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 1984 21:01:33-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: LEO vulnerability

The vulnerabilty of objects in space is pointed out in a book titled
"Confrontation in Space". The author points out that a simple sounding
rocket, on a ballistic trajectory with a load of 10p nails launched such
that it explodes well above the target path, can set up a 'wall' of shrapnel
that will tear apart all but the most solidly protected vehicles. In this
case the kinetic energy of the target vehicle supplies the destructive
force. The unfortunate aspect of this method is that a terrorist group
could apply it. Accuracy requirements are not particularly great, and the
throw weight is within range of commercially available sounding rockets.
Shrapnel type weapons are in general the most effective available at this
time. With no atmosphere to carry a shockwave, even nuclear explosives
require very near misses to be effective (of course other effects, such as
glow in the dark astronauts and EMP must be considered, but it MAY be
possible to shield against such effects. The latter part of this discussion
assumes a heavily defended (ie some form of anti-missile system) target.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 18:23:43-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
In-Reply-To: Article <214@qtlon.UUCP>

In response the the following (edited):

Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station:

1)	feed a few of the starving people in the world

Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in space?

The federal government of the U.S. spends approximately $300-400 billion a
year on human services of one sort or another.
NASA's budget is approximately $7.7 billion, of which $150 million is
earmarked for space station in fiscal 85.  I.e., the government spends
50 times as much on trying to solve Earth problems as on NASA as a whole,
and about three orders of magnitude more than on the space station.
I believe that this is a fairly reasonable ratio, especially considering
that NASA's programs have had a large positive effect on the lives of
millions of people (communication satellites, pacemakers, computer
chips, solar cells, etc.).  Communication and weather satellites
are particularly effective in aiding the peasants of the world with
weather forcasts and communication where no lines have been layed.
That's one reason why India and Indonesia have recently put up such satellites.

You might be interested to know that
NASA's goal is to have a budget equal to 1% of total federal outlay.
The present sum is less.
This is not an excessive sum to spend on the future.

Lastly, reputable economic analysis suggests that each dollar spent
on the space program generates $7 - 14 of economic activity.  Since
the feds take about 25% of every dollar in taxes, each dollar spent
on NASA generates $1.75 - 3.50 in tax revenue over the next few years.
Think about it.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 9:38:22-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxt!smeier @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Democratic candidates and space
In-Reply-To: Article <17613@sri-arpa.UUCP>

During one of the candidate debates someone from the audience asked the
traditional question, "Why are we spending billions of dollars to put a
few people in space when millions of Americans are starving, etc, etc?"
Jesse Jackson immediately stood up and said, "I agree with you
completely.  We should be spending all that money on social programs,
etc, etc, etc."

John Glenn, of course, disagreed, and gave some arguments supporting a
strong space program, and support for science and technology in general.
Unfortunately, he is no longer in the race.

Mondale was a member of the Carter Administration, which did its best to
cut the space budget to bare bones.

Does anyone know about Hart?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 18:34:54-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Contract?
In-Reply-To: Article <1959@ihnss.UUCP>

Rockwell lost the shuttle OPERATIONAL contract, i.e., launch, recovery,
and processing.  Lockheed won.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 18:44:49-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station
In-Reply-To: Article <3626@utzoo.UUCP>

This is actually on empty shuttle space.  There are three unmentioned
reasons for 'wasted' space in the bay.

	o The shuttle has severe center of gravity restraints.  The
	  heavy stuff has to go in the back and if it's not heavy
	  enough you can't put anything in the front.

	o The shuttle is not yet capable of it's full nominal weight
	  carrying capacity - 65,000 lb.  It won't be for a few years
	  yet.

	o The IUS, built to fail by the Air Force, has caused cancellation
	  of two shuttle flights and caused another to go up almost
	  empty.  The damage is continuing by the way.  The most recent
	  IUS's delived to NASA failed their ground tests.  If you want
	  a turkey, give the project to the military.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #147    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Democratic candidates and space
		   Re: Democratic candidates and space
			      space station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 21:51:32-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!richard @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Democratic candidates and space
In-Reply-To: Article <17613@sri-arpa.UUCP>

I read in L-5 news, I believe, that Mondale has been one of the staunchest
*anit-space* democratic senators.  Although I think Reagen's interested in
space for the same reason a small child likes firetrucks, this is one area
where ol' ray-gun is ahead.  I'm still looking for references to Hart -
I hope the next L-5 news carries something.

I assume everyone here knows about L-5?

___________________________________________________________________________
The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the
employers or associates of the author.    It is solely the belief...

			from the confused and bleeding fingertips of
				...!sequent!richard

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 10:25:51-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!blb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Democratic candidates and space
In-Reply-To: Article <17613@sri-arpa.UUCP>

I don't have reference to any voting records with me, but I understand
that Mondale is very hostile and led several attempts to kill the shuttle.
I don't know anything about Hart or Jackson, and would certainly like to
given Mondale's apparent attitude.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 84 12:21:37-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocse!dls @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: space station

To Jan Wolitzky:
I did miss the two earlier arguments, and tend to agree
that the proponents arguments are a tad on the weak side.
Lets see if I can do better:

 >
 >1.  We've done just fine exploring space without a space station.  In
 >    fact, we've done just fine without people in space at all.  Examples:
 >    the Pioneer, Viking, Explorer, Ranger, etc., series.  We've
 >    returned lunar soil samples with robot probes, photographed the
 >    moons of Saturn, all for a LOT less than it would have cost for
 >    manned missions, and all without a space station.

It is certainly true that we can *explore* space using dinky
robot probes. It is also true that in the short run, it will
cost less. However, the large scale exploitation of space resources
probably cannot occur without a substantial human presence in
space. The man vs machine debate has been going on for a long
time, and the best answer usually turns out to be "a combination
of both is optimal for any given goal."

The best example I can give of the value of having humans in space
is the recent Spacelab that had trouble with an expensive,
complex camera. On an all automatic probe, that might have been
the end of things. As it was, an astronaut crawled into
his sleeping bag, zipped it shut, and fixed the camera BY TOUCH!

I suggest that having human beings in an orbital lab with industry
standard equipment may well be more more effective and less
expensive than large amounts of all automatic, special-built, inflexible
machinery.

 >2.  Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space
 >    science.  Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on
 >    exploration, and they're not talking about pennies, but billions
 >    of dollars.  Ask an astronomer, planetologist, climatologist,
 >    etc., what she'd rather have the money spent on.  Scientists are
 >    not the ones behind a station.

This is a standard argument, and is fundamentally wrong. Scientists
would LIKE TO BELIEVE that money taken from manned space fight
would go toward unmanned probes. It is much more likely that
the money would go toward "social services" or "defense" 
depending on which side is stronger. It has seemed that
in the past the science budget grew with the overall space budget
and shrank with the overall space budget. I suggest that scientists
are no less self-serving than any other group. To advance
their careers as planetologists, they'd love to see Titan
probes. This DOES NOT MEAN that Titan probes should be our
first priority.

If I had to choose between a Titan probe and the investigation 
of the resources of LEO, GEO, the Moon, or the near-Earth
crossing asteroids, I think the Titan probe would come in
last. A compromise can be worked out, and the lastest NASA
plan for unmanned planetary exploration recognizes for the first
time the role of probes in investigating the resources of 
the moon and asteroids.

 >3.  Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push
 >    high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their
 >    commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to
 >    swallow.  Face it, they want a military base in space before the
 >    Russkies get one.  They also want it in NASA's budget so the War
 >    Department's budget doesn't look quite so bad, and so us geeks can
 >    feel like we're supporting science instead of a military machine.

This argument ignores the actual situation. The Pentagon has
consistently opposed a space station on the grounds that it is
vulnerable. Reagan has asked that the station be non-military
and international. I agree Reagan is not the most pro-science
guy in the world, but I'm not going to let that fact affect
my position on a space station, a particle accelerator,
a genetics lab, or any other project the Reagan administration
is involved in.

 >4.  If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the
 >    companies that will benefit from a station fund it. ...
 >    We didn't pay for all the communication
 >    satellites that are up there making money, why should we suddenly 
 >    be getting into the space business business now?  

1)However great the possible commercial benefits of space,
if companies a)have no protection from foreign attack or
interference  and b)have no clear ground rules concerning taxes
and liability they are not likely to take any risks.
Reagan is not just pushing a space station, he is pusing a uniform
policy which supports the commericalization of space.

This county has a history of building canals, railroads,
highways, etc. in the belief that their long term economic
benefit would more than repay any current cost to the
public treasury. This has paid off handsomely in the past,
and the shuttle/space station are the modern day equivalent
of a railroad and a refueling station.

2)We(NASA, the government, you and I) DID pay for all
the early communications satellites! It may be true that
we didn't pay for the ones up there now, but we don't
get the money or take the risk either. Materials processing
in space(including pharmaceuticals far more important than the
perfectly round spheres) is at the same stage communications
satellites were in 1963.

3)This country is competing in space with heavily
subsidized, national combines in both Europe and Japan.
The government should lead the way in this competition, or
we run the risk of ending up importing everything.


You could write a book on all the reasons why a space station
is important(nay, critical)to mankind's future in space.
There are MANY important arguments I have not the time
or the room to mention.

Someone did write a book, and the book is "Project Space Station"
by Dr. Brian O'Leary. It is available from Stackpole books,
Cameron and Kelker Streets, P.O.Box 1831, Harrisburg
PA 17105 for $12.95. Dr. O'Leary OPPOSED THE SHUTTLE for 
a lot of your arguments, but has since CHANGED HIS MIND.
I highly recommend the book, especially to people with no
clear idea why a space station is so important.


Dale L Skran, At&T ISL, Holmdel.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #148    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
			      Space Defense.
		    Justifications for space spending
			   Cypress Corporation
			  Beggs on Space Station
			  Star Wars on the Wires
			 Re: SPACE STATION ALERT
			  Russian space program
			    Challenger to Pad
		   Re: Democratic candidates and space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 84 08:38 PST (Thursday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@PARC-GW.ARPA
Subject: Space Defense.

While it is fine to haggle over whether or not it is wise to build a space
station now, or which candidate supports it, we must not forget the threat
of the development of space weapons by the major powers. Many of you out
there quibble about the $8 billion dollar cost of the station, well how
about $26 billion for a space defense system.  In the March 19, 1984 issue
of of Aviation Week and Space Tech., there is an article on page 23, about
the Senate Armed Services Committee discussion of the Star Wars proposal.

The panel questions the preliminary nature of the proposal at such a high
cost, and whether it is really viable. But for all you people out there
who kvetch about the high cost of a space station, with little possible
return, let's here your opinion about $26 billion for an orbital pile of
junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1984 9:20-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: "hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al"@ucb-vax
Subject: Justifications for space spending

   Lastly, reputable economic analysis suggests that each dollar spent
   on the space program generates $7 - 14 of economic activity.  Since
   the feds take about 25% of every dollar in taxes, each dollar spent
   on NASA generates $1.75 - 3.50 in tax revenue over the next few years.
   Think about it.

Spending money ANYWHERE in the economy generates c times that much
activity (for some constant c) by the "multiplier effect".  Even
redistributing money to random people on the street will generate
multiplied economic activity.  The only difference is that spending on
space soaks up lots of scarce capital and technical talent.

In terms of real wealth, if we ignore putative long term payoffs from
space research it would be better to put all NASA employees and
subcontractors on permanent fully paid vacation.  The cost of their
wages to the government would be the same, the economic activity
generated by their spending would be the same, and the capital and raw
materials they had been using could be put to other uses.

Try reading Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson", chapter 4.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1984 14:30:08-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Cypress Corporation


PITTSBURGH, March 19 -- The Cyprus Corporation announced tooday that the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has accepted a
proposal, presented by the company's subsidiary Astrotech International
Corporatioo, to open discusssions relative to the purchase of the fifth
Shuttle Orbiter.

If an agreement is reached, this venture would constitute the first industry
financing of a Space Shuttle.

The current NASA estimate for the purchase oof a Shuttle is approximately $2
billion. In recognitioon of the U.S. government's continuing strong interest
in the need for a fifth Shuttle Orbiter, Astrotech was prompted to pursue
this visionary project, according to Cyprus Chairman Willard F. Rockwell,
Jr.

"The Space Shuttle program was coonceived to prove that extra-terrestrial
commercial ventures are viable," said Rockwell. "As exciting as this idea is
to us, " he added, "it really is a logical progression from that original
concept -- to see private industry routinely develop the potential of space
technology."

In 1981, Rockwell became chairman of the Cyprus Corporation which is in the
process of being converted from an investment company to an operating
company, with the stated goal of serving the aerospace and other high
technology markets.

Astrotech International Corporation of College Park, MD, was acquried by
Cyprus in August 1983. The firm recently completed construction of a facilty
near the Kennedy Space Center that will be the nation's first privately
owned operation to process and test satellites prior to launch. The facility
is scheduled to open on April 5.

Other high technology acquisitioos made last year by Cyprus are Special
Metals Corporation, the world's leading producer of superalloys for such
applicatioos as jet engines and Quasitronics, Inc. a munufacturer of
computer peripheral hardware.

Cyprus will ask it's shareholders t change the name of the firm to Astrotech
International Corporation at the company's annual meeting on April 6.
Shareholder apporval of the new corporate name would result in renaming the
satellite servicing subsidiary Astrotech Space Operations, Inc.

Cyprus is traded on the American Stock exchange.  (END)


Personal communications with people at Cyprus show them to be ecstatic about
the progress they are making.

					D. Amon, Pgh-L5

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 23 March 1984 00:06:15 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Beggs on Space Station
Message-ID: <1984.3.23.5.3.54.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>

a005  2154  21 Mar 84
PM-Space Future,400
Moon Colony Possible by 2010, Space Chief Says
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Using a space station as a stepping stone,
Americans could colonize the moon by the year 2010 and Mars by 2060,
says the chief of the national space agency.
    ''Just as the airplane opened Antarctica to permanent human
habitation, a manned space station, to be built and serviced with the
aid of the space shuttle, will open space to a limitless range of
opportunities for mankind,'' James M. Beggs, administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said Wednesday.
    Beggs outlined a scenario for the expansion of human life beyond
planet Earth in a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in nearby
Annapolis, Md.
    President Reagan in his State of the Union message directed NASA to
develop a permanent manned space station, and Beggs predicted it
would be in place 300 miles high within 10 years. He called it a
''logical expansion of our activities in space.''
    ''As we look to the future, many of our most innovative thinkers
have devoted a good deal of time to imagining what the next 100 years
in space might be like,'' he said. ''I think we've come to the point
now where their vision might very well become reality. Let me paint a
picture of that future for you now.''
    Using the space shuttle, he said, ''we build a permanently-manned
space station. Then we must learn how to tug it out, or move it in
other ways to geosynchronous orbit.'' At geosynchronous orbit, 22,300
miles up, a satellite rotates at ohe same rate as the Earth and thus
remains stationary over one point.
    ''As we enter the 21st century, or shortly thereafter, we will have
established a manned space station in lunar orbit, which will allow
us to exploit the moon's resources,'' Beggs said. ''Out about the year
2010, we could establish a colony on the moon, beginning with a small
research station. By 2020 or 2030 we might have an operating
productive activity on the moon.''
    In that period, he added, robots could be constructing a station on
Mars.
    ''In about the year 2040, the colony on the moon would be
flourishing,'' he said. ''Twenty short years after that, the colony on
Mars would be healthy and growing. And with the technology being
developed today, we could be mining large amounts of material,
expanding our economic activities in space and bringing the benefits
back to Earth.''
    
ap-ny-03-22 0053EDT
***************


n999  2303  21 Mar 84
. . .d the moon
will be the next step, ''as we enter the 21st century or shortly
thereafter,'' the NASA chief went on.
     ''Out about the year 2010 or thereabouts, we could establish a
colony on the moon, beginning with a small research station ... (and)
by 2020 or 2030 we might, indeed, have an operating productive
activity on the moon.''
    Robots will be heavily involved in establishing the lunar
factory-colony, which - Beggs said - would be flourishing by about
2040.
    ''Twenty short years after that (about 2060), the colony on Mars
would be healthy and growing,'' Beggs said.
    The NASA chief envisioned for the mid-21st century the sort of
colonial exploitation in interplanetary space that began to blossom
in remote parts of the Earth some 300 years earlier. ''With ...
technology being developed today,'' Beggs said, ''we could be mining
large amounts of material, expanding our economic activities in space
and bringing the benefits back to earth.''
     What is needed to make all this come true, Beggs continued, is
''will, imagination and vision.''
     Beggs' talk was the third annual Albert Michelson memorial lecture,
named for an Annapolis graduate (class of 1873) who first accurately
measured the speed of light and who, in 1907, became the first
American to win the Nobel prize in physics.
     END
    
nyt-03-22-84 0200est
***************

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 23 March 1984 00:09:31 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, arms-d@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Star Wars on the Wires
Message-ID: <1984.3.23.5.7.57.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>

PM-Star Wars, Bjt,620
Scientists Still Arguing About How To Develop Space Weapon
By TIM AHERN
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - A year after President Reagan outlined his vision
of a space-age defense against Soviet nuclear attack, scientists are
still arguing whether it is a ''Star Wars'' pipedream leading the
world to disaster or to the end of a 30-year-old atomic stalemate.
    A group of distinguished physicists came to the first conclusion in
a report issued Wednesday, arguing that the administration should
pursue arms control rather than ''this illusion.'' The private group,
the Union of Concerned Scientists, has been critical of Reagan in
past years.
    But Dr. George Keyworth, Reagan's science adviser, said recently,
''it's worth pursuing. Our research is at an early stage and may come
to nothing. But if we find something, we (the United States and the
Soviet UnIon) could get away from these loaded guns we're pointing at
each other.''
    Officially, the Pentagon calls the project ''Strategic Defense
Initiative'' and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger bridles when
critics call it ''Star Wars'' after the popular movie featuring
futuristic weapons.
    However, official Pentagon budget documents recently submitted to
Congress show that one part of the research, dealing with a weapon
known as the electromagnetic gun, has been named ''Project JEDI.'' The
Jedi Knights, possessors of ''the Force,'' were the good guys in
''Star Wars.''
    Reagan, in a March 23, 1983 speech, called for scientific research
into a defensive shield which change military strategy from offense to
defense and could ''give us the means of rendering these nuclear
weapons obsolete.''
    The existing concept is ''deterrence,'' the three-decade old
doctrine which holds that the nuclear stalemate exists because both
know a first strike would not destroy enough weapons to eliminate a
devastating counter-attack by the other side.
    The Union of Concerned Scientists study, written by a group of
eminent physicists which included Nobel laureate Hans Bethe, said none
of the current defensive systems being studied, such as various types
of lasers, will work to make existing weapons useless and, even if
they did, the systems could be easily defeated by steps the Soviets
might take.
    ''All these countermeasures would exploit off-the-shelf weapons and
techniques that exist today, in contrast to the unproven and
improbable technologies on which our proposed defense would rely,''
said the report. ''Hence, the Soviet response will be cheaper and far
more reliable than our defenses and available as those defenses
emerge.''
    Instead, the report said, the United States should limit itself to a
pure research program, aimed at making sure the nation is not
surprised by any Soviet breakthroughs.
    ''The only way of handling'' the nuclear threat ''is through arms
control,'' said Kurt Gottfried, a Cornell physicist.
    Similar criticisms have been issued in recent months by other
organizations, including the Brookings Institution, which said no
workable system will be developed for the foreseeable future.
    The Pentagon has proposed spending about $3 billion in the next
fiscal year and the program will cost at least $26 billion through
1989 without any assurance that a deployable system can be developed,
Pentagon officials have told Congress in recent weeks.
    But Keyworth disputed that figure, saying, ''I cannot conceive of
how anybody can estimate the cost'' because ''we have no idea yet of
what it will look like.''
    However, backers of a plan known as High Frontier continue to push
for their system, which would station 432 killer satellites in orbit,
each armed with 40 to 50 rockets capable of knocking down Soviet
missions.
    The $50 billion plan has been pushed by retired Army Lt. Gen. Daniel
O. Graham, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
    Graham's proposal has received considerable attention on Capitol
Hill but Pentagon scientists say it won't work - a contention which
has been disputed by Graham.
    
ap-ny-03-22 0316EDT

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 84 18:42:18-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!denelcor!lmc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT

I personally think that the government spending ratio (7.7G$ for space vs
350G$(?) for human needs) is *not* "about right"; it is grossly short-
sighted and dangerous financially, and furthermore most of the "human
needs" money does not help any of the people its designed to help in any
lasting way.  One last cheap shot - its draining the nation of its will and
spirit.  This country (indeed, the world) needs the frontier and the
promise of space to grow spiritually (if you can still believe in such)
as well as all the other ways mentioned above.

Spend on (at least for space), I say.
-- 
		Lyle McElhaney
		(hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 84 8:57:51-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!hitchens @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Russian space program

<squish>

I have a couple of questions.  Is the data collected by the Russian space
program made as freely available to the international scientific community
as that from our own?  As a non-scietific type (just a citizen interested
in space) I know almost nothing about the Russian programs, do they try to
keep everything secret or do they share what they learn?  For example, I
just read on this newsgroup about their lunar mission which returned soil
samples, was that data passed on to the rest of the world?

Since the current topic is space stations, has there been any serious
discussion of a joint US-Russia station?  The Russians are the current
experts in that area.  Such a venture would reduce the likelyhood of use
for military purposes, as well as attack by either party.  Is such a thing
politically possible under the Reagan administration?  Would it be
desirable?

   Have you read 2010 yet?  I read it this weekend, it's great, read it.

Ron Hitchens
(Open the pod bay doors Hal...)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 9:38:21-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger to Pad

The Challenger was rolled to the launch pad today, in
preparation for its 6 April liftoff.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 84 19:15:30-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!alcmist @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Democratic candidates and space

walter mondale vocally opposed building the space shuttle at all,
calling it a ''senseless extravaganza in space'' (exact quote).
don't know his current opinion.
		    fred wamsley
*this letter does NOT reflect the opinion or policy of my employer or of
the management and staff of the software support center.*

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #149    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Justifications for space spending
			     Shuttle Cameras
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #148
		   Re: Justification for space spending
				 High DMZ
			      Fifth Shuttle
		       How to solve budget problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 23 Mar 84 10:07:38-PST
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Justifications for space spending
To: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al@UCB-VAX.ARPA

  "spending money anywhere ... generates c times that much activity"

True, but I think the point is that c=7 to 14 for the space program is
much higher than the c you get for randomly distributing money to people
on the street.  Developing new technologies and useful materials is bound
to generate more econoimic activity than winos buying muscatel and drinking
it.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 1984 11:27:16 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: Shuttle Cameras
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc:   METH@USC-ISI.ARPA

FROM PHOTONICS SPECTRA, MARCH 1984 P. 38:

UNIQUE CAMERA WATCHES SHUTTLE
The Space Shuttle Challenger carried a unique film-camera system along on its
recent flight to provide the first non-NASA documentation of activity aboard.
The camera, called a Cinema-360, is a modified Arriflex 35mm Type III fitted
with a Nikon f/2.8 lens that provides a 180 x 360 degree field of view.  The
format of the film, a joint project of NASA and Cinema-360, Inc., a nonprofit
organization that develops educational films for planetariums, is designed 
for use in planetarium domes.  The February flight used the camera in the 
cabin and payload sections, while later flights will employ the cameras in the
payload bay only.  The footage will be used to produce a documentary called
"An American Adventure."

------------------------------

From: KYLE.WBST@PARC-GW.ARPA
Date: 23 Mar 84 17:31:35 EST
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #148
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: KYLE.WBST@PARC-GW.ARPA

RE: MONDALE AND SPACE:

I can shed some personal light on mondale and space. The following does
not reflect the views of my current employer. These are my personal
observations.

In the early 1970's several of us who had designed systems on the Apollo
Project were asked to join a space advisory committee to then senator
Mondale to help him better understand the potential of the shuttle (this
was right after the oft quoted anti shuttle statement of his). We wrote
several position papers to illustrate the benefits of the system ranging
from biomedical applications to communications for the third world. I
got the impression that he was convinced and changed his negative
attitude from before to one that was admittedly not overly enthusiastic,
was at least balanced on the subject.

In late 1979 ( a few weeks before the iranian takeover of our embassy) I
was at the white house visiting carter and mondale and several cabinet
members. It was a big flap day in that word had just come in that
President Park of South Korea had just been assassinated, and the South
Africans had reportedly shot off a nuclear device in the South Indian
Ocean off the coast of Africa.

Mondale mentioned to me that the info re: the South African a-bomb had
come in from sensors on a spy satellite that detected flashes that had
spectral response and decay times characteristic of nuclear explosions
and not natural causes such as lightning. It was clear to me that he was
concerned about the sketchiness of such info from unmanned sensors, and
understood the benefits of manned space stations in such situations.

I'm not necessarily pro-mondale, but my personal experience with him
suggests to me that he is an intelligent person who is willing to listen
to all sides of an argument. If your side makes sense to him , he will
change his mind. Therefore, I would not write him off at this point just
because he made some anti shuttle comments many years ago.

Hope this sheds a little more light on the subject. Now I would like to
hear from some one out there who knows a bit more about Hart. He's the
only one I really don't know any thing about at all on the subject of
space support.

Earle (ex space freak) Kyle.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 23 Mar 84 15:28:04-PST
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Justification for space spending
To: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA

  Deitz:
  . . . A dollar spent by a "wino" would have the same effect.

Well, If you believe buying wine helps the economy as much as developing a
useful new kind of plastic or material or glue then I give up on having a
reasonable discussion with you. Mind you, i do like wine, but useful new
products and communication capabilities will in general enrich and expand
people's lives more than another beer (in addition to the economic effects).
Or are you one of those who is against all research and thinks we should just
live like our grandfathers used to?

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 24 March 1984 02:15:50 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa, arms-d@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: High DMZ
Message-ID: <1984.3.24.7.14.33.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>


a281  2046  22 Mar 84
AM-Space Bill,320
Bill Seeks Talks on Banning Space Weapons
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress has been asked again to push the Reagan
administration to try to negotiate a U.S.-Soviet ban on all weapons in
space.
    The request came in a resolution co-sponsored in the House this week
by nine congressmen, seeking a comprehensive ban on all space-based
weapons and a separate moratorium on the testing and production of
anti-satellite weapons.
    The resolutions, similar to measures sponsored earlier in the
Senate, come a year after President Reagan urged a major scientific
effort to develop a futuristic defensive shield that would protect the
United States against attack by Soviet nuclear missiles.
    The proposal has been criticized by some scientific and arms-control
groups, who say it is impossible to achieve and attempts to realize
the goal might only spur the Soviets into a pre-emptive attack.
    The resolutions, introduced Wednesday, were sponsored by Rep. Norman
Dicks, D-Wash.; Albert Gore, Jr., D-Tenn; Les Aspin, D-Wis.; Matthew
McHugh, D-N.Y.; Vic Fazio, D-Calif.; Joel Pritchard, R-Wash.; Thomas
S. Foley, D-Wash.; Steny Hoyer, D-Md. and Lawrence Coughlin, R-Pa.
    Meanwhile, backers of a space-based defensive system known as High
Frontier released a poll Thursday that said 82 percent of 1,010
Californians questioned approve of a system of satellites to defend
the United States from attack.
    High Frontier proposes to deploy 432 satellites, each armed with 40
to 50 missiles that would be capable of shooting down Soviet weapons.
It could be deployed with existing technology within five to six
years at a cost of $30 billion, retired Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham told a
news conference.
    Nuclear weapons are banned from space by a treaty signed by the
United States and the Soviet Union. But there are no new negotiations
under way to limit future weapons systems and administration
officials have recently told Congress that any such pacts would be
difficult to verify.
    
ap-ny-03-22 2346EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 84 9:36:36-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!brahms @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Fifth Shuttle

[Go, ahead, make my day....]

Taken from L.A. Times Business section (Tuesday, Mar 20)

INDUSTRIALIST ROCKWELL'S FIRM TO OPEN TALKS ON SPACE SHUTTLE PURCHASE

     In what would be an unprecedented move to commercialize space travel,
industrialist Willard F. Rockwell Jr. said Monday that his Cyprus Corp.
has agreed with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to open
discussions to buy a new space shuttle vehicle.

     So far, no private corporation has ever successfully owned and
operated a manned space system, although several commercial efforts are
under way to develop less complex unmanned launch systems.

     Cyprus would use the shuttle as a private launch service for
communications satellites, Rockwell said.

BOOST FOR INDUSTRY

     Whether Rockwell's firm succeeds is likely to depend in large part on
whether he can arrange financing for such a purchase.  At a cost of "about
$2 billion," the purchase of a space shuttle orbiter would certainly
require the resources of several of Wall Street's largest
investment-banking firms, Rockwell said.

..... The only other proposal to buy a shuttle came in 1982 from a small
company formed to capitalize on commercial development of space.  Its
offer, however, never got past the talking stage and the complany has
since gone out of business.

..... In a telephone interview, Rockwell played down the various risks
involved in such an enormous and unique undertaking, including a lack of
demand for a private shuttle or a crash that would destroy the vehicle.

     "The risks aren't all that great," he insisted.  "We can do a lot
with insurance.  We would be going to the biggest insurance people in the
world."

     Rockwell said the growing demand for launching private communications
satellites cannot be met by the existing NASA fleet of shuttles.  The
government currently owns three shuttles and is scheduled to take delivery
of the fourth shuttle latter this year.  Typically, the government charges
the owners of satellites a fee for launching them with the shuttle.

GENERAL GUIDELINES OUTLINED

     Although he emphasized that the detailed economics of the investment
have yet to be worked out, Rockwell said he would like to charge "whatever
the traffic would bear" in launching satellites.  But in practice, he said
he would be limited to about $100 million for a payload taking the full
cargo bay.  NASA charges $75 million, he said.

    The NASA letter to Cyprus outlines several general guidelines that it
would follow in negotiation any agreement for a sale, including NASA's
right to schedule launches, the priority of safety and a pricing policy
that would not drive up launching costs to customers.  NASA said in the
letter that it does not reserve exclusivity to Cyprus, meaning that it
stands ready to sell other space shuttles.

----------EOA----------

			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@USC-ECLC

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 84 7:34:19-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houxe!drutx!drufl!cwh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: How to solve budget problem

RE: Erik Fair's article

Congrats, Erik.
As usual, the most intelligent, imaginative, and courageous solutions
have come - not from the legislative lampreys in Washington or from
the sadly deluded types like George Bush - but from the science fiction
writers and the technical cadre of our country.

There WAS no drug problem in this country until the legislature, in its
infinite stupidity, made the stuff illegal, and created the economic
incentive for organized crime to import it.

Perhaps all we can do is contribute to efforts like the Amateur Space
Telescope and hope that industry will decide that it can make enough
*profit* from STS related technologies to push NASA on its way.

Ad Astra - Carl Hoffmeyer  WB2YHE   drufl!cwh

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #150    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
		      Discovery -- June 4 launch???
		 Re: How to Solve NASA's budget problems
			  Democratic Candidates
			High DMZ / Moon Treaty 2?
			       space world
			Laser Fusion Rocket Paper
			 june 4 shuttle launch???
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 84 17:15:24-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!tesla!elias @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Discovery -- June 4 launch???

[]
Could someone post the status of the june 4 launch??????????????

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 84 7:47:35-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: How to Solve NASA's budget problems
In-Reply-To: Article <375@dual.UUCP>

}}

Without getting into the moral and health questions involved in
putting the government into the drug business, there are two
problems.

	1. If the government got into the business, making drugs
	   legal and available would bring the street price down
	   and, therefore, generate much less revenue to run NASA.

	2. If the government kept the street price at the current
	   levels, the crime that now takes place to pay for drugs
	   would remain high, thus generating a need to use the
	   revenues to deter crime.

It won't work.  Why don't we all, every man jack and woman jane and
kid little just send $10.00 to NASA.  Let's see now, there are around
210 million of us out here.  Ten bucks times 210 million would get them
over 2 billion to work with.  Next year, we could pick another favorite
agency and do the same thing.  There must be a way to work this out
so we don't have to pay so much in Federal taxes, Hmmm.  
T. C. Wheeler

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 1984 12:45:52-EST
From: Scott.Safier at CMU-CS-CAD
Subject: Democratic Candidates

I called the Hart campaign to find out his position on the space program, but
his Pittsburgh Headquarters didn't have any information.  Mondale hasn't
opened headquarters hear yet, so I can't find out his current position.

Does anyone know of Hart's voting record in the Senate when it comes to
NASA.  this should give a good indication of how he stands.

Scott

------------------------------

Date: 24 March 1984 17:58-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: High DMZ / Moon Treaty 2?
To: Hans.Moravec @ CMU-RI-ROVER
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, ARMS-D @ MIT-MC

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress has been asked again to push the Reagan
    administration to try to negotiate a U.S.-Soviet ban on all weapons in
    space.
Any projectile traveling at 17,000 MPH striking any object in a
significantly different orbit will pretty near destroy it. Thus unless
all satellites are in the same orbit in the same direction, each is a
potential weapon against the others. Is this going to be another "Moon
Treaty", effectively preventing any use of space whatsoever because of
careless wording?

I can see the headlines, LANDSAT ordered pulled down because of danger
to other satellites due to polar orbit of LANDSAT.

------------------------------

Date: 24 March 1984 17:51-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: space world
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I haven't been to the library much lately to keep up on Space World,
but I was there yesterday and looked thru the March issue. It had a
description of the upcoming STS flight in April, with an impressive
listing of the different materials experiments all in one satellite
they'll launch this time and recover a year later for study. It seemed
like about 40 different experiments on exposure to space of various
materials including polymers and polished surfaces and and and ......
Too bad I was in a hurry to catch a bus and couldn't jot down some
tidbits to pass on here.  Check your library. It isn't glossy, and it
has some errors, but it has a wealth of info about recent&upcoming
space flights (STS, USSR, ESA).

------------------------------

Return-Path:<dietz%USC-CSE.#USCnet@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Date: 23 Mar 1984 12:45-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: Lars.Ericson@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
Subject: Laser Fusion Rocket Paper
Resent-To: space@MIT-MC, arms-d@MIT-MC
Resent-From: Lars.Ericson@CMU-CS-A
Resent-Date: 24 Mar 84 2030 EST (Saturday)

A pointer to the conference proceedings containing an unclassified
paper on the fusion rocket is in Tom Heppenheimer's new book "The
Manmade Sun".  The book is about fusion; I'm sure your fusion friends
at Courant have read or soon will read this book.

See OMNI magazine, October 1983, page 78 for an artists conception of
Robert Hyde's fusion rocket.  The Omni article says he presented a
paper on fusion rockets at the International Astronautical Federation's
annual convention in Budapest last year, so the paper will probably be
appearing in Acta Astronautica soon.

Hyde and friends at Livermore are the ones who ran the LASNEX implosion
simulation program on BIS's Daedalus design, and discovered the pellets
either wouldn't ignite or would melt the engine.  Presumably Hyde's
rocket has been more thoroughly simulated.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 84 12:17:00-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!tesla!elias @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: june 4 shuttle launch???

[?]
is Discovery's june 4 launch still on????
could someone who knows please mail or post the answer?
thanks in advance.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Mar-84  0413	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #151    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:
			     Reply to Wilkins
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 1984 12:08-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Reply to Wilkins

Do I think giving money to winos is a good idea?  No.

My point was simply this:  You seem to believe that ALL of that 7 to 14
times return on investment in NASA has come back in the form of new
technologies.  I hope I demonstrated that this is absurd;  a best a
very small fraction of the investment comes back in the form of
spinoffs.  The space program CANNOT therefore be justified by pointing
to unintended technological benefits.  This is not suprising.  After
all, building moon rockets seems like an EXTREMELY inefficient way to do
basic research.  If you want new plastics, materials, glues, etc., why
not just look for them and chuck the space program?

If most of that 7-14 times return was not in the form of new technology
it must have been in the form of economic activity generated directly
by NASA spending.  The wino spending example was merely meant to show
that the argument for NASA spending from multiplied economic activity
is also absurd, since spending on NASA -- IN REGARDS TO DIRECTLY
GENERATED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY -- is equivalent to wino spending (which is
clearly not productive).

My message was not intended to advocate anything, merely to point out
that certain arguments for the space program are flawed.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Mar-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #152    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:
	       Re: SPACE Digest V4 #151 (Reply to Wilkins)
			      NASA's Future
		 Concern over wear on shuttles' engines.
		       Space salvage rights? - (nf)
		 Re: How to Solve NASA's budget problems
			 Re: IMAX/OMNIMAX camera
		     Re: Space Station is Inevitable
			      Winos again...
			  Re: Shuttle Laser Disc
		 Re: How to Solve NASA's budget problems
		    Re: Discovery -- June 4 launch???
			      Space Business
			  Discovery launch date
			    Space Station Poll
			   Von Braun on shuttle
		     Re: Shuttle on IMAX and for real
			 Re: IMAX/OMNIMAX camera
			       NASA Lottery
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 1984 10:02-PST
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #151 (Reply to Wilkins)
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]26-Mar-84 10:02:11.WARD>
		
Talk about flawed arguments!  Do you think that new plastics,
materials, glues, etc.  come out of thin air?  No!  Have you ever
heard the saying "Necessity is the mother of invention", i.e.,
things do not get done until somebody wants them.

By way of illustration we could say that we want to do X. After
we have decided this we must ask ourselves what is needed to do
X. The answer is Y. It is not at all clear that we could come up
with Y without first having X. An example of this in the space
program is: "We want to go to the moon.  What do we need to do
this?  Well, new rockets, fuels, plastics, materials, glues,
etc."  I repeat, there is no reason to believe that without the
space program the spin-offs would have occurred anyway.

You are also quite wrong in comparing giving money to winos to
spending money on the space program.  Surely you do not suggest
that giving money to winos will generate as much economic
activity as the space program?  That is stupid.  The tractions
between wino and liquor store are not going to have the same
effect as the interactions between an engineer and a technical
problem.  The wino/store interaction is not likely to generate
anything new, it merely supports current economic activity;
however, the engineer/problem can, in addition to supporting
current forms, produce new areas of economic growth.  I submit
that the 7 to 14x return is underestimated because the new
technologies will be around as long as there are people.  Perhaps
it is a good figure for the short term, but for the long haul, it
is very low.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 1984 12:36:31 PST
From: METH@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: NASA's Future
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc:   METH@USC-ISI.ARPA

FROM AVEATION LEAK, MARCH 26, 1984, P. 15:

NASA Administrator James M. Beggs, speaking at the US Naval Academy last
week, said he believes the agency's future could include a manned space
station in lunar orbit within about 20 years and a manned colony on the
Moon's surface by about 2010.  Beggs also predicted that by about 2030 an
initial station on the surface of Mars could be under construction, and
by 2060 a manned colony on Mars would be "healthy and growing."

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 84  1454 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Concern over wear on shuttles' engines.
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

PM-Shuttle Engines,370
Report: Spaceplane's Main Engines Fast Wearing Out
    MIAMI (AP) - The main engines thrusting the space shuttle into orbit
perform well but are wearing out so fast and require so many repairs
that they may have to be completely redesigned, a published report
says.
    Senior engineers from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration say engine wear has become a severe and chronic
problem, with repairs required after almost every flight, The Miami
Herald reported Sunday.
    ''The engines have performed successfully every time they have
flown, but we are just not getting the life out of them that we had
hoped for,'' Walter Dankhoff, director of the main-engine program for
the space agency, told the newspaper.
    In the extreme case, the re-engineering process could take up to 10
years and cost as much as $1 billion. The main engines, built by the
Rocketdyne division of Rockwell International, were once expected to
fly 55 missions without an overhaul.
    Dankoff said NASA officials are confident that when the space
shuttle Challenger takes off on April 6, its three $30 million main
engines will function flawlessly during the spacecraft's 8 1/2 minutes of
powered flight.
    NASA officials also said that replacement of two key hydraulic power
units on Challenger's solid-fuel boosters won't delay the April
flight.
    NASA spokesman Jim Ball said Friday it was feared the hydraulic
power units might allow fuel lines to crack and leak, sparking a fire
like the one that broke out in a rear compartment of Columbia during
the closing moments of the ninth shuttle mission last year.
    After 10 successful launches in the 3-year-old space shuttle
program, NASA says it is satisfied with the way the engines perform in
flight.
    Still, after every successful mission in the past three years, there
has been some repair work on the engines.
    Rocketdyne officials have refused to discuss the shuttle's engine
problems or efforts to improve engine life.
    In a prepared statement, however, company officials acknowledged
that some ''areas of the engine have been identified in which
maintenance or parts replacement are required to assure the
reliability of the space shuttle.''
    
ap-ny-03-26 1246EDT

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 84 4:29:37-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!minn-ua!sew @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space salvage rights? - (nf)

When do the various failed satellites become candidates for salvage by
whoever can grab them?

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 84 11:40:39-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sun!qubix!lab @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: How to Solve NASA's budget problems
In-Reply-To: Article <375@dual.UUCP> <640@pyuxa.UUCP>

Further, the price of drugs is controlled by exactly one thing - supply
and demand. If people weren't willing to pay the high prices, the price
would come down (and organized crime would look for greener pastures).

The question is why there are so many who feel the need to be part of the
demand. I can think of a lot of better ways to spend my hard-earned cash.
-- 
				The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick
				{ucbvax,ihnp4}!{decwrl,amd70}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 84 17:33:32-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelca!proper!callan!geoff @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: IMAX/OMNIMAX camera
In-Reply-To: Article <2261@watcgl.UUCP>

Dave Martindale says:

>	To show a 1-hour film they would either have
>	to modify the supply and takeup reel transport, or have an intermission
>	while reels were changed.

Why can't they do it the way a regular movie theater does it?  A standard
reel of 35-mm film lasts about 20 minutes.  Each reel begins with a short
section that duplicates the end of the previous reel.  A simple method allows
the projectionist to start the second projector in sync with the end of the
first reel;  she then simply presses a button and voila! a shutter falls in
front of projector 1 and is raised from in front of projector 2.  At the
same time, sound tracks are also switched.

Is it the extremely high cost of the IMAX projectors that prevents this
method from being used?  Or must they be perfectly aligned with the screen,
so that it is impossible to have two side-by-side?

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 84 10:55:15-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station is Inevitable
In-Reply-To: Article <715@seismo.UUCP>

     I find it unbelievable (as you suggest) that Werner von Braun would
compare the space shuttle's contribution to science to "an elephant in a
lifeboat."  How about citing some sources (and more detailed elaboration)
for this alleged statement? 

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 1984 13:13:53-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Winos again...

Regardless of whether there exist more efficient ways of utilizing money as
far as maximizing the multiplier effect, I would point out that NASA is the
only major government agency for which this holds true. It does not hold for
either the DOD or for welfare. Both suck huge dollar values from the economy
and put next to nothing of value back. (If DOD put up a BMD, I might change
my mind about them a little bit) At least when I see some of my hard earned
money going into NASA, I know that some REAL good is coming out of it. NASA
developes and publicly discloses whole new technologies. Not to mention
which they have opened the door.

Personally I'd much rather see entrepreneurs take over as soon as possible,
but until that time, NASA is the only government agency that I can stomach.
NASA people are even FRIENDLY to people who call in. If I have too be taxed,
THESE are the people I would choose to spend my money. If I weren't taxed,
I'd donate it to them anyway!

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 84 16:58:59-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sun!gnu @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Laser Disc
In-Reply-To: Article <915@inuxc.UUCP>

It would be appreciated when posting announcements of commercially
available neat things, if you'd give the price, or at least the order
of magnatude, or the phone number we could call to find out.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 84 9:34:05-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!dciem!mmt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: How to Solve NASA's budget problems
In-Reply-To: Article <640@pyuxa.UUCP>

=============
 ... Why don't we all, every man jack and woman jane and
kid little just send $10.00 to NASA.  Let's see now, there are around
210 million of us out here.  Ten bucks times 210 million would get them
over 2 billion to work with.  Next year, we could pick another favorite
agency and do the same thing.  There must be a way to work this out
so we don't have to pay so much in Federal taxes, Hmmm.  
T. C. Wheeler
=============
In Canada, there is a tax deduction for "Gifts to Canada or to a Province".
Don't you have the same?
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 84 11:02:56-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Discovery -- June 4 launch???
In-Reply-To: Article <328@tesla.UUCP>

     As can be gleaned from reading the past few issues of Aviation Week &
Space Technology, the first launch of the Discovery (41-D) has been put off
until June 19.  The reason for this is given as damage to the Challenger's
left OMS pod thermal insulation during the re-entry of STS-10 (41-B), which
required substituting one of the Discovery's in order to launch STS-11 (41-C)
this April 6.  Some APU cannibalism on the Discovery was also made; a main
engine as well.  June 19 is described as a "soft" launch date, meaning a launch
could be made earlier.  However, NASA will not need to speed this launch along
because of DOD's cancellation of their (previuously scheduled) July 14 flight.
Anyhow, June 4 seems to be out.  Stay tuned to Av Week (available at many
libraries) for the latest.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 28 March 1984 02:03:17 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Space Business
Message-ID: <1984.3.28.7.2.39.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>

a266  1819  26 Mar 84
AM-Space Business,310
Government To Encourage Private Investment In Space
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government will encourage private
investment in space by offering tax incentives and reducing the
technical and financial risks involved, the head of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration said Monday.
    ''We want your investments to go forward,'' James M. Beggs told
representatives of several firms attending a space business
conference. ''And we know that you may find it difficult to go it
alone. That is why we will reduce those risks that might inhibit
business from going into orbit.''
    He said the White House ''has some tax incentive plans to encourage
buisness in space ... For our part, NASA will establish a high-level
office to serve as a focal point for our activities in stimulating
space commerce.''
    Beggs said the agency will support research aimed at commercial
applications, permit access to NASA experiment facilities and schedule
flight opportunities on space shuttle missions.
    ''We will continue to offer reduced-rate space transportation for
high technology endeavors and plan to help integrate commercial
equipment with the shuttle,'' Beggs said. ''We also will provide seed
money to stimulate commercial space ventures, and in some cases, we
will purchase commercial space products and services.''
    Industry is interested initially in using weightless space for the
manufacture of pure pharmaceuticals, exotic metals and purer optical
fibers that cannot be made in Earth's gravity.
    McDonnell Douglas Corp. and Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals
jointly have sent four drug-making experiments into orbit aboard the
shuttle. The results have been so encouraging that NASA is flying a
McDonnell Douglas engineer on a shuttle flight in June to carry the
experiment another step forward.
    Beggs noted that President Reagan placed commercial activity high on
the agenda when he called in January for development of a permanent
manned space station.
    
ap-ny-03-26 2119EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 84 10:12:48-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcattb!me141 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Discovery launch date

Aviation Week and Space Technology for March 19 reports June 19
as the current launch date for Discovery. It is said to be "soft"
and could be advanced if the installation of the OMS pod goes
smoothly.  A. Greene

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 84 12:55:00-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!rbc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Station Poll

This is a poll to estimate the total view of this newsgroup on the impending
benifits/threats of the proposed space station.
Anyone wishing to partake in this poll, respond by mail to voice your
opinion.
When the responses seem to be dwindling, I will tally the responses and post
the views on the newsgroup.

Thank You.........rabbit!rbc

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 84 19:32:50-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Von Braun on shuttle

Somebody doubted that von Braun had ever likened the shuttle to an
elephant in a lifeboat ("... alleged statement ...").  When I went to
NASA Headquarters in 1975 it was already common knowledge there.  I
doubt that von Braun or anyone else ever wrote it down.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 84 12:33:28-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelca!t4test!murray @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle on IMAX and for real
In-Reply-To: Article <1215@mhuxm.UUCP>

To those of you on the west coast who would like to see 'Hail, Columbia',
it plays at Marriotts Great America (an amusement park) in Santa
Clara (south end of San Francisco bay, also known as Silicon Valley)
during the summer. It is shown on a 70 ft high screen, and is well
worth seeing.
					Murray at Intel @ t4test

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 84 4:47:53-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-vgr!ron @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: IMAX/OMNIMAX camera
In-Reply-To: Article <2261@watcgl.UUCP> <128@callan.UUCP>

It is both the high cost (all though this is probably just an excuse)
and the fact that an IMAX projector, with it's reels is a big sucker.
You just couldn't fit two of them anywhere near close to being on axis.
The OMNIMAX at the Fleet Planetarium in San Diego barely fits as it is.
The projector is threaded below the floor and hauled up into position
by chains.  The reels stay put, making a rather long run.  The IMAX in
the Air and Space Museum in D.C. has two 35/70mm projectors, one to each
side of the IMAX projector.  They're not really good because they have
to be so far to the sides of the projection room because the IMAX projector
takes up so much room.

-Ron

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 84 6:24:51-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: NASA Lottery

>  One suggestion I have heard is for NASA to hold a semi-expensive
>  lottery for a seat on the shuttle...

One problem I could see is the US Postal Service regulations prohibit lottery
solicitation through the mail.  (That is why everything that you DO see which
uses the mail, but smacks of lottery, always says somewhere "No purchase
required".)

That means that NASA would have to set up some gigantic network of retail sales
outlets.  A lot of expense for a one-shot deal, and I suspect that a lot of
states would be up in arms if NASA started doing it on a regular basis.

Also, how many people, honestly, WANT a ride on the shuttle?  I certainly do,
but I know a lot of non-idiot, non-proxmirish people who support the space
program, but would not want a ride.

Burns

	uucp:  ...allegra!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #153    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
			 Re: IMAX/OMNIMAX camera
			Re: space station killing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 84 11:20:16-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: IMAX/OMNIMAX camera
In-Reply-To: Article <2261@watcgl.UUCP> <128@callan.UUCP>, <2846@brl-vgr.ARPA>

The projectors are indeed enormous compared to normal film projectors.
The mechanism which transports the film past the gate is a machined
drum several feet in diameter.  The supply and takeup reels are each
about 3 feet in diameter, although they don't need to be located
directly with the projector.   And the magnetic sound film handling
equipment, air compressor, water supply, and arc power supply all
need to be located somewhere nearby.  But I suspect the main reason
that there aren't many (if any) two-projector setups is that the
projectors cost about half a million dollars each.

I did once see a demonstration that used two IMAX projectors, polarizing
filters, and a half-silvered mirror to show a 3-D test film made by
the National Film Board.  The illusion of depth was amazing.  I felt
like I could reach out and touch the objects that were sitting there
right in front of me.  This demo was at the IMAX factory (near Toronto)
and someone commented that it was even unusual for them to have
two fully-assembled projectors sitting around not in the process of
being shipped to someone.
of the hemispheric screen to produce a proper image, so there simply

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 84 14:44:58-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!brucec @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space station killing
In-Reply-To: Article <152@hocse.UUCP>, <3392@lanl-a.UUCP> <3646@utzoo.UUCP>, <709@orca.UUCP> <2779@fortune.UUCP>

--------
>>   The true Bedouin never poisons his neighbor's well,
>>   no matter how he feels about the creep.  
>>   

Very true, Lance, but somehow I don't see the combatants in an orbital combat
as Bedouins.  Note that neither the U.S.  nor the USSR seems very concerned
about the effect on central Europe of a major tank/tactical nuclear battle.
And not too many people in the government or the military listened to the
protests against Operations Argus and Starfish (they detonated nuclear bombs
on LEO to see the effect on the ionosphere) or Operation Haystack (this one
dumped a few kilos of metal needles into orbit to see if they would reflect
radio waves).  The moral seems to be that those who don't live there don't
care what their actions do to the habitability or usability of a place.

				Bruce Cohen
				UUCP:	...!tektronix!orca!brucec
				CSNET:	orca!brucec@tektronix
				ARPA:	orca!brucec.tektronix@rand-relay
				USMail: M/S 61-183
					Tektronix, Inc.
					P.O. Box 1000
					Wilsonville, OR 97070

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Mar-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #154    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:
		       Spinoffs -- fact or fiction?
			  That rusty old shuttle
			Re: space station killing
			  Space Station Killing
			Re: space station killing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 1984 8:24-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: ward@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Spinoffs -- fact or fiction?

  Talk about flawed arguments!  Do you think that new plastics,
  materials, glues, etc.  come out of thin air?  No!  Have you ever
  heard the saying "Necessity is the mother of invention", i.e.,
  things do not get done until somebody wants them.

Of course I don't believe that new plastics, materials, glues, etc.
come out of thin air.  What I do believe is that a space program is a
stupid way to get these spinoffs.  Platitudes aside, do you have any
evidence that the Apollo program produced 7 x 60 billion dollars (1984)
(or indeed, any significant fraction of $60 billion) in spinoffs?

Is there any reason to believe that these new materials would have been
discovered without the space program?  Of course there is. People have
been discovering things on their own for thousands of years. Do you
believe that government programs are the source of all knowledge, and
that work done at NASA is somehow better at producing new technologies
than work done in the private sector?  Even if you do, wouldn't you
think that a government program with the purpose of developing new
materials would be far more efficient than NASA at doing so?  As an
example, look at the Japanese effort in high temperature ceramics.  I
fully expect most Japanese automobile engines to be made from these
ceramics soon and will operate at higher temperatures (up to 2300 F)
with greatly increased thermodynamic efficiency.  The US auto industry
will have to buy Japanese engines or die.

Let's get some hard facts into this argument.  Will someone document
that claim of 7-14x payback from the space program?  Also, could
someone document that actual value of spinoffs?

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 1984 9:24-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: That rusty old shuttle

NASA has discovered corrosion problems during shuttle flights.  You'd
think that, in orbit, there'd be no corrosion in the vacuum.
Unfortunately, the shuttle orbits in a region occupied by a very thin
gas of atomic oxygen, which is very reactive.  Since the shuttle is
flying through the gas so fast, it is estimated that an atom on the
shuttle's surface is hit by an oxygen atom once every second.  Plastics
have been found to deteriorate rapidly in this environment.  Erosion
rates of 1/2000 of a inch per day have been found.  The atomic oxygen
also attacks the binder in paints; NASA has noticed the paint on the
inside of the cargo bay coming off after each flight.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 84 13:56:37-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space station killing
In-Reply-To: Article <152@hocse.UUCP>, <3392@lanl-a.UUCP> <3646@utzoo.UUCP>, <709@orca.UUCP>

*

   With reference to how easy it is to kill a space station,
Ben Bova once wrote an amusing short story about how easy it'd be
to terrorize a lunar colony.
   The setting: an American lunar settlement, which is near its
Russian counterpart; both of them are armed with light artillery.
   The plot: tensions had reached a high level on the moon; the American
and Russian bases finally started shooting at each other. The barrage only
lasted a day; they both stopped after they figured out what effect
their projectiles were having. Tou see, both sides had been firing
high-velocity rounds, most of which missed the intended target. 
The rounds had enough velocity to go into orbit around the moon;
after one orbit, the American's barrage had circled the satellite,
and blew holes in the American base. Similarly with the Russians.
Both sides soon realized that their own fire was endangering them more
than the other side's, since the laws of orbital mechanics assured
that a bullet fired with elliptical-orbit velocity would eventually
come back to its launch site, whereas the Russian marksmen only
got through >some< of the time.
   The story takes place several years after the short battle; the American
base commander is explaining to a congressional budget investigator
(or some such official) just why they need yet >another< high-
powered computer at the base: to calculate the ever-changing orbits
of the years-old volleys, so they'l know when to...
...DUCK!!!

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 84 13:03 PST (Thursday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@Xerox.ARPA
Subject:Space Station Killing
Re: SPACE Digest V4 #153
In-reply-to: OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 29 Mar 84 03:02 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DBraunstein.ES@Xerox.ARPA

 '...protests against Operations Argus and Starfish (they detonated nuclear bombs
on LEO to see the effect on the ionosphere...'

	I've never heard of any nuclear tests that were conducted in earth orbit,
but I guess they probably occured before 1963 (year of test ban treaty).  I 
would be interested in obtaining more information on these two tests you
mention, especially when they occurred.
	Further note on nuclear weapons in space, in addition to not caring about
how one's actions affect the hability and usability space, military planners
also seem to not care about previous treaty commitment.  I remember reading
an article in the Los Angeles times about two years ago on space weapons.
It was an interview with a defense department research scientist who claimed
with the development of space weapons that required the use of nuclear
detonators (i.e. x-ray lasers,etc) the test ban treaty would not be violated 
because such treaties are suspended in times of war.  
	This information may be slightly old, but as one may read in past issues
of Aviation Week (Aviation Leak, if you prefer), space defense plans include
the development of x-ray "battle-stations". With this attitude toward past 
agreements, adopted by both sides, it will be long time before we see any
agreement aimed at limiting or banning space weapons.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 84 20:16:13-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: space station killing
In-Reply-To: Article <3683@utzoo.UUCP>

While it may be easy to kludge up a space weapon, such weapons should
be easier to counter and less deadly than those developed with gigabucks.

Also, a minor point.  The vast majority of all satellites go in more
or less the same direction.  The reason is straightforward.  If you
launch East you get up to 1000 miles/hour free velocity from the
Earth's rotation.  If you launch west you have to overcome up to
1000 miles/hour before you get any forward motion at all.
This blurb is in response to someone who thought satellites go every which way
and could easily be set into head on collisions.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Mar-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #155    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:
			       Space World
			   3-D and Space Films
		       Re: re: space station alert
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 84 7:11:37-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space World

>From REM:

>> "...see Space World in your local library for a wealth of info..."

An even better way to get Space World is to join the National Space
Institute.  You get Space World monthly with a special insert for
NSI members, along with mailings for shuttle launch tours, etc etc.
I think membership is ~$20.  NSI has been in business for a long time
as such organizations go; it was founded by Werner von Braun.  They
classify as a tax-deductable organization (educational?).  I highly
recommend the group.

The easiest way to join is to call Dial-A-Shuttle during the next mission
(900-410-6272) and wait for an NSI "advertisement" which will give you
a toll-free number to call.

Burns Fisher
(NSI Member Number 000160)

	...allegra!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 1984 13:00:00 EST
From: David M. Axler - MSCF Applications Mgr. <AXLER%upenn-1100.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: 3-D and Space Films
To: space%mit-mc.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa

    The best three-dimensional projection system I've seen yet is the one
at the Kodak pavilion down at Epcot.  It uses polarized light (viewers get
sunglasses without hinges, to ensure that they won't be stolen...), and is
*very* impressive.  There isn't any 'true' space footage, but the special
effects stuff included in the film suggests that this might well be the system
to use.
    If you go to see this, by the way, also check out the Energy pavilion --
some excellent shuttle launch footage on a 180-degree wrap screen using three
projectors.

--Dave Axler

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 84 20:55:55-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!holt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: re: space station alert

"Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in 
space?"
	Yours sadly,
		Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!ukc!qtlon!dave)

Please Dave,
	This argument just won't do.  If the human race waited to solve
all of its problems on earth befor going into space, then we would 
NEVER go into space.  In other words, we'll never solve all of our
problems on earth.  In fact, I would guess that new ones will spring up
as fast as we solve the old ones.
	Let's spread out the human race a little.  Then that one stupid
mistake by one set of stupid politicians (which is sure to happen sooner
or later on our beloved little planet) won't exterminate our species.
	As a matter of fact, it is highly likely that most of the people
who do colonize space will possess "superior" genes.  Thus, from an 
evolutionary standpoint, the "space people" of a couple of centuries in
the future, will have improved a sector of the species.

Ignoring genetic engineering for the sake of this discussion,

				Dave Holt
				Convex Computer Corp.
				{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!parsec!holt

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #156    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:
			     Lunar artillery
			   Intersecting orbits
		   NASA Lottery --> proxy&$10 election
		 "In The Country Of The Blind, . . ."   
	      Re: space station killing / total SF nonsense
			  Space Station Killing
			      Nukes in space
			Re: Re: Shuttle Laser Disc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 31 March 1984 09:22:21 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll@ucb-vax.arpa
cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Lunar artillery
Message-ID: <1984.3.31.14.14.44.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

That story about the Russians and Americans on the moon sounds a little
far-fetched.  I would assume that they would have done the targeting well
enough to land the shells pretty close to the target.  But if they fired
a shell off at orbital velocity, any elevation in the firing angle would
cause the orbit to intersect the ground.  The shell would come back at
the same velocity vector at which it had left, so it would have to come
out of the ground.

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 31 March 1984 10:10:03 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: hplabs!ames-lm!al@ucb-vax.arpa
cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Intersecting orbits
Message-ID: <1984.3.31.14.24.9.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

	Also, a minor point.  The vast majority of all satellites go in more
	or less the same direction.  The reason is straightforward.  If you
	launch East you get up to 1000 miles/hour free velocity from the
	Earth's rotation.  If you launch west you have to overcome up to
	1000 miles/hour before you get any forward motion at all.
	This blurb is in response to someone who thought satellites go
	every which way and could easily be set into head on collisions.

Perhaps most satellites are launched in more or less the same direction
(eastward), but that doesn't mean they are travelling in more or less
the same orbit.  If you launch two satellites eastward from Cape Canaveral
(28.5 degrees north latitude) twelve hours apart, their orbits will have
a 57 degree difference in inclination.  If each travels at 17,500 mph,
then their closing speed is 16,700 mph.  That should be enough to crack
up a satellite.

The fact is, satellites do go every which way.  We launch satellites from
28.5 degrees north, the Soviets launch from around 55 degrees north, and
we both launch into polar orbits.  Maybe nobody launches straight west,
but the US launches satellites south-southwest from Vandenberg.

This, by the way, makes me skeptical about the claim that the space station
would be useful as a base for satellite repair.

		David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 31 March 1984 20:26-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: NASA Lottery --> proxy&$10 election
To: decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Instead of a lottery, how about a proxy election? You send in your $10
and say who you proxy your $10 to for shuttle ride. Then the votes are
counted and the vote-getters are notified of who the main contenders
are. Then anyone who received votes may proxy them further, until
somebody has enough votes to pay for his/her ride. Money not used,
i.e. surplus money the winner gets beyond his/her ride, and money
anybody else gets, would continue to be accumulated, with new money
coming in all the time, until another person gets enough votes (money)
for a ride.

By limiting each individual contribution to $10, this is made a
popularity contest (who do you want to see in space, who in space
would make you turn on the TV set and watch and tell your friends to
wach and generate a lot of publicity and maybe even buy the sponsor's
products and the book that gets written as a result of the exciting
trip to space) instead of a money contest (what random capitalist pig
or worse what rich son of a capitalist pig can waste all our time and
effort and then complain he didn't enjoy the ride or make a mistake
and get killed and thus sabotage the space program).

------------------------------

Date: 31 March 1984 21:04-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: "In The Country Of The Blind, . . ."   
To: LLW @ S1-A
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    There are few complex systems of any type which work either
    perfectly or not at all--virtually everything's somewhere in
    between. - Lowell Wood 
That's exactly why I think now is not the time to actually build a BMD
system, the 10% of warheads that get through the BMD to hit us will
still destroy our society and government and way of life and maybe our
ecology and species. Let the research continue, and discuss the pros
and cons of various methods in upcoming years, but wait until we've
reduced warheaddage by two orders of magnitude before we actually
install BMD.

------------------------------

Date: 31 March 1984 21:45-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: space station killing / total SF nonsense
To: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

PURE FICTION BASED ON GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS:
    The rounds had enough velocity to go into orbit around the moon;
    after one orbit, the American's barrage had circled the satellite,
    and blew holes in the American base. Similarly with the Russians.
    Both sides soon realized that their own fire was endangering them more
    than the other side's, since the laws of orbital mechanics assured
    that a bullet fired with elliptical-orbit velocity would eventually
    come back to its launch site,

That's a nonsense "word argument", not a scientific argument. Sure we
all know a projectile in elliptical orbit returns to its launch point
(ignoring rotation of Moon), but unless the projectile is fired
exactly parallel to the ground (or from a high point, somewhat near
horizontal), the launch point isn't at the point nearest the center of
the moon (perilune), so in order to reach launch point the projectile
must pass THROUGH THE MOON during the part near perilune when its
closer to the center of the moon than it was at launch. Since
projectiles are normally fired at 45 degree inclination to achieve
maximum horizontal motion for given thrust, it's extremely unlikely a
significant fraction of projectiles would ever be fired close enough
to horizontally.

It's funny how many arguments sound nice when you quote nice-sounding
well-reputed phrases and string them together into a pretty "argument"
without thinking them through. An awful lot of science fiction is
based on such mis-arguments, an awful lot!!
(Let's see, an explosion generates thrust, so an explosion on the moon
could send it speeding through space together with Moonbase Alpha, and
at relativistic speeds it could travel the universe in a few hundred
years of shiptime, so thus visit lots of exciting places in one TV
season. Practice finding flaws in that SF plot, and in others. There
are at least three MAJOR flaws, can you find them?)

------------------------------

Date: 31 March 1984 21:51-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Space Station Killing
To: DBraunstein.ES @ PARC-MAXC
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

    From: DBraunstein.ES@Xerox.ARPA
    I've never heard of any nuclear tests that were conducted in earth
    orbit, but I guess they probably occured before 1963 (year of test
    ban treaty).
I think the person who used "LEO" to describe the location of the
H-bomb tests was using inappropriate terminology, since the weapons
were sub-orbital lobs, not actually orbiting Earth. Perhaps they were
in the same place that a LEO satellite might be, but LEO refers to a
real orbit, i.e. a phase-space locale (position plus velocity), not
just to a simple distance from Earth. The H-bomb test was just "up in
space", not "in Low-Earth Orbit". I think you are correct, there never
were any H-bomb tests from actual orbit.

FROM:37'28N122'08W415-323-0720.PCNET (about 3 miles from Stanford)

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1984 22:38:01-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Nukes in space

The tests in question occured sometime between 1960 and 1963, most likely in
late 1962. They were launched from Johnston Island in the Pacific. If anyone
feels like digging, there was a Life magazine pictorial about it around the
time of occurence.

Also, although most satellites do indeed orbit in the same clocksense, there
is still a velocity vector difference due to angular differences in the
orbital planes of up to 90 degrees. Although collisions are not terribly
likely, they are a consideration. NORAD has each and every piece of garbage
tagged and plugged into it's computers so that such occurences will not
occur during the useful life of a new satellite. (The database includes a
glove and a Hasselblad camera, if they haven't re-entered yet)

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 84 0:53:15-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!sheppard @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle Laser Disc

I don't think it matters much anymore, but the Shuttle laser disk is
selling in places like Videoland (at least here in Dallas) for $39.95.
Their first stocking of them didn't last very long.

Andy Sheppard
Convex Computer Corporation

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Apr-84  0305	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #157    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:
			   Intersecting orbits
			     Lunar artillery
			    Starstruck failure
			  Re: Orbital Artillery
		      Status of Galileo mission    
			IMAX on 30 min 35mm reels
			    Re:  NASA's Future
			 National Space Institute
	       Re: Winos again... -- Why multiplier effect?
			   Orbital plane change
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #156
			 "bullets on moon" story
			    Re: NASA's Future
		      Re: Hyde's Laser Fusion Rocket
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 April 1984 07:48-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Intersecting orbits
To: David.Smith @ CMU-CS-IUS
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, hplabs!ames-lm!al @ UCB-VAX

    Date: Saturday, 31 March 1984 10:10:03 EST
    From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
    [Satellite orbits go nearly every which way, even though most go
    generally in the easy direction of west-to-east.]
    This, by the way, makes me skeptical about the claim that the
    space station would be useful as a base for satellite repair.
It takes more than a station, you also need a tug to bring the
satellite out of its former orbit into rendezvous orbit with the
station (and to put it back in proper orbit when done, although that
can be done by a permanently-mounted second-stage rocket rather than
with a true tug), an astronaut with backpack to despin the satellite,
and a grappling arm to latch onto the satellite so it won't move away
or rotate every time a tool applies force to it during repair. We've
already demonstrated the backpack and Canada-arm, so now we need the 
station and tug. Note that it takes a lot less energy to tug an
orbiting object around than to re-orbit it from ground, even if it's
in a grossly different orbit, mostly because tugging can be done with
a highly efficient ion rocket or solar sail whereas lifting from
ground requires a high-impulse rocket or shuttle, which with present
technology requires highly inefficient chemical rockets which require
all their energy stored at liftoff rather than taken in from the Sun
during maneuvering.

Thus a space station is useful but only as one of the four main parts
of the system, and until the tug is developed it really won't be
directly useful for this task except where the orbit of the satellite
so nearly matches the orbit of the station that the STS might be used
as an interim tug. But I suspect by the time the station is up there
we'll be close to having a tug too. <Wishful thinking>

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 1984  09:48 PST (Sun)
Message-ID: <[SRI-NIC].IAN. 1-Apr-84 09:48:06>
From: Ian Macky <Ian@SRI-NIC>
To:   Space@MIT-MC
Subject: Lunar artillery

I seem to remember that the projectiles the Americans and Russians
were firing at each other were high-velocity rifle rounds, not some
sort of heavy artillery, which is why they were fired parallel to the
ground, and so were able to make it all the way around and sneak up
from behind.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 1984 18:28:45-EST
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-VLSI
Subject: Starstruck failure

Starstruck, the outfit in San Diego that wants to launch rockets as they
float in the water, tried and failed with a test launch today.  The launch
was to have been to an altitude of a mile, to prove the concept of water
launching (we already know you can launch rockets from underwater).
The rocket developed a short circuit while sitting in the upright position
prior to launch.  Heavy swells ripped the rocket's cradle and crane off the
back of the transport boat.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 84 18:01:59-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orbital Artillery
In-Reply-To: Article <16648@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <3562@utzoo.UUCP>

Kieran asks:

      Has anyone else on the net, upon hearing O'Neill's idea for using
   mass-drivers throwing away tiny pellets of reaction mass ( say little
   buckets of lunar dirt) as a high-efficiency rocket-engine, had the thought,
   "Good Lord, who wants to fill the solar system up with billions 
   more meteorites, especially around what will eventually be a crowded 
   shipping region, the earth-moon region? Won'rt the probability
   of hulling your ship increase dramatically?"

Actually, O'Neill thought of this.  The first part of the answer is
that there is so much natural debris around that it's hard for human
activities to increase it much.  The second part is that there are
fairly easy ways to handle the problem, which should probably be used
to prevent a problem developing in the long term.  Specifically...

The mass-driver's big virtue is that it can use most anything as
reaction mass.  So you can choose something that will be relatively
inoffensive.  Early on, the choice of propellant will be constrained
by what's available, such as aluminum dust from ground-up shuttle
external tanks.  The problem can be minimized by spraying a static
charge onto the dust as it leaves the mass-driver; this will make
the dust particles disperse.  Later, the propellant of choice is
liquid oxygen extracted from lunar/asteroidal rock.  The LOX simply
boils off into vacuum after release, leaving no debris at all.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 01 Apr 84  2033 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Status of Galileo mission    
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

BC-JUPITER
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    PASADENA, Calif. - The pieces are finally coming together in an
ambitious project to explore Jupiter and its four major moons.
    After years of budgetary battles over the Galileo project, delays
and equipment changes, officials of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
here say they believe they now have a launching date they can keep -
May 1986.
    One piece, the spacecraft, is being assembled at the laboratory and
prepared for rigorous ground tests, scheduled to begin in two months.
The spacecraft is designed to orbit Jupiter 11 times over a 20-month
period, weaving in and out of the paths of the Jovian moons and
taking close-up photographs of at least one moon on each orbit.
    Another piece, a separate module called the Probe, was delivered to
the laboratory in February and will be fitted into the main
spacecraft. The module, built by the Hughes Aircraft Co. under the
direction of the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif., is
designed to be deployed by the spacecraft for a parachute-assisted
descent into Jupiter's dense atmosphere. The probe is expected to
return data for an hour until high temperatures and pressures destroy
it.
    Work on a third element of the project, a modified Centaur rocket,
was also reported to be proceeding on schedule at the General
Dynamics Co. in San Diego. The high-energy rocket, ordinarily used
for launchings from the ground, is being adapted to boost the Galileo
vehicles after they are deployed into an earth orbit by the space
shuttle. Resorting to the Centaur, rather than the troubled Air Force
inertial upper stage rocket, is one of the changes that has delayed
the mission.
    John R. Casani, the Galileo project manager, said in an interview
last week that ''everything looks good'' for getting the 5,600-pound
spacecraft and its Centaur rocket ready for liftoff in May 1986. His
optimism is in sharp contrast to the situation two years ago, when it
appeared for a time the Reagan administration, in a move to reduce
the civilian space budget, might cancel the Galileo project and wipe
out the entire planetary exploration program.
    Twice before, launching plans were set back because the shuttle was
not available or because of problems in developing a booster rocket.
When the project was initiated in 1977, the goal was to launch the
craft in 1982.
    A launching in 1986 would send the spacecraft into an orbit of
Jupiter in August 1988. Two Pioneers and two Voyagers have flown by
the Jovian system, but none have gone into orbit for a longer look.
    The $860 million mission promises to give scientists their first
detailed, close-range view of the chemical composition and physical
properties of the solar system's largest planet and its four
prominent satellites, each of which appears to be a world unto
itself. Scientists believe Jupiter is made of the original material
from which stars form, largely unmodified by thermonuclear processes.
    Only two important questions about the mission remain, Casani said.
Will engineering changes assure the spacecraft's sensitive
electronics a safe ride through the hazardous Jovian radiation belts?
Will the spacecraft be re-directed to inspect an asteroid on its
voyage out between Mars and Jupiter?
    That the first question arose is a reflection of the Galileo
spacecraft's technological sophistication.
    Further miniaturizing of the microscopic wiring on the silicon
computer chips, which greatly increases the craft's data-processing
capability, made the chips vulnerable to a phenomenon known as
''single-event upset.''
    A single impact of cosmic rays or Jupiter radiation did not usually
affect the larger computer chips used on earlier craft. Their size
and greater electrical charge protected them. But a new analysis
indicated that Jupiter's radiation, though low in energy, was enough
to disrupt the smaller, lower-powered computer circuits. One zap
might switch a critical circuit from off to on or on to off, thereby
disrupting all data processing.
    About 50 chips are being redesigned with new wiring to be
''cosmic-ray safe,'' Casani said. The radiation shielding is being
added by the Sandia Corp. of Albuquerque, N.M. If these corrections
fail to solve the problem, he said, the entire microprocessing unit
will have to be replaced.
    In neither case, he said, was the problem likely to jeopardize
Galileo's launching schedule. The other question, whether Galileo
should also attempt to fly past an asteroid, must be resolved before
the end of this year, if there is to be time to develop computer
instructions for such an encounter.
    Since the spacecraft must go through the asteroid belt between Mars
and Jupiter anyway, it was determined that, with certain mid-course
maneuvers, Galileo could fly close enough to obtain detailed pictures
of one of the larger asteroids, the 120-mile-wide Amphitrite.
    The price to be paid would be a delay of three to four months in
Galileo's arrival at Jupiter. Such a delay increases the mission's
cost and the chances of something going wrong before reaching Jupiter.
    Dr. Torrence V. Johnson, the project scientist, said many planetary
researchers were advocating that the space agency adopt a policy of
including an asteroid rendezvous in all its missions to the outer
planets. A decision is expected later this year.
    
nyt-04-01-84 1824est

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 29 Mar 84 14:21 EST
From:     Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       space%s1-a.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  IMAX on 30 min 35mm reels

One difficulty with putting IMAX on standard reels is that few people
are using them anymore. Unionization of projectionists and the advent
of multi-screen cinemas have pushed the operators into using new
machines that have the entire 2 hour film on one 3 foot wide reel.
As you can imagine, maintaining proper tension and making sure the
winding occurs correctly is extremely difficult, and if not done
right, extremely destructive. 

					- Steven Gutfreund

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 84 9:12:29-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re:  NASA's Future

Al Globus speculates:

  >>  Here I go out on a limb:  Manned presence on the Moon, Mars, et
  >>  al.  will be a side show.  The real action is in orbit.

For once I agree with Al.  Fabricating structures with metals mined
and smelted on the spot on other planets is a pipe dream, and after
the political demonstration of people walking around on Mars, there's
not a great deal to be done on the surface of Mars or the Moon that
can't be done much more inexpensively with unmanned landers.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 84 11:16:28-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: National Space Institute

If you don't want to wait for dial-a-shuttle as I suggested in an earlier
note to join NSI, their phone number is 202-484-1111.

USPS:  NSI
       600 Maryland Ave, SW
       West Wing, Suite 203
       Washington, DC 20024

Burns

	...allegra!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

------------------------------

Date: 02 Apr 84 10:22:33 PST (Mon)
To: space@Mit-Mc, Dale.Amon@Cmu-Ri-Fas
Subject: Re: Winos again... -- Why multiplier effect?
In-reply-to: Your message in Space Digest of 27 Mar 1984 13:13:53-EST.
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>

[Dale.Amon@CMU-RI_FAS]
    Regardless of whether there exist more efficient ways of
    utilizing money as far as maximizing the multiplier effect, I
    would point out that NASA is the only major government agency for
    which this holds true. It does not hold for either the DOD or for
    welfare. ... (If DOD put up a BMD, I might change my mind about
    them a little bit) ...  NASA developes and publicly discloses
    whole new technologies. ...

I agree with the general sentiments, but the real question is not
whether money given to NASA has a higher multiplier effect than other
government agencies, but why.  We can't expect to convince people
that the multiplier effect is real and therefore NASA is a useful
investment unless we give them a logical reason to believe it.
What we need is an economic theory which people can rely on and
believe.

We must balance the effects on an economy of pumping in money: each
dollar spent supports the merchant (who supports the merchants he
shops at and so on) along with long term resources created (e.g.
information), against long term resources used.

For "welfare," each dollar creates very little in long term capital
resources, almost all effects are a trade-off of short term resources
for short term safety and the satisfaction which comes of fulfilling
civic responsibility.  There are long term resources generated in
terms of what the person helped gives to our society which that
person could not give to the society otherwise.  I am deliberately
ignoring the very real (and very important) humanitarian and ethical
considerations involved.

The argument for DoD is very similar to funds for welfare.  The long
term resources generated derive from the safety and continuity of our
economic system.  There is also a considerable long term contribution
to the economy due to training.  This, plus the normal 2-3 times
multiplier due to support of merchants constitutes a strong economic
argument for support of DoD.  Unfortunately, the long term costs of
lost time for recruits, propoganda, secrecy, public fear, training
killers, raw materials which are needed to produce weaponry, etc. is
quite large.

The argument for NASA is quite different.  NASA is a research
organization, and exists for a different purpose.  NASA fulfills the
training and people support tasks at least as well per dollar as DoD
(I don't know how to compare it to welfare).  NASA also fulfills a
considerable long term resource in terms of public safety (support of
DoD in many of its endeavours).  Although NASA uses a considerable
quantity of raw materials, NASA repays in long term resources:
information, propoganda, and (in the near future) support of
industrial development.  

Even if the DoD developed a BMD system, it still would not change the
nature of the DoD as it relates to the nation at large either
pollitically or economically.

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 2 April 1984 13:41:55 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: rem@mit-mc.arpa
cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Orbital plane change
Message-ID: <1984.4.2.18.8.37.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

My skepticism about using the space station for satellite repair was
admittedly from a chemical rocket mindset.  How old-fashioned of me not to
think of ion rockets.  (Previous discussions concluded that a solar sail is
not useful below about 1000 miles.)  Any low-thrust solution will take quite
a while, since to be effective it has to be applied at or near the orbit
crossovers.

How about the following, for low orbit plane changes.  This is based on an
article I read in (I think) Astronautics and Aeronautics not too many months
ago.

Move the perigee to the crossing node, and brake off enough speed to drop it
into the sensible (but still very thin) atmosphere.  Use wing lift normal
to the flight path to effect the plane change.  This may take several
passes.  Once the plane is sufficiently changed, fire at apogee to raise the
perigee.  Of course, the drag at perigee will drop the apogee, unless
thrusters fire during the maneuver.

As I recall, they expected lift/drag to be about 4.  So you get a major
plane change for 1/4 the propellant that would have been required for a
purely propulsive maneuver.  A boon whether you use chemical or electric
propulsion.

			David Smith

P.S.  Up with the winged space tug!

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 84 08:25 PST (Monday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #156
In-reply-to: OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 01 Apr 84 03:03 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DBraunstein.ES@Xerox.ARPA

 	From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa

	".......makes me skeptical about the claim that the space station
would be useful as a base for satellite repair."


	If you read the late January edition of Aviation Week (or Leak), there
is an article outlining the full NASA proposal for the space station or more
accurately space operation centers. Included in the proposal is a funding 
request to develop a teleoperator to allow the remote retrieval of satellites in 
different orbits. Also you must remember that the present space station 
proposal is only a preliminary step, by the end of the next decade there will
probably be one station at 57 degree inclinaton, and one in  a polar orbit, thus
allowing repair of a wider range of satellites, especially earth resources satellites.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 1984 16:14:46-EST
From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: "bullets on moon" story

The people who are criticizing this story apparently missed the statement that
it's by Ben Bova, whose blanket enthusiasm for space may be questionable but
whose physics is likely to be solid (he was a [physical scientist] before he
was a writer). I also seem to recall that the objects being dodged were
bullets, not large projectiles, so they could reasonably be presumed to have
been fired level. (I recently discovered a 50's story which Bova may have been
thinking of: some explorers on Mars find a town in which the natives check an
elaborate chart before crossing the street, which turns out to be the path of a
moon one of them dubs "Bottomos".)
   I also think it's dirty pool to call SPACE: 1999 ("marked down from 2001")
a "science fiction story" for the purpose of damning science in SF.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 84 18:25:35-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA's Future

Everyone seems very exited about manned bases on the Moon and Mars.  
That's all well and good but I suspect that once we get used to space
stations and space colonies we will turn up our noses at living on
uninhabitable planets.  I mean, if you go to all the trouble
to build a life support system, the least you want is permanent sunshine
and control of gravity.

Here I go out on a limb:

	Manned presence on the Moon, Mars, et. al. will be a side show.
The real action is in orbit.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 1984 14:09-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Hyde's Laser Fusion Rocket

Thanks to ota for sending me a copy of Roderick (NOT Robert) Hyde's
paper.

The paper makes these points:

The Daedalus study claimed that D+He-3 is superior to DD or DT fuel
because the reaction products are chared particles.  Hyde argues that
this isn't so, because (a) the reactions D+D -> He-3+n and D+D -> T+p
(followed by D+T->n+He-4) will still occur, (b) in the highly
compressed pellets used in inertial confinement fusion most of the high
energy neutrons from D+T reactions will deposit their energy in the
pellet before escaping, but (c) enough netrons escape in any case to
require neutron shielding, even with D+He-3.  Also, (d) at the higher
temperatures needed for D+He-3 fusion, a significant amount of
X-radiation from bremmstrahlung is generated.

As a result, the Daedalus thrust chamber design won't work, because it
intercepts many of the neutrons, gamma rays and X-rays, leading to
unacceptable heat dissipation requirements.  Also, the Daedalus thrust
chamber won't direct the plasma nearly as well as advertized, leading
to lower thrust.

Hyde uses a single, well-shielded superconducting coil to form the
magnetic nozzle.  A lithium shield is used to generate tritium in
flight to catalyze deuterium pellets.  Some 4 GW of power is dissipated
in the coil shield, which is carried away to the radiators by liquid
lithium.

Hyde proposes krypton fluoride lasers as drivers due to their high
operated temperature (1000 degrees K) which reduces radiator mass.

Total vehicle mass is 486 tons.  Theoretical maximum exhaust velocity
is about 8.7% c, but in practice lower because of energy lost in
neutral particles, nozzle inefficiencies and because not all the pellet
is fusion fuel.  The exhaust velocity of the rocket can be adjusted by
wrapping the pellets in extra nonfusionable mass.  The rocket can take
1500 tons of payload to Mars in 22.2 days, to Jupiter in 93.6 days and
to Pluto in just under a year.  Maximum thrust is 3 million newtons.

Hyde's rocket would make a fine asteroid tug, although it isn't
optimized for this function.  It could accelerate a 100,000 ton
asteroid to 4 km/sec in 37 hours.  By using asteroid mass for
shielding, structural material and reaction mass, higher thrust should
be possible.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Apr-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #158    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:
		     Hyde's fusion rocket paper (II)
		 Re: How to solve NASA's budget problems
		"the economic impact of nasa R&D spending"
	     Lunar artillery [sic, more like rifles shooting]
			       41-C update
			   Re: Reply to Wilkins
			    Gary Hart's record
		       Re: Reply to Wilkins - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 1984 7:44-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Hyde's fusion rocket paper (II)

Forgot to add:  the paper is UCRL-88857, "A Laser Fusion Rocket for
Interplanetary Propulsion" by Roderick A. Hyde, available from
Technical Information Department, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, U. of
California, Livermore, CA  94550.

------------------------------

Date:           Wed, 4 Apr 84 11:03:26 PST
From:           Rich Wales <v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
To:             space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject:        Re: How to solve NASA's budget problems
In-reply-to:    Martin Taylor's message of Sat, 24 Mar 84 09:34:05 PST

Martin --

In reply to your message:

	Date: 24 Mar 84 9:34:05-PST (Sat)
	To: space @ Mit-Mc
	From: decvax!linus!utzoo!dciem!mmt @ Ucb-Vax
	Subject: Re: How to Solve NASA's budget problems
	In-Reply-To: Article <640@pyuxa.UUCP>

	In Canada, there is a tax deduction for "Gifts to Canada or to
	a Province".  Don't you have the same?

According to the U.S. Federal tax return instruction booklet, you can
contribute money to the government by mailing (along with your tax
return and tax payment) a separate cheque made out to "Bureau of the
Public Debt".  Such a gift can be claimed as a deduction for Federal
tax purposes, up to some limit (the total of all your contributions to
all recipients combined cannot exceed 20% of your income, I believe).

I suspect that most (if not all) states allow this same deduction for
purposes of their own income taxes -- possibly with a different upper
limit than 20%.  I can't say for sure what the situation is nationwide
because each state has its own tax laws.

As far as I can tell, there is no way to earmark such a contribution as
being specifically for NASA.  And I don't know whether there is any
other mechanism available for contributing directly to this or that fed-
eral agency.  (I suspect there is not.)

-- Rich <v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 1984 13:22-PST
Sender: BILLW@SRI-KL
Subject: "the economic impact of nasa R&D spending"
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW @ SRI-KL>
To: space@MC
Message-ID: <[SRI-KL] 4-Apr-84 13:22:58.BILLW>

I just cleaned up my office, and I found a copy of this report prepared
for NASA under contract # NASW-2741 by Michael K Evans, Chase Econometric
associates, inc, Bala Cynwyd, PA...  Ill send out a limited number (say 10)
of the paper to people who wish to read the whole thing (this is the "executive
summary", about 10 pages), or you might be able to get it from NASA or Chase.

	:
	:
"Significance of findings
	:
NASA R&D spending increases the rate of technological change and reduces
thhr rate of inflation for two reasons [previous comments state that ANY
gvnt spending increases jobs, economic stimulation, etc, but at the expense
of causing inflation - wew].  First, in the short run, it redistributes demand
in thye direction of high technology industries, thus improving aggregate
productivity in th economy.  As a result, NASA R&D spending tends to be more
stabilizing in a recovery period than general government spending.

"Second, in the long run, it expands the production possiblity fronteir of
the economy by increasing the rate of technological progress.  This improves
labor productivity further, which results in lower unit labor costs, and
hence lower prices.  A slower rate of inflation leads in turn to a more
rapid  rise in real disposbale income permitting consumers to purchase the
additional goods and services being produced and generating greater employment.

"In assesing these results, we once again stress the importance of
distinguishing between demand and supply effects.  A $1e9 increase in NASA
spnding will have an immediate effect on real GNP, raising it approximately
$2.1e9 the first year and $2.5e9 the next year.... "

The report is dated April, 1976.

Bill Westfield

------------------------------

Date: 4 April 1984 23:36-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Lunar artillery [sic, more like rifles shooting]
To: Ian @ SRI-NIC
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 1 Apr 1984  09:48 PST (Sun)
    From: Ian Macky <Ian@SRI-NIC>
    I seem to remember that the projectiles the Americans and Russians
    were firing at each other were ... rifle rounds ... fired parallel to the
    ground, and so were able to make it all the way around and sneak up
    from behind.
Hmmm, well then maybe the original story was basically correct, except
I'm rather amazed such high-speed bullets were used for such close
combat, but maybe... I presume the two bases were on the equator,
oriented east-west from each other, so rotation of the moon wouldn't
cause bullets to miss launch point laterally? (They would still "miss"
longitudinally as Moon rotates, causing nearest-point not to be
exactly the same, so bullet is rising or falling just above
nearest-point when returning to starting point, but only by
1-cos(angle) which is incredibly small for small angles.)

I stand tentatively corrected.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 84 11:51:17-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 41-C update

41-C is scheduled to launch at 0859 EST on Friday,
6 April.  Planned for this mission are the Solar
Max repair and the deployment of the Long Duration
Exposure Faicility payload, to be picked up again
next year.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 84 14:44:43-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Reply to Wilkins
In-Reply-To: Article <266@sri-arpa.UUCP>

".....building moon rockets seems like an EXTREMELY inefficient way to do
basic research.  If you want new plastics, materials, glues, etc., why
not just look for them and chuck the space program?"

Because in practice, such research moves *much* farther and faster when
it has a specific objective in mind.  The above argument has been given
a number of times in response to the argument that improved technology
is a major result of ambitious aerospace programs.  (Not just space,
but high-technology military work too.)  The fatal flaw in it is that,
by and large, such research simply does not get done without a specific
objective to motivate it.  The argument is usually used as part of a
speech which urges budget cuts for specific projects but never proposes
anything to replace them as motivation/funding for research.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 84 18:40:40-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!princeton!down!tilt!smw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Gary Hart's record

Would someone please find out and post Gary Hart's voting record on
space issues?  If it's consistently correct (i.e., pro-space), I may
just say 'what the hell' and vote for the guy.
-- 
	     Stewart Wiener			:-) "Read and weep as did
	  Princeton Univ. EECS			:-)  Alexander when he beheld
 {allegra,ihnp4!mhuxi}!princeton!tilt!smw	:-)  the glories of Egypt."

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 84 20:47:49-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!ima!haddock!stevel @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Reply to Wilkins - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-26600:haddock:16000011:000:1205
haddock!stevel    Mar 29 12:07:00 1984

I agree that you don't get 7-14 times the return.
I don't agree that just spending the money on Basic Reasearch
is the way to get the same technological return.

Spinoff are different from basic reasearch. Spinoffs are
appication/real world applicable while basic reasearch is often
not directly relevant for many years. There needs to be a balance
between basic reasearch and advanced APPLICATION of technology.
The shuttle and space station are advanced application of
technology.

Advanced application of technology is more expensive than basic
reasearch but the return to knowledge and methods gained by
industry is much higher. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle, and
many other unmanned spacecraft have added new methods of fabrication
and materials to industry as a whole.

At the same time more money, and more EVEN funding is needed for
basic reasearch. I wish congress would give NASA an even budget
for the long run. Keep asking them what they are using it for
but keep the funding level even.

Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ucbvax|ihnp4}!cbosgd!ima!stevel

PS would people on the ARPAnet please sign thier notes. They headers
get stripped by the gateway from ARPA to USENET. Thanks.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Apr-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #159    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
		"the economic impact of NASA R&D spending"
			      Chuck Yeager  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 5 Apr 84 10:25:38-PST
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: "the economic impact of NASA R&D spending"
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

	The report by Michael K Evans (forwarded to the net by BillW@SRI) was
so riddled with illogic, it's hard to know where to begin ripping it down.
Since I am not by nature a flamer, I will address only the grossest problem.
	Most of his report depends on the definition of productivity
as "dollars spent per capita," and not "product per capita," as
any man on the street believes.  While the man on the street knows that
an increase in "product per capita" (with dollars held constant) decreases
inflation, Evans wants you to believe that an increase in
"dollars spent per capita" (with product held constant) also decreases
inflation.  He performs this slight-of-hand by using his own definition
of productivity mentioned above.  This is the sort of gimmick that gives
economists a bad name.
	Another gimmick employed by sleazy "economists" is defining GNP
as the total of all dollars exchanged in business transactions, and then
sticking the word "real" in front of it as though GNP calculated by this
method had anything to do with real products.  [Such a definition of GNP
assumes that people only exchange money voluntarily and when they have
verified (through a free market) that they are getting a new product of
value proportionate to the dollars they spend.  The IRS and NASA do not
exactly constitute a voluntary or free market.]
	Evans claims:
	    "A $1e9 increase in NASA spending will have an immediate
	    "effect on real GNP, raising it approximately $2.1e9 the
	    "first year and $2.5e9 the next year....  "
	I claim:
	    "If I buy a ball point pen for 19 cents on January 1st, and
	    "sell it to you on January 2nd for 1 million dollars, and you
	    "and I sell it back to each other on alternate days for the
	    "rest of the year for 1 million dollars at each transaction,
	    "GNP as calculated by the feds will have increased by 364 million
	    "dollars on a 19 cent investment (quite a multiplier!).  On the
	    "other hand, I claim that real GNP has gone up only 19 cents,
	    "and even then, only if we actually use the pen and find that it
	    "actually works and was worth 19 cents!"
    One of us is full of it.
--Christopher

------------------------------

Date: 05 Apr 84  2311 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Chuck Yeager  
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

PM-Names,650
Names in the News
    HOUSTON (AP) - Chuck Yeager, who in 1947 became the first man to
travel faster than the speed of sound, now says he'd like to pilot the
space shuttle - but that it would be ''a waste of money'' to let him
do so.
    ''I wouldn't lend an awful lot to the program,'' the retired Air
Force brigadier general told the National Congress on Aerospace
Education on Thursday.
    Yeager, 60, isn't used to taking a back seat to anyone, and he told
the 700 educators and industry executives he wouldn't care to be a
passenger on the shuttle.
    ''If I can't fly one, I don't want to ride,'' he said.
    Yeager, who broke the sound barrier in the experimental X-1
aircraft, said he thinks the shuttle ''has returned the fun of
flying'' to the space program.
    He and other test pilots were scornful of astronauts during the
infancy of the manned space program because they felt the new job did
not require much skill.
    ''It's not too hard to train a man to strap a capsule to his fanny
and go into space,'' Yeager said in 1963.
    Yeager was portrayed as the paragon of jet test pilots in Tom
Wolfe's book ''The Right Stuff,'' which was made into a movie last
year.

ap-ny-04-06 0158EDT

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #160    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
			     scarse coverage
			 Shuttle Launch Sequence
			       Re: spinoffs
		      Re: Shuttle Lift & Drag Specs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 April 1984 08:53-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: scarse coverage
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Well, 6 minutes before launch and only NBC has any coverage of
pre-launch, not CBS or ABC or CNN2 (on channel 20) yet.
<This info is in SF bay area>
As I type this, NBC went away for vitamin commercial, then smoker's
toothpaste, at T-5, then AT&T.
Back to live pre-launch coverage now.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 1984 09:19:34-EST
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-VLSI
Subject: Shuttle Launch Sequence

Some time ago, someone asked on this bboard what would happen if only one
SRB ignited on the pad.  The answer was that the shuttle would pitch over.
This was made more explicit by the astronaut commentator on today's launch.
He said that takeoff is instantaneous with SRB ignition.  Normally the
explosive holddown bolts are blown simultaneously, but if they aren't,
they'll just be ripped off and launch will occur anyway.

Hank Walker@cmu-cs-vlsi.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 1984 7:57-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: spinoffs

Bill Westfield:  I agree completely that we must distinguish demand and
supply effects (demand effects being the economic activity generated by
NASA engineers spending their salaries, supply effects being new
technology).  That fact that ANY government spending has the same
demand effect is instructive.  Can you provide some numbers on supply
effects?

Henry Spencer, Steve Ludlum:  I still think NASA spending on specific
space projects is a poor way to foster general technological progress.
It certainly isn't necesary (Japan spends much less on space, for
example).  By "basic research" I really meant to include "basic
development": research intended to produce new materials, technologies,
etc., such as Japan's MITI sponsored research.  I'd still like some
hard figures on the value of NASA spinoffs, or even a list of any
significant spinoffs.  Ferrofluids are one, generating sales of around
$100 million a year.  Any others?

What would the economic return be if an amount of money equal to NASA's
budget were instead invested by venture capitalists in high tech
startup companies?  Quite a bit larger, I'd think, and it would be a
real gain, not demand effects.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 84 19:49:46-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!rmiller @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Lift & Drag Specs

some info was published by one of the pilots in SOARING a year or few
ago. i will try to find it, but can't promise anything right now.

SOARING is from the Soaring Society of America

uiucdcs!ccvaxa!rmiller

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Apr-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #161    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Space Station
			       Moon bullets
		   Challenger's new launching attitude
			     Re: NASA Lottery
			    Re: Fifth Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 84 10:36:28-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!intelca!t4test!murray @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station
In-Reply-To: Article <105@ihnp3.UUCP>

>	What gives nuclear weapons such a terrible prospect in our minds?
>	Surely it is not the simple magnitude of their destructiveness; rather
>	it is their genocidal properties which drives our horror of them.  

	This properly belongs in net.politics, but here goes anyway.
I heartily disagree with the above statement. Although the prospect of
genocide certainly is factor, the main thing that makes nuclear weapons
so terrible is that for the first time non-soldiers can be killed with
no chance of getting out of the destructive area. In WWII, we Americans
were able to sit in our nice safe homes thousands of miles from the
destruction. Only the soldiers had to die. Even in Europe, you could send
your children out to the countryside where their chance of survival was good.
With nuclear weapons, there is no safe place, and even if there was, there
will not be enough warning for you to get there. THAT is what makes nuclear
weapons so scary.

					Murray at Intel @ t4test

P.S. If you are going to flame, do it by mail, this is supposed to be a space
newsgroup, not poitics.

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 7 April 1984 15:58:36 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Moon bullets
Message-ID: <1984.4.7.20.8.28.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

Problem:  How close to horizontal must you fire one of those high-powered
rifle bullets for it to stay in orbit?

Let's treat the moon as a perfectly smooth sphere of 2160 miles diameter,
and assume that our marksman fires from a height of 6 feet.

The horizon is 0.083 degrees below the "horizontal," and is located 1.57
miles away.  If one fires below the horizon, the bullet will surely hit the
moon, whatever its velocity.  If one fires above that with infinite
velocity, it will miss the moon.  0.083 degrees corresponds to an elevation
error of 5.2 inches in 100 yards.

But the fastest the bullet can be fired into a return orbit is just below
parabolic velocity.  To prevent a bullet with parabolic speed from dropping
more than six feet, the maximum depression angle is 0.0588 degrees, which
corresponds to an aiming error of 3.7 inches in 100 yards.  At this
angle, the bullet will impact 2.2 miles away.  There had better not be a
six-foot hill within 4.4 miles of the firing point.

By symmetry, this maximum depression angle is also the maximum elevation
angle.

What if the moon is littered with three-foot hills?  Then you had better not
fire at an elevation or depression of more than 0.04 degrees, corresponding
to an error of 2.6 inches in 100 yards.

If the bullet has less than parabolic velocity, these margins dwindle,
until they reach zero at circular velocity.  (If the bullet goes around at a
constant six feet, it will run into highlands sometime.)  Rougher terrain
also cuts into the margins.  Then there is the moon's rotation, which over a
month's time is bound to put something in the way of that six foot periapsis.

As I recall, Apollo spacecraft circled the moon in about two hours.  That
puts circular velocity at about 3400 mph, and parabolic velocity at 4800
mph.  Mighty fast rifle bullets.

				David Smith

------------------------------

Date: Sunday,  8 Apr 1984 00:08-EST
From: munck@Mitre-Bedford
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Challenger's new launching attitude

   This morning's Boston Globe had a large front-page picture of
Challenger "roaring flawlessly toward orbit yesterday atop its
booster rockets."  The picture shows the Orbiter sitting on top
of the ET and SRBs and going up at an angle of about 40 degrees
from the horizontal.

   I didn't see the launch, so I have two possibilities; either
Crip got tired of going up upside-down and decided to try a whole
new way, or the Globe printed the picture sideways.  I've noticed
that broadcast commentators seem to be somewhat uncomfortable
with the standard launch position, which I assume is necessary
to keep the ET from ripping itself off.
              -- Bob Munck (munck@mitre-bedford)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 84 20:56:03-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!smu!clardy @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA Lottery

[]

Everyone may not want a ride, but they might be willing to contribute
anyway, just to support the space program.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 84 20:55:03-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!smu!clardy @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Fifth Shuttle

{}

This is nothing new. Prudential Ins. Company has been considering the 
purchase of a 5th space shuttle for three years now. Inside sources 
have indicated that the plan has met no major opposition, and that 
preparation for funding of the project is currently under way.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #162    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 162

Today's Topics:
			 weird experiment on 41C
			      Oberth Wheels
				 big bang
			  "Re: big bang - (nf)"
			     Re: NASA Lottery
		       Re: weird experiment on 41C
				 Big Bang
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 84 20:14:30-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: weird experiment on 41C

I read about a real strange experiment going up on 41C, which lifts off
this Friday (or this past Friday for many of you suffering from Usenet
jet lag).  They are sending up 13 million tomatoe seeds (13 MILLION!).
They are going to put them in orbit, presumably in some kind of
hydroponic apparatus, and leave them there, to be picked up about ten
months from now by another shuttle mission.  Boy, we're starting to put
some strange stuff in orbit these days.
-- 
			Barry Margolin
			ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
			UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 84 13:01:56-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxj!mhuxi!charm!mam @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Oberth Wheels

[Orbiting laser]------------------>    [space bug]

	Something I've been wondering about for a long time is why the
technology of Oberth wheels has not been much used for attitude/spin
control in space.  The idea goes like this:
	Inside your ship, you have a flywheel spun by a small motor.
If you start with both ship and wheel not spinning, then you can spin the
ship by turning the wheel the other way.  When you want to stop spinning,
you brake the wheel.  If you use regenerative braking, you recover most of
the energy you used.  Use three wheels on orthogonal axes, and you get
complete attitude control.  For satallites, you spin the wheel, launch
into correct orbit, then stop the wheel.  For torque used to stop the wheel
spins the bird.  To despin the bird, you simply start the wheel again.
If the wheel is mounted in a gimbal with magnetic bearings and a magnetic
clutch to decouple the wheel from the bird at will, you can decouple,
bring in the bird, work on it without worrying about the gyroscopic effect
of the still-rotating wheel, then recouple and despin the wheel.
	You could imagine a super-cheap (as these things go) version of the
MMU in which attitude control is done by wheels worked by hand-cranks.
If you want to make a left roll, you turn the "roll" crank until you are
faced as you want to be, then hit the "thrust" button.  To compensate
for the center of thrust not being in line with your center of gravity,
you could have booms with masses on the ends which could be extended.
This adjustment could be done manually or under control of a simple
autopilot.
	There must be something I'm missing which makes these ideas impractical,
since I know of no present uses of the Oberth wheel technology.  Could it be
that since NASA didn't invent the wheel, they won't use it :-)?  BTW, I
read a lot of Heinlein stories and I know it shows.
	{BTL}!charm!mam

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 84 11:05:21-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!jrl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: big bang

       Here is an interesting question posed by a friend. It is believed
that we live in an expanding universe that was created from an very small 
very dense and very hot 'point' that let go around 20 billion years ago. 
There are two outcomes of this. One being that this event was a one time
thing and the universe is open. That is that it will keep expanding until
entropy sets in and the stars die out and that is the end of it. The other
theory is that the universe is an oscillating one. That is it expands, and
after some time it contracts again into that 'point' and the big bang starts
over again with a new universe with new phyisical laws and constants. 

      I tend to subscribe to the latter theory since the contraction of
the universe into a primordal 'point' that goes off again makes some 
sense. If the universe is a one time occurance, then one can say that
perhaps the first line in the bible explains it all .... In the beginning
there was light ! ......

     Now the question:  When the universe was the size of a softball (i.e.
at T =  1 x 10 E -39 second and the temprature was 1 x 10 E +35 degrees
kelvin)  WHAT WAS THE FIREBALL EXPANDING INTO ????? and what lies beyond
the 20 billion light-year barrier.

     An interesting article appeared in Scientific American about the
creation and state of the universe. One interesting thing is that perhaps
we exist in more than four dimensions, They said that a universe with 
seven dimensions works out well in theory. And another interesting point
that was made is perhaps the distinction between past, present and future
becomes 'blurred' at the Plank level of dimensions ( 1 x 10 E -33 cm).
Too bad I can not understand the math used to postulate these interesting
theories



                                                harpo!jrl

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 84 16:01:29-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlpf!jrl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: "Re: big bang - (nf)"

#R:harpo:-225600:ihlpf:8600002:000:929
ihlpf!donr    Apr  4 11:42:00 1984

 
 
I remember seeing a show on the Chicago PBS station that provided some 
information on the Big Bang Theory. I don't remember the name of the show,
but I am pretty shure it was not Nova. The interesting thing that they
brought out was that if the universe did start with a Big Bang and is still
expanding as a result of that, then it will keep expanding and eventually
die. This conclusion was based on the estimates of the total amount of 
matter in the universe. It was concluded that there just is not enough
matter to cause the reverse oscillation to occur. 
My posting of this information is not intended to be a statement of my
beliefs. I just wanted to pass on what I thought was some interesting
information. 
        
 
                                                  D. R. Rueckehim
                                                  AT&T Bell Labs
                                                  Naperville, Il.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 84 22:13:40-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!mdg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA Lottery

> Also, how many people, honestly, WANT a ride on the shuttle?  I certainly
> do, but I know a lot of non-idiot, non-proxmirish people who support the
> space program, but would not want a ride.

    I DO!   What surprises me even more, are the extremes.

    I was talking to a friend of mine about the possibility of a manned
mission to Mars.  As one might expect, we got to the issue of cost.  He
claimed that we could probably cut the cost by an order of magnitude if
only we didn't have to worry about bringing the astronauts back.

    I asked where he expected to get volunteers.  HE volunteered!  He
is retired from industry and he'd love to use his extensive engineering
talents in space.

    I pointed out that the cost of several months worth of supplies would
eat up all the savings from not returning.  He replied that:
    "It doesn't HAVE to be permanent ..."

    This isn't MY point of view.  BUT, I still don't think that we would
have any problem with passenger interest in any space mission.

			    Hoping to catch a ride
				  (and return, thank you),
					Mike Geipel

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 84 3:26:55-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: weird experiment on 41C
In-Reply-To: Article <1543@mit-eddie.UUCP>

The experiment Barry mentions is part of the Long Duration
Exposure Facility, a palet of stuff that will be injected
into LEO on 41C and picked up by a shuttle mission next year.
The experiments are designed to measure how different substances
hold up against the cosmic rays and other neat things out there.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 84 6:37:47-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov01!godin @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Big Bang

There has been much discussion on whether the universe is "open" or "closed".
The thought of a "open" universe is unappealing to us because we like
to think that "something" will go on forever. If the "Big Bang" was a one
time occurance and it we accept the Law of Entropy, the future of the 
universe is rather bleak.

The notion of the "close" universe is more appealing because of the
cyclic nature of the universe in that theory. We may perish but at least the universe will continue on.

One other theory states that we exist in a universe within a universe. That
our universe may be a atom in another universe and that the creation and 
destruction of our world occurs in a "split second" of the other world.
After all the most basic thing to us, time, is only relative. We "time"
the univrese by how many times the Earth goes around the Sun. Just think
if our year to an outside observer (God?) takes by that observer's watch a 
tenth of a second, then the whole life of the universe has taken a couple of
minutes.

Film at Eleven.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Apr-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #163    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
			      Oberth wheels
			 how to grab a satellite
		    Two questions about Shuttle flight
			    Re: Oberth Wheels
			       Re: Big Bang
			      Re: big bangs
			 Talk by Donna Pivirotto
		    Need space station or platform    
			Re: Oberth Wheel, Big Bang
	technology via space project vs. pure technology projects
			      41-C launched
			     shuttle launched
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, 9 April 1984 11:21:12 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Oberth wheels
Message-ID: <1984.4.9.16.20.28.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

Oberth wheels were used for attitude control in Skylab.

------------------------------

Date:  9 Apr 1984 1010-PST
From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL>
Subject: how to grab a satellite
To: space@KESTREL


	Anyone know why the following wouldn't work?  (or whether it would)

	1> set MMU to be inertially stabilized

	2> grab a solar panel of slowly rotating satellite

	3> hold on until satellite stops

	By my calculations (assuming a moment of 500 slug-feet) the satellite
has angular momentum that would require 10 foot-pound-seconds to stop.  
Doesn't really seem to me to be beyond the reach of normal human strength,
even in a space suit (and he's supposed to be an amateur weight lifter).  It
also doesn't seem likely to me that this kind of force would break off the 
panels.

	If someone had a bit more chutsbah they could plan to make contact with
a part of the satellite that was coming towards them and kill the rotation that
way!

						Dick
-------

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 9 Apr 84 10:12:09 PST
From:           Rich Wales <v.wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
To:             space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject:        Two questions about Shuttle flight

Group W Cable (Los Angeles, CA) is broadcasting NASA-generated coverage
of this shuttle flight, on one of their otherwise unused channels.  I
plan to write then a letter commending them for this service.

I have two questions about the flight and its coverage:

(1) Why are the distances, speeds, etc. measured in terms of nautical
    miles?  Why not statute miles?  For that matter, why not kilometers?

(2) The wall map showing the position of the shuttle shows part of each
    orbit surrounded by square brackets.  If I remember correctly, the
    "left" bracket is always positioned at the southern extremity of the
    orbit; the "right" bracket, on the other hand, is not at the nor-
    thern extremity of the orbit, but rather is around 20 degrees north
    latitude.  What do these brackets mean?

-- Rich

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 10:40:48 PST (Monday)
From: Lynn.es@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Oberth Wheels
In-reply-to: mam's message of 4 Apr 84 13:01:56-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@Xerox.ARPA
Reply-To: Lynn.es@Xerox.ARPA

Information I recently saw says that the Amateur Space Telescope, going
up in a couple of years, and being built mostly by Rensselaer (RPI),
will use reaction (Oberth) wheels.  They concluded that it was the only
way to build it for kilobucks instead of megabucks.  It also has the
advantage of running off electric power from a rather small solar panel,
and so needs to carry no fuel.  It will have four wheels, one a spare to
stand in for any failure.  They are using magnetic bearings and expect
very small fraction of a second of arc pointing error.  I think the
bearings are the unproven technology in the design, but they will be
tested in space before being used on the telescope.
/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 11:19:10 PST (Monday)
From: Lynn.es@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Big Bang
In-reply-to: jrl's message of 3 Apr 84 11:05:21-PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@Xerox.ARPA
Reply-To: Lynn.es@Xerox.ARPA

Although we haven't found enough matter to gravitationally stop the
expanding universe in the distant future, there are a couple of
indications that there may be hidden stuff that will do the job.  First,
some galaxy rotational studies show that what we see in galaxies is
surrounded by a lot more matter that we don't see.  Second is the recent
measurements that seem to indicate that the Neutrino may have a small,
but non-zero, rest mass.  This particle should inhabit the universe in
incredible numbers according to current theories of nuclear fusion, and
might, even with a tiny mass, add up to more mass than the matter we are
used to.

Now for the real question you posed (WHAT WAS THE FIREBALL EXPANDING
INTO ?).  By general relativity, we consider space itself curved by
gravity.  If the universe has enough mass to eventually collapse, then
space actually curves around on itself.  There is no outside (not in
three dimensions), you just come back on yourself eventually.  If the
universe is not gravitationally closed, then it's even harder to
explain.  I guess it's something less than empty space.

Incidentally, we don't know that the big bang started as a point.  We
just don't know of any limit to the density of matter, so when we
extrapolate the expansion backwards, it reaches a point.  

"what lies beyond the 20 billion light-year barrier"?  Unless we can
find some means that transmits information faster than light, we will
never know what is beyond the barrier, that is, beyond x light years,
where x is the age of the universe.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date:  9-Apr-84 14:17 PST
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: Re: big bangs
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2.ARPA]TYM-KIRK-4G6I4>

This discussion should probably move to the Physics list.  Have you ever 
wondered why astronomers and physicists keep refering to THE big bang.  Surely 
it does not take all the mass and time of the universe before a black hole 
produces a singularity that leads to an explosion.  Not all physicists subscribe
to the big bang.  Fred Hoyle, formerly of Cambridge, has said a sickly pall now 
hangs over the big-bang theory.  Jayant Narlikar, a leading Indian theoretical 
physicist comments "Astrophysicists of today who hold that the `ultimate 
cosmological problem' has been more or less solved may well be in for a few 
surprises before this century is out."

 -- meditator on nothing

------------------------------

Date: 09 Apr 84 16:03:02 PST (Mon)
To: space@Mit-Mc
cc: nancy@UCI-750a
Subject: Talk by Donna Pivirotto
From: "Tim Shimeall" <tim@uci-750a>

Donna Pivirotto, the manager of the Space Station office at JPL gave a 
talk today at UCI on the space station and its current goals. The
following is a summary of her talk.  Anything which sounds out of
place should be attributed to my notetaking.

The Space station is currently planned to go up in the early 1990's
(Anything before 1994 is a politically acceptable solution, given the
President's initial speech on the subject.)  An initial $8 billion
budget is planned, including development of an orbital manuvering
vehicle, which will also be used in connection with the shuttle.

The current effort has been mainly dedicated to determining what
functions the station will have.  The following major functions have
been pretty firmly decided:
   - Science/applications and Technology Laboratory (with particular
     emphasis on Life Science experiments).
   - Permanent observatories (20-30 year duration, for both stellar
     and earth observations)
   - Manufacturing facility (geared towards "for profit"
     experimentation by private groups)
   - Free flyer servicing facility (on the order of the Solar Max
     mission of the shuttle)
   - Communications and Data Processing node (to work with TDRSS)
   - Transportation Node (for deep space missions)
   - Assembly Facility (for deep space missions, large antennas, etc.)
   - Orbital Storage facility.
It is planned to have an international group of mission sponsors,
rather than one space station user.

The station will be in the most convinient orbit for shuttle servicing
- a 28.5 degree inclination Low Earth Orbit.  It is planned to put up
a 'cheap' station first, and then expand it, as follows:
              Initial                      Full
Budget       7.5 - 9 Billion             17-20 Billion
Crew         6-8 persons                 12 persons
Power        60 kw (w/thermal expulsion) 160kw
            
The station is projected to have about 300 cubic meters of volume by
1999.

The station will support attached and free flying payloads, in
addition to two (unmanned) space platforms, one in Polar orbit, and
one in 28.5 degree orbit.  There will also be several on-board labs,
for experiments that require human participants or supervision.

Eventually, the station will also include a space-based OTV (described
as "Kennedy in the Sky").

The design of the station is still quite tentative, but most designs
use 14' x 30' "cans", transported up in the shuttle, arranged in 
orientation with the earth (nadir pointing).  This reduces station
drag, but increases problems with instrument aiming.

The polar orbiting space platform (called the "Earth Observation
System" or "System Z")  will include observations on the earth's 
environment, ocean dynamics, solar input, land use, atmosphere, and
continental geology.  All this is part of the Global Habitability
study, a planned program for the near future.  It will be launched
and serviced from Vandenburg, due to "change of orbit" energy costs.
It is included with the space station, since the power and support
technologies will be derived from those developed from the space
station.

The initial launch is planned for between 1991 and 1994, with 2 year
incemental launches therafter.

The station will be operated for NASA customers - exclusively, with
performance of services guaranteed.  Policies for this are currently
being formulated.

The station project is doing a LOT of research on automation of the 
station and its functions, to reduce the "on board" support crew
needed to as small a part of the crew as possible.  The goal is to
have one station "housewife" (possibly male) which performs all
the station upkeep, with the aid of a LOT of automated tools, some
artificially intellegent.  The remainder of the crew would be mission
specialists.  There will still remain a need for men in space, to 
handle the following functions:
  - Repair unanticipated damage (as in SkyLab)
  - Adapt, either to unanticipated problems or for 
    flexibility in the performance of experiments.
  - Real time sensing (with no delay, which can be important in 
    manufacturing)
  - Perform one-of-a-kind functions, which are not practical to
    automate
  - Provide security for information
Current projections indicate it will cost about $100K/day to maintain
a human in orbit, which will reduce the recreational uses of the
station.  People are planned to be in orbit for as long as 180 days
(although it should be noted that Ms. Pivirotto termed this a 'straw
man' figure).

The talk concerned itself mainly with the commercial applications of
the space station, but in response to a question, Ms. Pivirotto made
the following comments about DoD use of the station:
  - DoD currently "does not need" a space station -- which may simply
    mean that they want NASA to pay for it (a strategy they used with
    the shuttle).  Everyone anticipates that DoD will use the station,
    but there are some drawbacks to military use of this station:
   a) The station is VERY vulnerable
   b) There is intended to be a LOT of international use of the
      station, and possibly a lot of international participation in
      its construction, which makes LOTS of security problems for the
      military.
   c) the station is not in the most useful orbit, militarily.
Given these problems, DoD will probably launch its own station, in a 
polar orbit, eventually.  Until then, the main hope is that DoD won't
usurp the station entirely.

The technology for closed life support systems is not anticipated to
be available before 1994.  Current plans are to service the station
by shuttle, which may cause problems.  The crew will need about 56K
lbs. of water for 90 days, a figure which is too heavy for the shuttle
landing gear.  So some redesign of the shuttle may be needed.

Traffic control around the station is anticipated to be a REAL
problem, in 3 dimensions, once the station becomes fully operational.
   ********************************************************

Note: This lecture is part of Social Ecology E149, a course entitled
"Life in Space", which discusses the various problems associated with
the space station.  This course meets at the University of California,
Irvine, on Monday and Wednesday from 11:00  to 12:20 in 161
Humanities Hall.  The following is a list of lecturers for the
remainder of the quarter:
   Apr. 16  Prof. K. Baldwin (UCI physiology)
            "Physiological Changes of Humans Under Prolonged Space Flight"

   Apr. 23  Dr. B.J. Bluth (CSU Northridge Dept. of Sociology and NASA HQ)
            "Isolation and Confinement: Case Studies of Violence and Disruption"

   Apr 25   Dr. Mary Conners (Man-Vehicle systems research at NASA-Ames)
            "Performance in Space: Changes in the Human Physiological Condition"

   Apr. 30  Dr. R.L. Percy (Space Station Operations Safety at Rockwell)
            " Space Station Operation Safety"

   May 7    Prof. Daniel Stokols (UCI Social Ecology)
            "Geomorphic Architecture and 3-D Space Design"

   May 21   Dr. Warren James (NASA - JPL)
            "Schedule Planning for Spacecraft Operations"

   May 23   Prof. John King (UCI - Computer Science)
             "Humans in an Automated Environment"

   June 6   Stan Sadin, Deputy, Space Systems Directorate 
            (Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology)
            "Beyond the Space Station and 2001"
						Tim

------------------------------

Date: 09 Apr 84  1650 PST
From: Robert Maas <REM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Need space station or platform    
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA

Here's another reason for needing a space station in LEO, or at least
a docking platform with communication/tracking and attitude-control:
Suppose we had it now, and docked with it were tanks of various kinds
of fuels and other consumables and spare space-tugs both of manned an
robotic type (or better, a single kind of space-tug that can be used both
remotely-controlled or local-manned). Well, would we now have the problem
that the solar-max repair may have to be cut short unsuccessful because
we are running out of STS maneuvering fuel? No! We'd have lots of leeway
in extending the mission if it seemed we needed just another day to
get the damn thing docked and repaired. But the way it is now, we may
run out of fuel and have to end the mission as an 80% failure, it's gonna
be close as I type this on Monday evening.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 1984 1456 PST
From: Doug Freyburger <DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Oberth Wheel, Big Bang
To: Space@MIT-MC
Reply-To: DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA

(Pre.S. Please put me on the Space-Enthusiasts mailing list.  Thanks.)

Re: Oberth wheel

        In fact, there has been at least one spacecraft to use the Oberth
wheel technique for attitude control.  The late IRAS (Infra-Red Astromony
Satelite) had four gyros (one backup) for just this use.  At launch the
satelite was put in a near polar orbit, and its spin was adjusted so that it
always pointed away from Earth.  From then on, it scanned two 3/4-circles per
orbit by accelerating its gyros slowly to scan the sky at more than orbit scan
rate, from pointing almost "straight back" to pointing almost "straight up"
during each half-orbit.  The gyros where quickly decelerated to slew to scope
back to the "straight back" position to start again.  This trick both
maximized sky coverage, and avoided pointing the scope "forwards" in its
direction of movement.  It was liquid helium cooled, and even the few air
molecules inhaled would stick in the liquid helium bath, boiling the helium,
frosting the mirror, and slowing the orbit.  The usual problems of friction
had to be dealt with with attitude thrusters.  I don't know if they used
magnetic bearings or what.

        The most interesting feature of IRAS was not its Oberth wheel attitude
control, but its orbit.  It was (is) a near polar orbit with some added bells
and whistles.  Its procession-of-the-equinoxes has a one year period.  It
always faces the sun at the same angle!  I would like to see whoever figured
out that one give us an over-view of the math.

Re: big bang

        The statement in the Scientific American article said that time blurs
at Plank Unit sizes.  I had enough quantum mechanics in Phys 2 at CalTech to
keep up with that one.  Time really should not be meaningfull in units less
than a Plank Time.  What I was wondering about while I read the article is why
that time blurring should extend/expand linearly out into time-space.  Were
they really saying that the time-bluriness at a distanse is now bigger than a
single Plank-Time?  Is there some sort of proportianality vs distance from the
original center?  Did anyone out there have a clear picture about this?

        I once read a suggestion that this small-universe really is an
infinitely expanding big bang, but the rest of the big-universe as a whole
fits the classic steady-state model.  In this case, the matter addition to
maintain an even mass distribution is supplied by occasional new big bang
small-universe creation.  I guess the mass distribution just isn't either as
high or as even as the originally proposed steady-state model.  I guess the
question of open vs closed universes is just an estetic one for the moment.
Most of us simply don't WANT our universe to really be facing a true entropy
heat death.  Study into the missing-mass problem may someday bring the problem
into the actual detail-of-calculations mode.  Let's hope.

                        (-)NX for the interest,
                        Doug
------

------------------------------

Date: 9 April 1984 20:37-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: technology via space project vs. pure technology projects
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Here's another idea that came to mind on why spinoff from space is
more effective than direct projects to develop wonderful plastics etc.
(sorry for length, I don't know how to boil these things down).

First, motivation. It's terribly to work years to develop something
and not see anybody use it until you're dead and buried, or to see no
use for it while you're working on it and FEAR you'll be dead and
buried before anybody finds a use for it. Sometimes in pure
mathematics something is so beautiful you just do it without any
prospect for real use [how's that for an understatement!!! sometimes
should really be 99% of the time in mathematics, but in applied math
like data compression or data representation you still sometimes come
up with a practical method that is so mathematically beautiful you
don't need an actual use to get gratification]. But in normal
technology such as developing plastics, it's awfully demoralizing to
spend a couple years working on something and then see it just set to
pasture when you're done, as if you've just waisted two years of your
life, it would have been more fun to masturbate those two years if you
could have gotten paid for it. - But with a task to develop some
product for a need that already exists, such as plastic for Apollo
cockpit that won't burn suddenly and kill the astronauts, you get to
see your work used immediately after you finish it, instant
intellectual gratifiction, the true work ethic at its best.

Second, it's awful hard to really get the bugs out of something if
nobody ever uses it in real practice. In programing I am frequently
very lonely because nobody wants to try the program I wrote even
though I think it's neat, then four years later when I can't even
remember how it worked somebody finally uses it and finds a hundred
obvious bugs that should have been worked out at the start instead of
four years later. I know that if you have only programmer-testing, not
even alpha testing (your co-workers), you can't perfect your work, and
wit only alpha testing you still don't get it really right. The result
of research for something that is never going to be used is shoddy
work, not just in programming but in just about anything, in fact
moreso in other fields where the developer simply doesn't have the
facilities to properly test the product that has been developed.

Third, the synergism between the two above, a conscientious worker who
knows nobody will use what he developed and it'll sit shoddy in
pasture for years before it is totally forgotten, really won't have
any reason for doing good work, and thus won't have any incentive to
work at all because shoddy work really isn't fun if you know it.

All in all, you don't really contribute to society or economy or
quality of life or peace of mind or work ethic or job satisfaction by
useless make-work. Only true scientific work where you have a bunch of
peers to review your work has a chance of succeeding in the absence of
real-world feedback. I can't imagine peers evaluating a new plastic in
the same critical way that peers would review a new quantum gauge
theory. Thus I agree for technological development, you really need to
have a testable goal in mind, not just some random useless-product
goal, thus I agree putting money into space is better than putting
money into abstract "better-plastic" R&D. <Opinion of REM, subject to
critique, let me hear your comments: REMRFC>

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 84 7:14:33-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 41-C launched

Space shuttle Challenger launched on time at 0858 EST (1358 GMT) this morning,
April 6, 1984 from Kennedy Space Center, and began a direct insertion into
a 250 nautical mile apogee orbit, higher than all previous space shuttle
orbits.  The orbiter will reach a high point of 285 nautical miles on this
mission.  This is the eleventh STS flight, and the fifth for the Challenger.
This also sets a record for the most humans in space at one time; there are
five Soviets and one Indian currently aboard Salyut-7 and they are now joined
by the five Americans aboard Challenger:  commander Robert L. Crippen, who
is making his third space shuttle flight, pilot Francis R. Scobee, and mission
specialists George D. Nelson, Terry J. Hart, and James D. van Hoften.
On Saturday the astronauts will deploy the Long Duration Exposure Facility
(LDEF-1), a 10.5 ton payload about 30 feet long.  This satellite, which
contains 57 experiments, will be left in orbit for retrieval next year.
On Sunday the Challenger will ascend to its higher orbit and Nelson will
use the Manned Maneuvering Unit (which was tested on the previous shuttle
mission) to rendezvous with the disabled Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) satellite.
Nelson will stop the 2.5 ton satellite's uncontrolled spinning and then Hart
will use the shuttle's Remote Manipulator System to berth SMM in Challenger's
payload bay.  Nelson and van Hoften will then repair the faulty SMM attitude
control unit.  On Tuesday, the astronauts will use another EVA to attempt to
repair other electronic components of SMM.  If these repairs are successful,
the SMM will be redeployed on Wednesday, otherwise it will return to Earth
with Challenger.  Landing is currently set for 0810 EST at Kennedy Space
Center next Thursday after 92 Earth revolutions.
--
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 84 6:17:23-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: shuttle launched

	The shuttle launched on time this morning. Weather was
excellent and the television images were great. I think this
is the first time a previous Bell Labs employee made it to orbit.
The rest of us can hope and dream.

				Fred Mendenhall
				AT&T CP Indianapolis

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Apr-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #164    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
			      Re: big bangs
		Re: big bangs (n) / ultimate problems (2)
		    Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
			      Nautical miles
			      Nautical Miles
				Prudential
			       Sundries...
			 Why not the arm first?  
		       Re: weird experiment on 41C
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 April 1984 06:46-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: big bangs
To: KIRK.TYM @ OFFICE-2
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

We refer to R.Reagan as "THE President of the USA" even though other
presidents came before him. Likewise we refer to our current big-bang
as "THE big bang", and I think the terminology is appropriate,
providing when somebody asks about the terminology we define "THE big
bang" as "the one that caused this universe we're in now, as
contrasted with predecessors and successors and alternatives which
might also exist in time" rather than misleading the asker into
thinking there was/willbe/is only one bing bang ever.

------------------------------

Date: 10 April 1984 06:55-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: big bangs (n) / ultimate problems (2)
To: KIRK.TYM @ OFFICE-2
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date:  9-Apr-84 14:17 PST
    From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>

    Fred Hoyle, formerly of Cambridge, has said a sickly pall now 
    hangs over the big-bang theory.
I think he's overstating it. As I understand, to a first-order
approximation we now understand what has happened since a tiny fraction
of a second after the big-bang singularity. It's just that looking
close to the singularity things are so different from now that we
haven't yet figured out exactly what was going on, maybe inflationary
universe, maybe not, ... But the basic theory after three minutes is
pretty much undisputed except for parameters like total mass-energy
and age to present, right?
    Jayant Narlikar, a leading Indian theoretical 
    physicist comments "Astrophysicists of today who hold that the `ultimate 
    cosmological problem' has been more or less solved may well be in
    for a few surprises before this century is out."
Well, we still have some stuff to work out, but really I don't think
the 'ultimate cosmological problem' of our origin is still totally up
in the air. Still, the details of the first microsecond are bound to
be new and interesting and perhaps surprising, and parameters that
affect our ultimate fate (total mass-energy, lifetime of proton) are
important for the other ultimate cosmological problem (our ultimate
fate) and have yet to be determined. I'm not sure which of the two
"ultimate cosmological problems" he&you were referring to above,
origin or fate.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 10 Apr 84 08:52:33-EST
From: Anthony J. Courtemanche <AC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
To: space@MIT-MC

   But the way it is now, we may run out of fuel and have to end the
   mission as an 80% failure, it's gonna be close as I type this on
   Monday evening.

Somehow I disagree that the failure percentage would be that high.  I
consider it a great success that the astronaut who was flying the MMU (I
forget his name now) was able to successfully approach the rotating
satellite. The failure was (as I understand it) only with the device
that was to attach with the pin on the Solar Max.  To me that
indicates only that a small piece of machinery isn't up to par.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the case that during the Gemini
project, docking procedures were practiced and it was found to be
extremely difficult.  Now we can stap a man with a backpack and he is
able successfully approach and get in contact with a rotating object
in space.  I consider this a success in it's own right.

					Optimistically Yours
					Anthony J. Courtemanche
					AC@MIT-OZ

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 10 April 1984 12:06:28 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: Rich Wales <v.wales@ucla-locus.arpa>
cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Nautical miles
Message-ID: <1984.4.10.16.55.5.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

	Why are the distances, speeds, etc. measured in terms of nautical
	miles?  Why not statute miles?  For that matter, why not kilometers?

It is time-honored navigational practice.  Given the coordinates of origin
and destination, spherical trigonometry can be used to produce the arc
length between them, expressed in angular measure (vertex of angle at center
of earth).  This arc is historically measured in degrees, minutes, and
seconds.  The nautical mile is defined to be one arc-minute over the surface
of the earth.

I will tiptoe quietly away from the question of how the earth's oblateness
is handled.

			David Smith

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 84 13:33 PST
From: LShilkoff.es@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Nautical Miles

"Why are the distances, speeds, etc. measured in terms of nautical
    miles?  Why not statute miles?  For that matter, why not kilometers?

Nautical miles is the standard unit of distance used by pilots
worldwide. More than likely, it was chosen by NASA (or whatever it was
called way back when) because of the close relationship with the Air
Force and other flight branches of the armed forces. Seems to be even
more appropriate today with our latest space vehicle resembling an
airplane rather than an inverted kitchen funnel.

LShilkoff.es@xerox.ARPA

Larry

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 1984 20:16:14-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Prudential

The funding effort Prudential Insurance was involved with was Spacetran, run
by Klauss Heist. William H. Sword Investment was also involved. Spacetran
recently disbanded, partially due to a falling out between Sword and Heist.
Additionally, NASA never accepted officially accepted their proposal for
review, as has occured with Cyprus (now Astrotech International). NASA had
the attitude that Spacetran was 'too greedy'. This is not to say that Cyprus
will fair any better, but considering the Rockwell connections, I suspect
the chances are somewhat more realistic.

In any case, don't hold your breath. NASA has indicated that it still
considers the shuttle to be an R&D vehicle that is not yet 'debugged'. For
those who follow launches religiously, the continuing glitches show that
these is indeed a correct opinion. Realistic commercialization is going to
require, at the very least, a cure for the excessive engine wear they
are experiencing, not to mention the problems of upper atmosphere oxygen
penetrating and damaging shuttle structural materials.

It is my feeling that when the time comes (a few years) Cyprus will be given
a serious opportunity. It will take several years of negotiation with NASA
in the best of cases, so Cyprus is wise to start the ball rolling at this
time.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 1984 20:38:51-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Sundries...

1) The tomato seeds (and several other plants in smaller quantities) are
being orbitted by a seed company and will be given out to 100,000  schools
for student biology experiments

2) The closure of the universe is still a wide open topic. "The problem of
the missing mass" is relevent. Galactic clusters orbit in ways that imply
much more mass than classical astronomy expected. Another instance of this
problem is our own galaxy. The visible portion of it's pinwheel rotates as
if most of the mass were outside of it. The rotational anomaly has led some
astronomers to hypothesize that there is a shell of matter extending past
the three (yes, Virginia, I said three) Magellanic clouds. Other
possiblilites have been suggested, such as having the curve of mass versus
stellar count continue to increase into the realm of brown dwarves. The
existance of large intergalactic clouds of Nuetral Hydrogen has been
suggested, and (to some extent) proven. In no case has the open/closed
question been answered, however.

3) I believe that Skylab used an 3 axis inertial platform for positioning.
   If you push on a Gyroscope, it will move at a 90 deg angle to the applied
   force. Thus Skylab did not need to use thrusters to perform an attitude
   change. If my memory has failed me, let the NASA people out there dowse
   my flaming...

4) Tell your engineer friend that I'd love to keep him company. I'll bring a
   guitar and a deck of cards...

				Ad Astra,
				Dale Amon, Pres. Pgh L5
				amon@cmu-ri-fas.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84  1841 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Why not the arm first?  
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

AM-SHUTTLE-EXPLAIN
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - After a free-flying astronaut failed to
capture the ailing Solar Max satellite and the shuttle's robot arm
dramatically succeeded, space agency officials have been pointedly
asked why they picked man over machine in the first place. Was it
mere grandstanding?
    Space agency officials say it was anything but that. They point to a
surprising chain of events involving unexpected risk, sheer luck and,
in the end, calm determination and self-assurance.
    The risk came when Dr. George D. Nelson, flying free in space 200
feet from the shuttle, failed to latch onto the crippled satellite
and made matters worse by putting it into an end-over-end tumble as
he repeatedly bumped it with the docking device.
    The luck came when the satellite's equipment performed much better
than anyone expected to reduce its wobble, spin and tumble. And quiet
confidence came when ground simulations showed it would be easy to
capture the stabilized satellite with the robot arm.
    According to John Cox, the flight director in Houston, the ''gold
star'' goes to the scientists on the ground who succeeded better than
anyone expected in halting the satellite's gyrations.
    The reason for planning a manned rescue in the first place was that
the satellite was spinning too fast for the robot arm, at one
revolution every six minutes. Flight controllers were afraid to slow
down the satellite with its on-board backup control system because
simulated tests on the ground had suggested that such a maneuver
could also increase the rate of tumble.
    Cox said at a news briefing that before the rescue attempt,
simulations had shown that slowing the spin that way could increase
the wobble ''to about 40 or 50 degrees.''
    That kind of wobble, he said, is what doomed the rescue attempt with
the robot arm Sunday. With the satellite's outspread solar panels
flailing about, Capt. Robert L. Crippen of the Navy, the space
shuttle's commander, had to keep the shuttle popping up and down to
avoiding hitting them while trying to maneuver the robot arm close to
the satellite's grappling fixture. He abandoned that approach after
four attempts.
    The situation Sunday was bleak. It looked as though Solar Max was
out of control and might never see the sun again.
    Not only was it spinning, as it had been before the first retrieval
attempt, but it was also spinning twice as fast, one rotation every
three minutes. It was also tumbling end over end and wobbling from
side to side.
    A second approach by a free-flying astronaut equipped with a
different mechanical jaw to latch onto the satellite was ruled out
because there was not enough fuel left on the shuttle in case the
astronaut accidentally drifted away and had to be rescued.
    At this point, late Sunday night, engineers at the Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., used the backup control system and a
new computer program to arrest the violent motions of the satellite.
Because the wobble was already so bad there was nothing to lose and
everything to gain, they said.
    William Steward, the mission operatons manager, said it was a long
shot nonetheless. ''You don't know whether the spacecraft is going to
end up looking at the sun, which is what you'd like it to do to get
the most power, or looking at some other place in space.''
    Unless they faced the sun, the solar panels of the satellite might
not be able to charge its batteries. Meanwhile, power was slipping
away. ''We came within minutes of losing it,'' Stewart said.
    One sign of the desperation was the backup plan. If the
stabilization maneuver failed the engineers were prepared, right
before the batteries gave out, to fire explosive bolts on the
satellite and jettison the solar panels in the hope that the blast
would add a bit of stabilty to the satellite's motion and ease an
attempt at retrieval by the robot arm.
    But late Sunday night, just as the batteries were about to give out,
Solar Max caught a burst of sunlight, ''a glorious sun,'' as Steward
put it.
    An additional bit of luck was that a new computer program sent to
the satellite from the Goddard Space Center allowed the backup
control system to eliminate nearly all the spinning and wobbling of
the satellite. ''The wobble on the satellite is somewhere between 1
and 9 degrees as opposed to the 15, 20, 30, 40 that we expected
preflight if we ever got down to this low rotation rate,'' Cox, the
flight director, said
    By late in the day the satellite was rotating once every 12 minutes,
exactly half its original speed.
    At this point space agency officials started to exude confidence.
''We're in good shape and expect a good shot at it,'' said Jay
Greene, the chief flight director.
    Meanwhile, in Houston, other astronauts were attempting the
grappling maneuver on a mission simulator and finding no problems at
all. Asked how the simulation went, Cox said, ''Oh yes, it went
without a miss.''
    ''When you get down to those well-behaved dynamics'' on a satellite,
he said, ''it's easy for a well-trained crewman. I can't get in there
and hit a lick with it, but they do it real well.''
    
nyt-04-10-84 2012est

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 84 11:02:49-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!philb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: weird experiment on 41C
In-Reply-To: Article <1543@mit-eddie.UUCP> <2679@alice.UUCP>

	The 13 million tomatoe seeds experiment is sponsored by Park Seed
	and will NOT attempt to grow these seeds while in the Long Duration
	Exposure Facility (LDEF). The seeds will be distributed to schools
	around the country to allow schoolchildren to experiment with the 
	space exposed seeds once they have been retrieved by the orbiter.
	
	Attack of the Killer Toamtoes anyone??


						Phil Biehl
						Tektronix, Inc.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #165    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 165

Today's Topics:
			      NASA spinoffs
			  Re: Poor News Coverage
		    Re: big bangs / ultimate problems 
			     Big Bang Source
			   Shuttle upside down?
			Challenger Nears Solar Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 1984 1013-EST
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MIT-MC
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: NASA spinoffs
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 12006623711.17.583.6421 at DEC-MARLBORO>

    Compared to an outfit like Bell Labs NASA's spinoffs look pretty
minor. Has NASA produced any innovation on the order of the
transistor, the laser, fiber optics, or even UNIX?  Some might point
to integrated circuits as a major spinoff, but NASA had little to do
with their development. MOS devices are not radiation-resistant
enough for their needs and even TTL was an unproven, unreliable
technology at the time.  It may be a little unfair to compare a
development agency like NASA with the premier research organization
in the world, but let's put NASA's spinoffs into perspective.  It
hasn't produced nearly the amount of new stuff that Bell or the major
universities have. 
   And why should it?  Spinoffs are not the reason for its existence.
NASA's goal is to open up space, not to do product development.  The
real impact of its work so far is not to be found in aluminized
blankets for campers but in the communication and weather satellites.
 Comsats are about a billion dollar a year business, and they are
something that the US has a near monopoly on.  Weather satellites
have saved  hundreds of lives and millions of dollars in damages just
with hurricane tracking. For the last decade Florida has been
undergoing a development boom, and part of the reason could be
because people now know when to evacuate from oncoming storms. 
NASA's benefits to the nation come from what we can get out of space,
not from R&D side-effects. 

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 08:43 PST (Wednesday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Poor News Coverage
In-reply-to: JordanHD.Wbst's message of Tue, 10 Apr 84 20:09 EST
To: JordanHD.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA
cc: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A.ARPA>, XeroxSpace^.PA@Xerox.ARPA

''As far as I can tell, the reason that Pinky couldn't de-spin the MMU is:

(a)	The attitude control was not turned off.

(b)	The MMU grabber didn't fit.

(c)	The MMU grabber wouldn't grab.''....etc.

	Please watch what abbrev. you use.  I think you mean the SMM (SOLAR-
MAX) not MMU.  Anyways, what I was able to glean from the networks and
the local cable live NASA feed, was that the TPAD, (the grabber) was sucess-
fully soft docked on the trunion pin, but was not hard docked. In plain English,
this means that Pinky was not able to make the T-PAD lock on the trunion pin.
Furthermore, because the trunion was not located at the center of gravity of
the SolarMax, when he repeatedly tried to hard dock, he imparted some
momentum to the spacecraft in the process.  He also may have caused extra
rotation by trying to stop the rotation by grabbing onto the solar panel, a 
much 'dirtier' way of stop the rotation.

	But hey, this morning I got up to watch the live cable feed, and
low and behold they had already fixed the SolarMax 1-1/2 hrs ahead of 
schedule and were having some fun testing out the spare MMU.
	I think that this mission demonstrates that despite initial problems,
the spirit of 'Mr. Fix-it', that began with the fateful Apollo 13 mission,
through Skylab 1, still holds forth, and will carry on into the age of 
permanent human presence in space with the Colombus space station.


					David Braunstein

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 10:31:39 PST (Wed)
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@Mit-Mc>
cc: KIRK.TYM@Office-2, SPACE@Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: big bangs / ultimate problems 
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>

At the end of the 19th century, Michaelson (one of the most prominent
physicists of his time) said (I paraphrase from memory): Advances in physics
will come in the sixth decimal place.  Thus meaning that all is known and
the rest of physics will be just further experiments to improve accuracy. By
this time, Michaelson and Morely had done an experiment which was to be one
of the keys to showing that Newtonian mechanics would not properly describe
light, and thus helped lead to Special Relativity.  Since the Michaelson's
statement, we have had several revolutions in physics (of varying
importance) including: Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics,
Quarks, etc.

Unexplained deviations from theory, and contortions in theory, such as those
at the end of the last century, currently plague physics.  It is not clear
whether a new revolution is needed, but statements which assert that only
the first microsecond hold surprises remind me about Michaelson's assertion.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 11 Apr 84 13:00 CST
From:     Nichael Cramer <cramer%ti-csl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       space%mit-mc.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Big Bang Source

	It is obvious from some of the recent queries and statements
that a common, but fundamental, misunderstanding concerning the nature
of the Big Bang is rampant here.
	It is not a question of a large fireball located at some
place in an an otherwise empty universe suddenly exploding and throwing
matter out through the cosmos.  Rather, it is spacetime ITSELF that is 
expanding from an initial infinitesimal size.
	To use the standard high school illustration of the universe
imagined as the surface of an expanding balloon, and if we further
imagine a previous time when the balloon was very tiny, then to
ask from where, ON THE SURFACE OF THE BALLOON, did the balloon start
growing, is as meaningless as to ask where, IN THE UNIVERSE, was the
sceen of the Big Bang.
	This is a somewhat obscure point that even some instructors
and lecturers I've heard (including one unnamed Nobel laureate,
whose Prize was for work in Cosmology) didn't really seem to
understand.
	End of Lecture.

						NLC

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 84 19:38:38-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!elmer!goun @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle upside down?

<*>

Today's edition of The Boston Globe carries a front page photograph of the
flight of Challenger with its external tank and SRBs.  The vehicle is shown
flying upward at about a 45 degree angle, with the orbiter ON TOP.

I was under the impression that in previous flights, the vehicle flew with
the orbiter upside down beneath the tank.  Was this done previously but not
on 41C, was the picture printed upside down, or am I mistaken?

					-- Roger Goun

UUCP:    {allegra, decvax, ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!elmer!goun
ARPA:    goun%elmer.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA
         decwrl!rhea!elmer!goun@{Berkeley, SU-Shasta}
USPS:    Digital Equipment Corp., HLO2-2/H13
         77 Reed Road; Hudson, MA 01749
MCIMail: RGoun
Tel:     (617) 568-6311

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 84 9:00:41-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger Nears Solar Max

The Challenger today closed to within 1000 miles of
the crippled Solar Maximum Mission satellite and is
continuing to close at about 60 mph.  Tomorrow (Sunday),
the Challenger will park about 300 feet away from the
satellite, and mission specialist Nelson will fly to
it via MMU, stop it from spinning, and help to attach
it to the RMS (after he stops the spin, the shuttle will
move to within 50 feet.)  Once the satellite is in the
cargo bay, Nelson and van Hoften will replace a control
system in the satellite.  On Tuesday, Nelson and van
Hoften will replace a failed electronics box, and, if
the satellite thens works properly, it will be redeployed
on Wednesday.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Apr-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #166    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Shuttle upside down?
		  STS 41C ground to air retransmissions
		    Challenger Prepares for Rendezvous
		    Re: big bangs / ultimate problems 
			 add to distribution list
			   Re: Big Bang Source
		      Solar MAX station keeping    
			    SMM Resure Failure
			  RMS Attempt to be Made
			 Re: Shuttle upside down?
			    Solar Max troubles
			Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
			       Re: Big Bang
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 84 5:39:50-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle upside down?
In-Reply-To: Article <6960@decwrl.UUCP>

Your picture is misguided.  The orbiter performed its post-
launch roll just as always and flew ''upside down''

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 84 11:06:00-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!louie @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: STS 41C ground to air retransmissions

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 84 5:46:56-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger Prepares for Rendezvous

The Challenger closed to within 375 miles of Solar Max this
morning, and the astronauts got their first visual and radar
sitings of the satellite.  Later, the shuttle moved to 10 
miles distance.  Soon, at 0929 EST, Nelson and Van Hoften will
enter the cargo bay, and Nelson will begin moving towards
the satellite at 1019 EST, arriving 10 minutes later.

Yesterday, the astronauts successfully deployed the LDEF.

------------------------------

Date: 12 April 1984 11:35-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: big bangs / ultimate problems 
To: katz @ UCI-750A
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KIRK.TYM @ OFFICE-2

I'm not saying that in Physics the only remaining revelations are in
the 6th decimal place. Indeed we haven't yet unified the three forces
(there were four a few years go but we unified two of them) but expect
to unify two of them within the next few decades (some say gravity
will be unified with the rest, but I believe gravity is geometry not
force and is intrinically different from the 3-->2-->1 force(s)).

What I meant by what I said is that (1) the only major change in the
Big Bang throey of cosmology is in the first three minutes and the
final unbang or pancake or heat-death or whatever (we don't know yet),
and (2) new Physics and study of the first three minutes are related.

The new Physics may allow a totally new type of engineering
(matter-antimatter drive, or high-density memory, or ??) once we can
catalyze the conversion of the three unified forces WITHOUT needing
high energy states. That would not be in the 6th decimal point in
practice (engineering/technology), but it could easily be in the 6th
decimal place insofar as it affects the 20 billion years after the
first 3 minutes, i.e. Big Bang is unchanged, merely refined, except
for first 3 minutes.

<All clarification of my opinion>

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 1984 1010-PDT
From: LEE at SU-STAR
Subject: add to distribution list
To: SPACE%MIT-MC at SCORE
Reply-To: LEE at SU-STAR


	Ted;
		This is my first venture out into the net, so please forgive
any faux-pas. If possible, I would like to be added to the distribution list
for the SPACE digest.
				Thank you;
				Emilio P. Calius (LEE%SU-STAR@SCORE)
------

------------------------------

Date: 12-Apr-84 10:59 PST
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Big Bang Source
To: cramer%ti-csl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2.ARPA]TYM-KIRK-4H2V2>

An interesting mapping onto the surface of an expanding (pitted) balloon are the
three spacial dimentions.  Time is the dimention at right angles to the surface.
 The pits are locations of mass.  Black holes make relatively deep pits.  
Concievably there might be some black holes that go all the way to the center of
the balloon (though no further).  I would expect to find the origin of a big 
bang somewhere near the center.

Assuming a cycling universe, what would the completed solid of all of spacetime 
look like?  Like a bowling ball with a few huge pits that represent the union of
the last black holes?

 -- modeler of nothing

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 84  1022 PST
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Solar MAX station keeping    
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n013  0731  12 Apr 84
AM-SHUTTLE-BLACKBOX
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - The balky, 550-pound black box that the
Challenger astronauts replaced on the satellite Solar Max Wednesday
does a crucial job. It adjusts the position of the $235 million
observatory so it can point its telescopes and scientific instruments
with incredible precision as it speeds through space at more than
17,000 miles an hour.
    The black box, called the attitude control module, is one of the
most advanced control systems ever built. It failed in 1980 when
three fuses, each less than half an inch long, blew.
    The astronauts, Dr. George D. Nelson and Dr. James D. van Hoften,
replaced the entire attitude control unit in a historic repair
mission and fixed another system so that the solar observatory can
resume its job of photographing and analyzing the mysterious storms
and flares that erupt on the surface of the Sun.
    ''Not only are these attitude controls the most sophisticated of
their kind, but they are the most important system on the
spacecraft,'' said Dr. Stephen P. Maran, a scientist at the Goddard
Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
    ''Control is critical for all satellites,'' he added. ''They have to
have it to keep from tumbling. In addition, solar panels have to be
pointed at the Sun or you lose power.'' With Solar Max the job is
even more demanding because the satellite has to be able to track
solar flares that flash across the surface of the Sun, 93 million
miles away.
    Many commercial satellites are maneuvered by the firing of jet
thrusters. But the solar observatory needs control that is hundreds
of times more accurate.
    According to the scientists at Goddard who designed the Solar Max,
the large black box does the job by using electric motors to spin
precision metal wheels. These look like large gyroscopes. There are
three of them, each about 10 inches in diameter, one for each axis of
desired rotation about the 13-foot-tall solar satellite.
    Although they look like gyroscopes, the wheels are different in a
critical way. A gyroscope spins steadily and imparts stability to
whatever it is attached. Ships and planes often have gyroscopes on
board to help keep them steady.
    But the wheels on Solar Max spin only when the position of the
satellite needs to be changed. They exert a precise power that is
gently and accurately applied.
    ''The spacecraft sends out commands to those reaction wheels, which
then spins them up or down,'' explained Dr. Frank J. Cepollina, the
head of satellite servicing at Goddard. ''In the process, they impart
momentum or take it away. And the spacecraft is basically rotated
over and steered and held precisely on the target it's supposed to be
on.''
    In 1980, however, an unexpected glitch came up when the fuses of the
system blew. The problem, according to Goddard scientists, lay in a
design flaw.
    The fuses are big enough to carry a certain amount of electric
current. But as the Solar Max was being designed, someone increased
the circuitry and thus the electrical load in the attitude control
without increasing the size of the fuses. ''Somebody looked and
thought the fuses were big enough but they weren't,'' said Maran.
    Ironically, the designers had originally considered heavier fuses,
not because of expected power flow but because the fuses are so tiny
that designers feared they could easily be damaged during
installation. In the end, the tiny fuses were used anyway.
    After the reaction wheels came to a grinding halt in 1980, flight
controllers switched to a backup system that used magnetic torquers,
which are basically short bars that can be magnetized so that they
interact with the Earth's magnetic field to move the satellite very
slowly. These magnetic bars were the heros earlier this week when
they were able to stabilize the satellite after a spacewalking
astronaut accidently put the solar observatory into a violent tumble.
    According to Cepollina, ''The torque bars lock on the Earth's
magnetic field and progressively, as we go through the orbit, we
apply current to those torque bars and they torque against the
Earth's magnetic field to allow us to point the spacecraft.''
    Also in the black box that was replaced Wednesday were precision
star trackers, tiny telescopes that help the satellite find its
position in space. ''They look out and see the stars,'' said
Cepollina. ''By comparing the stars they should be looking at versus
the stars they are actually seeing, they in effect say 'Ahhaaa, this
spacecraft is looking here and it should be looking there.''
    
nyt-04-12-84 1025est
***************

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 84 18:49:26-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SMM Resure Failure

Astronaut George Nelson today failed to dock with
and stop the spin of the Solar Max satellite.  The
docking failure was due to a defective mechanism that
was supposed to have grabbed a pin on the satellite.
Instead, Nelson just bounced off, in the process inducing
more motion to the already spinning satellite.  A
later attempt to grab the solar panels by hand and
stabilize the satellite also failed, and another
attempt to use the RMS of the shuttle to grasp the
satellite did not work.  Monday or Tuesday, the
crew will make one more attempt to grab the satellite
using the arm.  If they fail, the mission may be
cut short by one day; if they succeed, the repairs
to the satellite will be done on one EVA into the
bay, not two.  No further spacewalks will be planned,
due to a shortage of maneuvering fuel that would be
used to pick up a stranded astronaut if his backpack
failed.  The propellant was used to make the maneuvers
necessary for the RMS grapple attempts; the shortage
of propellant will not endanger the reentry of the
shuttle into the atmosphere.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 3:22:38-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: RMS Attempt to be Made

Grond controllers at the Goddard Space Center succeeded
over the night in stabilizing the SMM satellite to some 
extent, bringing its momentum into the range that a body
can have if the RMS system is to safely grab it.  They
also were able to reorient its solar panels, so the satellite
is out of danger from failing batteries.  NASA then decided
that an attempt to snare the satellite directly with the
remote arm will be made, either Monday or Tuesday.  A
failure to grab it would mean a one-day curtailment of the
mission; a success would mean a one-day extension.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 6:10:31-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-vgr!ron @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle upside down?
In-Reply-To: Article <6960@decwrl.UUCP>

Just reminds me of the cartoon on my door (this is the U.S. Army Ballistic
Research Labs).  There is a general standing on top of the shuttle shouting
"How can we possibly use this for defense purposes.  Those NASA dummies put
the bomb bays on the wrong side."

-Ron (I am not Sargeant Pinback) Natalie

Please come back in to the bomb bay.
OK.  But this is the last time.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 6:33:54-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!db @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Solar Max troubles

Did anyone notice that two networks had conflicting reasons why the
dock with Solar Max was in trouble? One set of astronaut-consultants
was explaining that the trouble was with the satellite attitude control
system not being turned off by Goddard, and the other set was saying
the problem was with the docking mechanism.

By the way, does anyone know why the astronauts cant just go out to the
satellite and replace the defective modules without bringing it to a 
stop? I suppose it could be tricky if they had to fight centrifigal 
force, but seems they could somehow anchor themselves.
Wouldnt seem to be any worse than working on something in earth gravity,
except that anything you drop would fall out on a tangent instead of down.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 8:02:01-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-vgr!wmartin @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
In-Reply-To: Article <2692@alice.UUCP>

I managed to catch the initial failing attempts to de-spin Solar Max
via network news coverage (NBC) Sunday morning, but they (of course)
neglected to answer the obvious questions that came to mind:

1) Can the MMU be re-fueled for re-use while the shuttle is in orbit?
I would think that this would be vitally necessary for any practical
use of such a system. If it can, why didn't they just say that they
would re-fuel it after it red-lined?

2) I was surprised that Pinky grabbed on the outer edge of the solar
cell array to apply thrust to slow Solar Max's spin. Didn't that
strain the panel attachment? It wasn't designed to do more than hold
the panel, was it? Was the force applied to this joint within design
specs or was this a calculated risk?

As of this writing, I haven't heard or seen any later developments,
except that they planned to to use the arm while Max still spun.
Has the reason for the failure of the suit-attachment unit been
announced yet? 

Will

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 12:30:50-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ward @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Big Bang
In-Reply-To: Article <6855@decwrl.UUCP>

[]
The notion that the universe is "open" depends on the present estimate
of the mass contained in the universe.  But that estimate seems to
be increasing on the same curve as computing power (that is: LOTS
every few years - how's that for precision).  I put my money on the
closed universe, though I have no bias, one way or 'tother.
-- 
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70}!hao!ward
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Apr-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #167    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:
			      Refillable MMU
		     ENTERPRISE GOES TO WORLD'S FAIR
			    Fuses in Solar Max
			   Fuses on Solar Max 
			     Big Bang Source
			  re:re:Big Bang Source
			  LDEF orbital elements
			Big Bangs and ceiling wax
			 Attitude control wheels
			 Re: NSI's Dial a Shuttle
		Re: STS 41C ground to air retransmissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 13 Apr 84 09:08:38 PST
From:           Willard Korfhage <korfhage@UCLA-ATS.ARPA>
To:             space@mit-mc
Subject:        Refillable MMU

   The MMU can be refilled in flight, according to what I have read.  The
reason they didn't make more extensive use of it on this flight was that the
shuttle couldn't spare fuel to chase the astronaut if the MMU failed.

				Willard Korfhage
				korfhage@ucla-ats

------------------------------

From: Bob Brown <rlb@RIACS.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8404131733.AA10572@riacs.ARPA>
Date: 13 Apr 1984 0933-PST (Friday)
To: space@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: ENTERPRISE GOES TO WORLD'S FAIR

**From the Ames Astrogram

The Space Shuttle orbiter Enterprise, atop the 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft,
began its move on March 22 from Ames Dryden to the Lousiana World Exposition.

The 157,000 pound Enterprise, flown during the approach and landing tests in
1977 at Ames Dryden, will be displayed at the World's Fair from May 12
through November 11.

The final leg of the 2,300 mile trip will be by barge from Mobile, Alabama,
to the world's fair site on the New Orleans waterfront.  The barge trip is
the only viable method of transporting the DC-9 size orbiter to the New
Orleans waterfront, since it is too large to transport by rail or road,
particularly through the streets of New Orleans.

The unusual constraints of the move allow NASA to test techniques and train
personnel on methods for safely handling a Space Shuttle orbiter at sites
other than Shuttle launch and landing facilities at Ames Dryden, Kennedy
Space Center, Florida, and Vandenburg Air Force Base on the California
Coast.

Permanent structures are normally used for mating and demating the orbiter
from the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.  The methods of handling and moving
perfected and documented on this trip will be invaluable if an orbiter ever
has to land at a contingency landing site in the future.

The Enterprise is scheduled to arrive at the Lousiana World Exposition site
on the New Orleans waterfront the afternoon of April 5.  The transporter
trailer will be offloaded and towed to a location in front of the U.S.
Pavilion.  There, cranes and ground support equipment will remove the
Enterprise from the transporter and place the 122 foot long vehicle on its
display location.

At the conclusion of the fair, the Enterprise will be ferried back to
Vandenberg AFB where it will be used for additional fit-and-function checks
at the West Coast Shuttle launch facility.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 13 Apr 84 11:48:19-MST
From: William G. Martin <WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA>
Subject: Fuses in Solar Max
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA

The discussion in the news article regarding the use of fuses
in Solar Max was completely mystifying.

Why put fuses in a satellite's circuitry anyway? I could understand
using circuit breakers which could be reset by solenoid under ground
command, or auto-reset after some time elapsed, but why use FUSES?
They whole concept of a fuse is that it is a cheap and easily
replaceable unit whose self-destruction protects more valuable
components in cases of failure or abnormal conditions. But when the|
circuit is in orbit, and any repair is done by replacing the entire 
module, as we saw done in this case (not a repair technique that could
be relied upon to be available, anyway, in the general case of
satellite circuits!), fuses have no rational justification as far as
I can determine. If they had been replaced by bus bars, or other
conductive jumpers, and the active components had burned out due to
the situation that caused the fuses to blow (itself doubtful, according
to the article), so what? If the satellite could have been reached for
fixing, the entire assembly/module would be replaced in any case.
So the fuses protected nothing, and only caused problems.

Can anyone offer any excuse for those fuses to have existed, or
was this just poor design?

Will

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 84  2324 PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@S1-A.ARPA>
Subject: Fuses on Solar Max 
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

I would think the fuses are to protect the power supply from being
shorted out by an errant module, bringing down the rest of the system.
Better to lose a module than the whole bird, esp with backup systems
for the most critical functions.

------------------------------

From: John McLean <mclean@NRL-CSS>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 84 14:18:35 EST
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Big Bang Source

   I agree with Nichael Cramer that if SPACE is expanding it makes no
sense to ask where the big bang occurred.  However, if SPACETIME is expanding,
it makes just as little sense to ask when it occurred.  Nevertheless, it
seems to me that dates for the big bang are given.  How can this be?
                                                                   Thanks,
                                                                   John

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 13 Apr 84 11:02 CST
From:     Nichael Cramer <cramer%ti-csl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       space%mit-mc.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
cc:       kirk.tym%office-2.arpa%csnet-relay.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  re:re:Big Bang Source

> An interesting mapping onto the surface of an expanding (pitted) balloon are
> the three spacial dimentions.  Time is the dimention at right angles to the
> surface...  I would expect to find the origin of a big bang somewhere near
> the center...
>                -- modeler of nothing

	Your second point illustrates my point exactly.  i.e. that there is no
point IN the universe from which the primordial fireball expanded; keeping
in mind the important distinction that it is the two dimensional surface
that represents the model of expanding spacetime and not the interior space
enclosed by the ballon.  (In point of fact, the point in the center of the
balloon is 'inside' the balloon only because we poor creatures are trapped 
in 3-space, just as a point inside a circle appears to 'contained' by a 
circle to a flatlander, a point of view that looks naive to us.)
	HOWEVER, and more importantly, the first point you raise is precisely
the issue that prompted the original message.  The 2-space of the surface
of the expanding balloon does NOT represent our own 3-space (with one
suppressed dimension) expanding out through time.  Rather, it (with obvious
limitations) models an expanding spacetime with TWO dimensions suppressed.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 1984 13:24-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: LDEF orbital elements

Does anyone know what orbit the Long Duration Exposure Facility was
left in?  LDEF is three stories tall; it should be easily visible.

Paul Dietz
dietz@usc-ecla

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 84 08:43 PST (Friday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Big Bangs and ceiling wax
Re: SPACE Digest V4 #166
In-reply-to: OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 13 Apr 84 03:04 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DBraunstein.ES@Xerox.ARPA

	Don't you guys ever read anything about cosmology besides what you
read on the b.board.   The past two years there have been many articles in 
scientific journals and popular science magazines (Discover, Science News,
Astronomy...) about the modified Big Bang model, the Super Inflationary
Model by Guth of Stanford SLAC.   It's purpose it to remove any violation
of casuality caused by a slowing expanding universe.  This is not the
forum to fully address this subject due to lack of blackboard space. But
remember that physics only can make better and better approximations
of what is reality and nature will always be holding the cards......tie goes to the
dealer......

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 7:25:59-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Attitude control wheels

>	Something I've been wondering about for a long time is why the
>technology of Oberth wheels has not been much used for attitude/spin
>control in space.  The idea goes like this:
>	Inside your ship, you have a flywheel spun by a small motor.
>If you start with both ship and wheel not spinning, then you can spin the
>ship by turning the wheel the other way...

Gyroscopes are actually used in a similar manner in (some) current spacecraft.
I believe the difference is that the gyros are spun up ahead of time, either
on the ground or using attitude control engines to keep the craft stable while
they are spun up.  Then the gyros are used as a solid something to push against
to stabilize or turn the spacecraft.  I don't know what the advantage of using
this method is over pure attitude jets.  Just less fuel?  Finer control?  Note
that this method does not mean that no attitude engines are needed.  The gyros
can only absorb a certain amount of delta- (aaaaagh what is the symbol for
angular momentum? p?) before they saturate and have to be "unwound" using the
engines.

Note:  The above is only second-hand knowledge gleaned from Aviation Week
etc., mainly during the Skylab reactivation and stabilization effort.  If
anyone has corrections or more details, feel free.

Burns

	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 17:23:33-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NSI's Dial a Shuttle

References:


     A reminder to those of you on the net who do not have the special radio
equipment to take advantage of the rebroadcast shuttle communications: The
National Space Institute operates a "Dial-a-Shuttle" news service 24 hours a
day during shuttle flights.  During the past couple days of confusion on the
Solar Max capture problems, it has been the best source of information I could
find on up-to-the minute events.  Dial-a-Shuttle plays information segments on
the mission and its hardware, press conferences (live), and carries *all*
spacecraft communications.  The telephone number is 900-410-6272.  Ma Bell
charges 50 cents for the first minute, 35 cents for each additional minute
you listen.  As is typical of the overall space funding situation, NSI receives
none of these funds.
     When CBS ignores shuttle flights, ABC's Jules Bergman asks his obvious
questions, and NBC doesn't ask what you want - try Dial-a-Shuttle.

  900-410-6272     (which happens to be 900-410-NASA)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 14:54:17-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!bill @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: STS 41C ground to air retransmissions
In-Reply-To: Article <915@cvl.UUCP>

> Once again, the Goddard Amateur Radio Club will be rebroadcasting the Space
> Shuttle's ground-to-air voice transmissions.  The operating schedule is as
> follows:


Is there any way that us folks without a radio might be able to hear these
rebroadcasts? Can a tape be made? 

Would one of you bright guys into ham radio suggest something please. Thanks.

Hungry for more information,

Bill Kanawyer
Dual Systems
2530 San Pablo Ave.
Berkeley Ca. 
(415) 549-3854 ext 35
{ucbvax,amd70,ihnp4,cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,zehntel}!dual!bill

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #168    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
			Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
			SMM Snare Attempt Tomorrow
		       Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
		Re: STS 41C ground to air retransmissions
		      Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 4:28:07-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccs7!ee163aca @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <2258@harpo.UUCP>

[]

	Can anyone tell me why NASA didn't have enough fuel for its MMUs.
It seems logical to have some spare nitrogen to refuel the things with, rather
than jeapordize the whole mission because they ran out of gas.  I can understand
running low on fuel for the manuvering (sp?) the shuttle, but for the backpacks?
If all they can do is move up a few hundred yards and come back, what good are
the MMUs.  Oh well, at least they got the thing down with the robot arm.

Paul van de Graaf	sdcsvax!sdccs7!ee163aca

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 14:10:39-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
In-Reply-To: Article <12@brl-vgr.ARPA>

Yes, the MMU can be refueled in orbit in 20 minutes.
There is also a spare MMU, already fueled, on board.
The reason another attempt was not made was due to
a shortage of maneuvering propellant on the shuttle itself.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 12:30:55-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SMM Snare Attempt Tomorrow

The crew of the Challenger will try tomorrow (Tuesday,
the 10th) to snare the Solar Max stallite via the
shuttle's RMS.

If they succeed, the mission will likely be extended
until Friday, in order to give the crew a full day
to execute repairs on the satellite and ground con-
trollers a full day to test it.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 14:09:22-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <6179@uiucdcs.UUCP>

The new ID is broken down as follows:
1st digit -- last number of the fiscal year (e.g. 4 for 1984)
2nd digit -- ID of launch site (1 for KSC, 2 for VAFB)
letter -- a sequence letter

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 3:24:02-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: STS 41C ground to air retransmissions
In-Reply-To: Article <426@dual.UUCP>

Amateur Radio rules prohibit broadcasting or rebroadcasting.
A blanket waiver has been granted by the FCC to cover shuttle
flights (any ham may retransmit shuttle communications if they
get NASA's permission first).  However, I am afraid that taping
them and redistributing them would be a violation.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 9:37:44-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
In-Reply-To: Article <2692@alice.UUCP> <12@brl-vgr.ARPA>

I, too, was surprised that Nelson (I cannot seem to bring myself to call him
Pinky) grabbed the solar panel at Crippen's insistence.  I was watching it live
and I was thinking out loud at the time that he would impart an off-axis torque
to SMM by so doing.  This appears to be what happened.  I would think that the
trunnion pin itself would be much closer to the center of mass and would be a
better place to grab both in terms of torque and stress considerations.  But
then I wasn't up there and it's not my place to second-guess the professionals
in space and on the ground.

At first I also thought that the low fuel remarks referred to the MMU N2
propellant but later realized that it was the silly network people who were
misleading me.  (Lynn Sherr is rapidly becoming one of my least favorite
network TV personalities.)  Of *course* they can recharge the MMU's in under
half an hour, but the OMS cannot be recharged and they still need it for a
number of things before (and including) deorbit.

I'm happy about the successful grab Terry Hart made with the RMS, but if they
could slow down SMM from the beginning, why did they REALLY need the MMU's?
Of course, we can all thank ILC Space Systems for their ultra-reliable TPAD
(trunnion pin attachment device) :-) .  Actually, it not only worked perfectly
last shuttle mission, it tested out fine in the payload bay both before and
after Nelson made his unsuccessful EVA (so I've heard).  Good old Murphy!
I can't wait for the next Aviation Week & Space Technology.
--
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #169    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
			    Re: Oberth Wheels
		      Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
		    Re: Challenger's tight fuel budget
      Amateur Radio Obiter Air to Ground Rebroadcast Frequencies???
	   Re: Lunar artillery [sic, more like rifles shooting]
		      Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
			Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
			  Re: Solar Max troubles
			      Solar Max Q/A
		      Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 15:03:04-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
In-Reply-To: Article <2692@alice.UUCP> <12@brl-vgr.ARPA>, <416@ihlts.UUCP> I don't understand why there was an expensive (and as it turn

Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1     9/27/83; site hplabs.UUCP
Message-ID: <5043@lanl-a.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 15:03:04 PST

Lines: 15

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houti.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lanl-a.UUCP
Message-ID: <5043@lanl-a.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 18:03:04 EST

ed out -
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 6

malfunctioning) docking device.  From the pictures I saw, it should have been
simple to put a sling or rope around the body of the satellite, tighten it up 
and hold on to that in order to supply the torque needed to despin.  I can't
imagine that the cladding of the satellite would be so weak that it couldn't 
handle the pressure of a wide strap of nylon webbing or something.  Is this 
just an example of expensive solutions to simple problems?

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 84 11:26:16-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Oberth Wheels
In-Reply-To: Article <304@charm.UUCP>

*

   The devices which you refer to as "Oberth Wheels" are in fact being
employed on satellites right now, going under the name of "momentum
wheels" or "reaction wheels". They are used in much the way that
you describe, as angular-momentum sinks to allow for the maneouvering
of the satellite about its three axes without the need for reaction
jets. They are also used to "soak up" the angular momentum generated
by the various torques found on orbiting satellites: gravity-gradient,
solar, atmospheric, magnetic, what-have-you. The cyclic components
of these torques are absorbed temporarily by the wheels, and are later
vancelled when the torque reverses direction. The secular component
(or DC, as opposed to AC) is absorbed until the wheel is spinning
at its rated maximum speed, at which time the momentum is dumped
by simultaneously despinning the wheel, and firing the satellites
attitude-control thrusters to provide a balancing torque. Neat, huh?
   The problem with these wheels ( as with all hardware) is that they
possess mass; thus, they may not be used on some satellites, if it
is determined that a set of thrusters with fuel supply for the
length of the mission would weigh less than the wheel system

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 4:11:08-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!homxa!osd7 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <1191@sdccs7.UUCP>, <2701@alice.UUCP>

So the MMU's fuel reserve was OK, but not the shuttle's.
What good is the shuttle then?
-- 
Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz/AT&T Bell Laboratories/201-949-1532
....ihnp4!homxa!osd7  /Crawfords Crnr. Rd., Holmdel, NJ, 07733

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 7:35:46-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Challenger's tight fuel budget
In-Reply-To: Article <1191@sdccs7.UUCP>, <2701@alice.UUCP> <161@homxa.UUCP>

>	So the MMU's fuel reserve was OK, but not the shuttle's.
>	What good is the shuttle then?
>	Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz     ihnp4!homxa!osd7

The shuttle is being expected to do a number of extraordinary things
this mission.  In the first place, there was a very massive (22100 lbs.)
satellite that had to be carried up to an altitude of 250 nautical miles.
Already this is much higher than any shuttle had been before; STS-4 only
went up to 175 nm and with no significant payload mass.  I think this
is also one of the biggest payloads the shuttle is expected to carry,
although Spacelab might have been more.

Once LDEF was deployed the shuttle had to increase apogee to 265 nm
to reach SMM's present orbital altitude.  Then all the station-keeping
done with RCS (reaction control subsystem) takes more fuel.  Not to
mention how much must be kept in reserve for the event of an astronaut
on EVA needing to be scooped up.

But this still isn't all that the OMS (orbital maneuvering subsystem) is
expected to do this mission!  Plans before launch said they would go up
to 285 nm with SMM still in the payload bay and redeploy it there.  Of
course, the OMS always has to have enough left for the deorbit burn.

I think it's fantastic that the shuttle can even make it up to 300 miles,
never mind all that maneuvering, orbit changing, and satellite carrying.
With the exception of the TPAD, I'm very impressed with the people and
the machines involved in this mission.
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 13:30:47-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!philb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Amateur Radio Obiter Air to Ground Rebroadcast Frequencies???

	So I don't have to ask again. Are there a standard set of amatuer
	radio (non-amateur???) frequencies that are used to rebroadcast
	the air (space) to ground communications? Are these same freqs.
	used for every shot???
	
						Phil Biehl
						Tektronix

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 15:45:24-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Lunar artillery [sic, more like rifles shooting]
In-Reply-To: Article <546@sri-arpa.UUCP>

<bang bang - shooting at bugs in lunar gravity>

I hate to ask this, since it seems painfully obvious.
Why wouldn't intervening mountains get in the way?
The moon is not a polished sphere.

Also, the gravity of the moon is acting as a continuous acceleration
on the bullets.  It would seem to me that IF a bullet were fired in
JUST the right path to achieve an orbit, that it would last maybe two
or three orbits (at that altitude) before it decayed and fell to ground.

Hutch <not a physics major but this is worse than counterintuitive>

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 8:13:20-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!darrelj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
In-Reply-To: Article <2692@alice.UUCP> <12@brl-vgr.ARPA> <416@ihlts.UUCP>

On Wednesday morning's news, they reported discovery of a fiberglass fiber
on the sattelite's trunion pin, and this was the cause of the inability to
dock.  They also showed some film of the astronauts rehearsing the repairs
(I had been out of the room, but rehersal became obvious when a flock of air
bubbles rolled past the camera lens).  The repair is sufficently large (at
least working inside a space suit) that they are expected to be exhausted at
the end of the day.


-- 
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdccsu3,trw-unix}!sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 9:29:04-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!brahms @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
In-Reply-To: Article <2692@alice.UUCP> <12@brl-vgr.ARPA>

[}{]
> 1) Can the MMU be re-fueld for re-use while the shuttle is in orbit?

	Yes, it can and will be.

> 2) I was surprised that Pinky grabbed on the outer edge of the solar
> cell array to abbly thrust to slow Solar Max's spin.  Didn't that
> strain the panel attachment?  It wasn't designed to do more than hold
> the panel, was it?  Was the force applied to this joint within design
> specs or was this a calculated risk.

	This option was discussed during pre-flight.  It was an option
that would be left up to the astronauts to decide.  Oh, and as you can
see, it could handle the additonal stress.  I'm not sure, however, if it
is was a design issue or not.  However, NASA being the way they are, I doubt
that they would do something that had a chance a breaking something.

			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@USC-ECLC

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 9:18:50-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!brahms @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max troubles
In-Reply-To: Article <2258@harpo.UUCP>

[}{]

> By the way, does anyone know why the astronauts cant just go out to the
> satellite and replace the defective modules without bringing it to a 
> stop?

Remember the law: For ever action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Therefore, any force applied to the satilite would cause the satlite to
start moving (rotating) in the opposite direction.  Not what you really
want to happen.  It is a lot easier to work on an object the is secured.

			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@USC-ECLC

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 84 7:29:31-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Solar Max Q/A

1) Re fuel:  My understanding was that the fuel problem was in the forward
   RCS system (i.e. the attitude jets), not the OMS (orbital maneuvering system)
   engines.  This problem was caused by all the station-keeping with Solar
   Max which was done on Sunday during the first unsucessful attempt to grab
   it.

2) Re Ground Control stabilization:  

	2.1  The Boston Globe (via wire service?) reported that Goddard had
	     actually managed to bring Solar Max to a stop between Sunday
	     and Tuesday, but that Houston requested that it be respun (at
	     about .5 the rate it originally had) because (a) that was how
 	     the astros had practiced a non-MMU grapple, and (b) the thing
	     might have been stopped with the grapple pin pointed away from
	     the direction from which the shuttle was rendezvousing.  Rotation
	     meant that the shuttle could just wait for it to come around
	     rather than wasting fuel to move around the satellite

	2.2  Someone at a shift-change news conference asked the question
	     of why they used the MMU to begin with.  The answer was (a)
	     they wanted to have several options available, and (b) with the
	     MMU, they would have had a lot more control of the craft. In
	     addition, at another time it was stated (somewhere) that the
	     ground spin-down was rather risky because they had to use
	     electromagnetic torqueing against the earth's mag. field.  This
	     required a LOT of power, and since the solar cells weren't pointed
	     properly at the sun, there was danger that Solar Max's batteries
	     would run down.  They lucked out in that the batteries lasted long
	     enough for them to both get the rotation/wobble slowed and get the
	     s-cells pointed sunward.

3.  The TPAD problem:  Again in the Globe, it was reported that Solar Max
    had a small pin holding its insulation on which has close to the trunion
    pin.  This pin could have interfered with the TPAD.

Burns Fisher


	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 14:45:03-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!smb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
In-Reply-To: Article <416@ihlts.UUCP>

Speaking of TV idiots -- to my mind the best launch coverage I've seen
from them was the one at 3:00 am.  Whoever was covering it for NBC just
*shut up* and let Mission Control and the astronauts do the talking.
That was the only launch I didn't listen to on 900-410-6272.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #170    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
			Shuttle Crew Work Schedule
			       SMM Rescued
		      Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
			Fuses and Reaction Wheels
			    Re: Oberth Wheels
		      gosh its really big isn't it.
			 New uniforms (T-shirts)
			      SMM Redeployed
		       Getting it back to the Cape
	   Re: Lunar artillery [sic, more like rifles shooting]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 9:50:51-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!wd9get @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Crew Work Schedule

Can anyone tell me what the working hours are for the shuttle crew?  Do
they work a 9 to 5 schedule (and is that UT, EST, etc.)?  I would like
this info to help me catch the down-link rebroadcasts since they aren't
transmitting during sleep periods.

						Keith Brandt
						pur-ee!wd9get

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 16:20:18-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SMM Rescued

The crew of the Challenger today successfully plucked the failing Solar
Max satellite from orbit today, using the RMS in the cargo bay.  The
satellite was placed in the bay and repairs will be conducted tomorrow
(Wednesday).  If the satellite works, it will be released on Thursday;
otherwise it will be brought back to Earth.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 16:23:24-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made

The operation with Nelson and the MMU thrust was (thought to be) necessary
to stop the spin of the satellite.  This spin was not stopped from the
ground; rather, the tumbling and wobbling was stopped.  The satelite was
still spinning when it was grabbed with the RMS.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 1984 08:35:12 EST
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: Fuses and Reaction Wheels
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

The resaon you use fuses over circuit breakers is just because fuses are
one-shot deals.  If your circuit is faulty you don't wan't it reset
inadvertantly by some glitch command.  The reason you fuse circuits is as
was stated in another message, you'd prefer to permanently take out a
single circuit rather that fail the entire satellite.

I heard an (unconfirmed) story that Solar Max's fuses blew because the gas
contained in them diffused into space resulting in a lower current rating
than the (well behaved) circuit they were in.

Regarding reaction wheels, Space Telescope will do its maneuvering using
reaction wheels and magnetic torquers.  The latter will permit the
reaction wheels to operate at low average rotation rate (there are four of
them so the torquers can despin the wheels with no net angular momentum
change) to reduce power consumption and jitter.  The reason one does not
want to use reaction jets of any kind in such a vehicle, is beacuse the
effluent produces molecular contamination which could deposit on the
telescope mirror, severely degrading performance.

-Sheldon Meth
The BDM Coorporation
(METH@ISI.ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 84 15:52:55-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Oberth Wheels

Reaction wheels are indeed widely used in spacecraft that require
three-axis stabilization. Examples include Skylab, the NOAA TIROS-N series
of polar weather satellites, and the RCA Satcom geostationary
communications satellites.  They are combined with gas thrusters or
magnetic torquing systems to allow for momentum dumping when necessary.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Mon 16 Apr 84 14:26:34-PST
From: Michael Moore <MIKE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: gosh its really big isn't it.
To: space@SU-CSLI.ARPA


-------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 84 9:46:36-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!cepu!scw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: New uniforms (T-shirts)

*<-DDT ... I though that this was fixed already, What's goin' on here.

This morning (12-Apr-84) on Paul Harvey I heard that the 41-C Crew are
now wearing T-shirts with the Logo:


	  ACE Satellite Repair
	  Pickup and Delivery


-- 
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp:	{ {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus
location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 84 14:25:09-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SMM Redeployed

Solar Max today was successfully redeployed, and all
of its systems succeeded in locking in on the sun.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 84 6:52:50-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxa!johnnyr @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Getting it back to the Cape

This may be a naive question, but I thought I'd ask, just to 
satisfy my curiosity...
 
Since they landed this morning out at Edwards instead of at the Cape, they
will be piggy-backing the shuttle on their 747. Has any thought ever been
given to refueling in CA. and flying it back under its own power? I
guess what my question really asks is... Does the shuttle have the 
capability to fly under power (well throttled down) as a normal
airplane. Is there enough control, too much power ....???
 
Probably a stupid question, I know. But just a random thought that
stuck in my head this morning.  
 
                               John Rosenberg  AT&T Technologies
                         ihnp4!ihuxa!johnnyr   Naperville Il.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 84 6:21:07-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Lunar artillery [sic, more like rifles shooting]
In-Reply-To: Article <546@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <692@shark.UUCP>

[]
Aw, come on gang!  It was only a funny story.  If your going to
read SF, you gotta learn to suspend belief once in awhile.
I thought the punch line of the story was a gas.  I had an
image of the moon-walkers diving and running all over the place
every time the shells came whizzing by.  Then, going to Congress
to ask for enough money to buy a computer to be able to predicte
the next passage of the shells was a laugher.  Loosen up,  don't
get so serious about the shell problem.  Imagine Laurel and Hardy
all dressed up in space suits, carring a large sheet of glass between
them when one of the shells goes through the glass.  Can't you
see the possibilities for humorous situations?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #171    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Moon bullets
			     Solar Max repair
		   Space Station Talk in L.A. April 28
			Re: RMS Attempt to be Made
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 8:14:25-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!zps!raymond @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Moon bullets

Maybe the lunar infantrymen were JUMPING before pulling their
triggers, thereby obtaining enough altitude at the point of injection...

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 8:29:48-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!decwrl!rhea!mother!hughes @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Solar Max repair

One of the reasons for bringing Solar Max into the shuttle bay is to 
connect it with the shuttle's on board compter and power systems.

When the repairs are completed GSFC will use the shuttle's computer link 
(presumably via TDRS) to reload the satellites memory and then to test 
various functions before releasing it.

gary

UUCP:   ...{ decvax | allegra | ucbvax }!decwrl!rhea!mother!hughes
ARPA:      hughes%mother.DEC @purdue-merlin.ARPA
reality?:  DEC, ZKO1-2/C07, 110 Spit Brook Rd, Nashua NH 03062

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 1984 18:22:49 PST
Subject: Space Station Talk in L.A. April 28
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF>
To: bboard@USC-ISIF, bboard@USC-ECL, space@MIT-MC, sf-lovers@RUTGERS
cc: katz@USC-ISIF

(For Los Angeles people)
The next lecture in the OASIS/L5 lecture series is:


	  SPACE STATION CONCEPTS

	      George Butler

	Director of Advanced Programs
	McDonnell Douglas Astronautics


Kinsey Auditorium, California Museum of Science and Industry
7:00 pm, April 28, 1984 (Saturday)


The history and the future of the concept of having a permanently manned
US space station (which President Reagan asked for in his State of the
Union address) will be discussed.

We should also be showing the mission film of the last Space Shuttle
Mission (with great scenes of MMU backpack spacewalks).

Admission is free, the meeting starts at 7:00pm in the Kinsey Auditorium
of the California Musuem of Science and Industry, across from USC and next
to the Colosseum.

(Note:  Our next scheduled speaker, Dr. Krafft Ehricke, who was to speak
	on May 19 had to cancel due to health reasons.  Instead,
	we will be having Robert Salkeld talking on "Returning
	to the Moon." on the same day, still at Rockwell International.
	I will send another notice out with details next month.)

				Alan

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 84 22:00:56-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!notes @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: RMS Attempt to be Made

One person noted that the NBC coverage of the night launch was the best he'd 
seen.  I would like to call his (and everybody's) attention to the fact that
they were not your run-of-the-mill announcers or correspondents, but the team
of "NBC News Overnight".  That was just one example of those folks doing it
right. Other examples were showing clips from foreign news agencies, including
Tass.  Just wanted to bring Linda and Bill and the show some post-mortem
credit...
						-- Allan Pratt
					...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!apratt

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Apr-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #172    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Triskaidekaphobia
			Info Wanted Re: MMU films
		 Re: How to solve NASA's budget problems
		      IMAX camera onboard Challenger
		      Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
			IRAS orbit, nautical miles
		      Re: IRAS orbit, nautical miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 84 15:45:00-EST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!acf4!kenner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Triskaidekaphobia

... this would have been STS-13 under the old numbering scheme.

------------------------------

Date: 18-Apr-84 11:04 PST
From: William Daul  OAD / TYMSHARE / McDonnell Douglas  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: Info Wanted Re: MMU films
To: SPACE-Enthusiasts@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: weeks@ames-vmsb.arpa
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2.ARPA]TYM-WBD-4I677>

Anyone know of any showings of the MMU space jets (as oppossed to space walks) 
in the San Francisco Bay area?  Thanks,  --Bill

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 84 13:43:21-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: How to solve NASA's budget problems
In-Reply-To: Article <536@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Rich Wales comments:

   As far as I can tell, there is no way to earmark such a contribution as
   being specifically for NASA.  And I don't know whether there is any
   other mechanism available for contributing directly to this or that fed-
   eral agency.  (I suspect there is not.)

I believe this is correct.  Several years ago, when the Viking Fund was
collecting money to try to keep the Viking Lander operating, they found
that it wasn't at all easy to donate the money for that purpose and only
that purpose.  I think it was finally done by a complex circumlocution
involving having the V.F. contract with NASA for a specific piece of
research.  It "happened" that the group that was keeping the Lander
running was the logical group to do this particular bit of research,
and that it was something they wanted to do anyway.  I don't vouch for
all the details, but I think that's roughly how it worked.  I believe
it was the first time anything like this had been done.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 5:16:20-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!mh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: IMAX camera onboard Challenger

According to the talk overheard via the shuttle Goddard
retransmission link, it would appear that there is
an IMAX camera onboard the shuttle.  As of the
recovery of the Solar Max Satellite, they had
"shot-up 4 rolls of IMAX film" and anticipate "shooting
another 2 rolls during tomorrows repair effort."

Does anyone know anything further about this?

klr!milo!aplvax

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 84 1:07:36-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <1191@sdccs7.UUCP>, <2701@alice.UUCP> <93@brl-vgr.ARPA>

--------------------
From: wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin )

But what
irked me was that NOBODY (advisors, newscritters, whatever) ever
mentioned refueling the MMU -- they talked about using the OTHER MMU.
--------------------
I think I was watching CNN when this was going on, and I distinctly
remember them mentioning refueling the MMU that was being used.
-- 
			Barry Margolin
			ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
			UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 84 23:22:58-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: IRAS orbit, nautical miles

The orbit used by IRAS in which the orbital plane maintains
the same angle to the sun throughout the year is a very common
one, and is the reason for the existance of satellite launching
facilities at Vandenburg.  These are called "sun synchronous" orbits,
and many satellites have used them including weather, scientific,
amateur radio, spy, earth resources, etc.  The basic idea is to
utilize the equatorial "bulge" of the earth to precess the orbit plane
so that it makes one complete revolution each year, following the
apparent motion of the sun around the earth.

The use of "nautical" miles is an anachronistic embarassment that
should have been dropped years ago. My contact at JSC says that
a lot of the software they're using in the shuttle program was taken
directly from the Apollo program and they just never updated it.

By the way, the kilometer has a nice geophysical significance to it -
the meter was originally defined as 1/10000 the distance between the
north pole and the equator. It has since been redefined (and the
earth measured more accurately) but it is still a good approximation.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 84 23:25:16-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: IRAS orbit, nautical miles
In-Reply-To: Article <2411@allegra.UUCP>

Er, make the "the KILOmeter was originally defined as 1/10000 of the
distance..."

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #173    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Getting it back to the Cape
		     Re: Getting it back to the Cape
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 84 7:18:20-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!akgua!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape
In-Reply-To: Article <474@ihuxa.UUCP>

1) The main engines cannot be reused until they are refurbished,
   a process that takes a week or two.  (Note, the countdown can
   be halted at any point up until the SRB's ignite; if it is
   halted AFTER the main engines ignite, the launch would be
   delayed for about two weeks until the ME's could be refurbished
   (basically cleaned up).)

2) There is no launch facility at Edwards, and the shuttle cannot
   take off horizontally.

3) Which do you think costs more?  A jumbo jet ride across the
   country, using commercial airline fuel, or a shuttle ride,
   consuming half a million gallons of liquids hydrogen and
   oxygen (not to mention the cost of an external tank)?

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 84 16:04:42-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!akgua!clyde!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape
In-Reply-To: Article <2717@alice.UUCP>

In addition to the cost considerations, a normal airplane is much better
suited to manoevering in the atmosphere.  It is designed to fly level,
something which the shuttle is not.  And it can abort a poor approach
and go around again.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #174    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Challenger's new launching attitude
			     Ben Bova's story
			     Trivia question
		     Re: Getting it back to the Cape
		     Re: Getting it back to the Cape
		       Re: how to grab a satellite
		     Re: Getting it back to the Cape
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 17:04:35-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Challenger's new launching attitude
In-Reply-To: Article <12075@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Launch attitide has not changed.  Tidbit: the shuttle stack turns
upside down shortly after lift off so the pilot can see the horizon
and orient himself in case of an abort.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 1984 7:47-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Ben Bova's story

I'm sure Bova knew, when he was writing the story, how physically
implausible it was.  The story was meant to be humorous.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 1984 7:49-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Trivia question

Rockets, radiators, etc. work best at high temperatures.  What
substance has the highest known melting point (at reasonable pressures)?

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 84 19:52:00-EST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape
In-Reply-To: Article <474@ihuxa.UUCP>



Nf-From: acf4!lwe3207    Apr 15 22:52:00 1984


[]

(More response.)

I didn't consider the fact that the 747 is to the Shuttle as a glider is
to an F-14: i.e., the glider has more lift.  So clearly the 747 has a lot
more appropriate lift for the lower atmosphere, and hence is more fuel-
efficient a priori than a powered shuttle.  The corollary being that if
you tried to drop a 747 at 17K-knots out of orbit, it would melt while the
wings were tearing off.  (I guess the cabin pressurization in an airliner
comes from the jet engines intake/compressors, so the passengers in said
747 would also have suffocated by that time.  But it would be amusing to
film such an event: you could ferry the parts of the 747 up into orbit,
assemble it, and then "push it backwards" until it was below orbital
velocity.  Bugs Bunny could be inside, searching madly for the airbrakes,
while robots with parachutes jumped out into the flaming void.)

I guess this will always be a tradeoff in aero vs. space craft, until the
materials technology for the skin (heat-reflective) and infrastructure
(tough but light) are so good that you can make an orbiter capable of
re-entry which also has a sufficiently good lift coefficient to be economical
for self-powered flight in the lower atmosphere.

Lars Ericson
cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 16:43:00-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape
In-Reply-To: Article <474@ihuxa.UUCP>



Nf-From: acf4!lwe3207    Apr 15 19:43:00 1984


I think the point to be made, which I don't think the person asking
the question realized, is that the Shuttle doesn't have an (or much of
an?) internal fuel tank for the main engines -- enough I guess to do
a de-orbit burn, but not enough to lift off horizontally.  Since the
thing is aerodynamic, however, I don't see why it shouldn't be able to
take off horizontally.  Clear the "rotation speed" would be rather 
high -- 275 knots?  -- but you could do it, perhaps by putting a tank
into the payload bay.  The fact that burning the engines leaves lots
of crud in them is a matter of technology, and presumably in the future,
rocket engines will be designed so that you can burn them a couple of
times in the low atmosphere before you have to wipe the gunk out.

-- Lars Ericson
  cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 84 10:58:45-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-cvax!nmtvax!hennessy @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: how to grab a satellite
In-Reply-To: Article <12110@sri-arpa.UUCP>

<>
>From:  Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL>
>
>
>	Anyone know why the following wouldn't work?  (or whether it would)
>
>	1> set MMU to be inertially stabilized
>
>	2> grab a solar panel of slowly rotating satellite
>
>	3> hold on until satellite stops
>
>	By my calculations (assuming a moment of 500 slug-feet) the satellite
>has angular momentum that would require 10 foot-pound-seconds to stop.  
>Doesn't really seem to me to be beyond the reach of normal human strength,
>even in a space suit (and he's supposed to be an amateur weight lifter).  It
>also doesn't seem likely to me that this kind of force would break off the 
>panels.

Just holding on to the satelite by a human being would not cause
the satelite to stop. Instead the astronaut and the satelite
would both come to a new equililbrium where they rotate with a
constant angular velocity. This new velocity would be VERY
difficult to calculate since the moment of inertia of the system
is extremely non-trivial. I suppose the astronaut could give the
satelite a "shove" in one direction to attempt to slow the
rotation, which would also give him/her a large rotation in the
opposite direction. To get the above calculation there must be a
object to give the angular rotation to and a source of friction.
Both happen on good ol' Earth where it could be done but not in
free fall.

Sincerely;
Greg Hennessy
..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!hennessy

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 16:45:00-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape
In-Reply-To: Article <474@ihuxa.UUCP>



Nf-From: acf4!lwe3207    Apr 15 19:45:00 1984


[<- Added RAID, same response -- sorry for duplicates.]

I think the point to be made, which I don't think the person asking
the question realized, is that the Shuttle doesn't have an (or much of
an?) internal fuel tank for the main engines -- enough I guess to do
a de-orbit burn, but not enough to lift off horizontally.  Since the
thing is aerodynamic, however, I don't see why it shouldn't be able to
take off horizontally.  Clearly the "rotation speed" would be rather 
high -- 275 knots?  -- but you could do it, perhaps by putting a tank
into the payload bay.  The fact that burning the engines leaves lots
of crud in them is a matter of technology, and presumably in the future,
rocket engines will be designed so that you can burn them a couple of
times in the low atmosphere before you have to wipe the gunk out.

-- Lars Ericson
  cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #175    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Getting it back to the Cape
			  IMAX Camera on Shuttle
		  Re: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
			    more Oberth wheels
			  more on Solar Max ACS
			    Re: Re: big bangs
			 EVA's painful on fingers
Tangerine Dream Someone was looking for TD albums.Some are available in U.S.only as imports
Klaus Schulze left Tangerine Dream for Ash Ra Tempel.recorded 2 albums,AshRA Tempel(|st) an
			  Re: Triskaidekaphobia
		   Re: EVA's painful on fingers - (nf)
		       Request info on Wash DC Area
		     Re: Nautical miles - definition
		  Re: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 9:43:50-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape
In-Reply-To: Article <11700002@acf4.UUCP>

The shuttle does not use its main engines for the deorbit
burn, a misconception you seem to hold.  It uses its
orbital maneuvering system.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 6:06:06-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!mh @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: IMAX Camera on Shuttle

This got lost when our netmail system went on vacation:

According to the talk overheard via the shuttle Goddard
retransmission link, it would appear that there is
an IMAX camera onboard the shuttle.  As of the
recovery of the Solar Max Satellite, they had
"shot-up 4 rolls of IMAX film" and anticipate "shooting
another 2 rolls during tomorrows repair effort."
Another roll of IMAX film was used during the repair of the
Solar Max and the sixth roll was going to be used to shoot
"earth scenes".  It appears that there was a ground crew
at Mission Control and that they moved to Kennedy to
film the landing.  Unless they had a back-up unit at
Edwards...

...aplvax!milo!klr

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 14:12:39-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!jdd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
In-Reply-To: Article <12153@sri-arpa.UUCP>

    From: AC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
    Newsgroups: net.space
    Subject: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
    Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 08:52:33 EST

    From:  Anthony J. Courtemanche <AC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>

       But the way it is now, we may run out of fuel and have to end the
       mission as an 80% failure, it's gonna be close as I type this on
       Monday evening.

         ...The failure was (as I understand it) only with the device
    that was to attach with the pin on the Solar Max.  To me that
    indicates only that a small piece of machinery isn't up to par.

Yes, well, but the fact that they'd found only one "small" problem \so far/
doesn't mean they mightn't have found fifty or sixty more later.  Being able
to get close to a satellite may still a long ways from being able to repair
one.

Cheers,
John ("Space Cadet") DeTreville
Bell Labs, Murray Hill

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 84 14:09:56-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!knutsen @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: more Oberth wheels

	As a matter of fact, if memory serves, one of the components
replaced on Solar Max was an Oberth-style atitude control system... 

Andrew <knutsen@sri-unix>

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 84 15:11:54-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!knutsen @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: more on Solar Max ACS

a013 12-Apr-84  07:34
AM-SHUTTLE-BLACKBOX
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - The balky, 550-pound black box that the
Challenger astronauts replaced on the satellite Solar Max Wednesday
does a crucial job. It adjusts the position of the $235 million
observatory so it can point its telescopes and scientific instruments
with incredible precision as it speeds through space at more than
17,000 miles an hour.
    The black box, called the attitude control module, is one of the
most advanced control systems ever built. It failed in 1980 when
three fuses, each less than half an inch long, blew.
    The astronauts, Dr. George D. Nelson and Dr. James D. van Hoften,
replaced the entire attitude control unit in a historic repair
mission and fixed another system so that the solar observatory can
resume its job of photographing and analyzing the mysterious storms
and flares that erupt on the surface of the Sun.
    ''Not only are these attitude controls the most sophisticated of
their kind, but they are the most important system on the
spacecraft,'' said Dr. Stephen P. Maran, a scientist at the Goddard
Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
    ''Control is critical for all satellites,'' he added. ''They have to
have it to keep from tumbling. In addition, solar panels have to be
pointed at the Sun or you lose power.'' With Solar Max the job is
even more demanding because the satellite has to be able to track
solar flares that flash across the surface of the Sun, 93 million
miles away.
    Many commercial satellites are maneuvered by the firing of jet
thrusters. But the solar observatory needs control that is hundreds
of times more accurate.
    According to the scientists at Goddard who designed the Solar Max,
the large black box does the job by using electric motors to spin
precision metal wheels. These look like large gyroscopes. There are
three of them, each about 10 inches in diameter, one for each axis of
desired rotation about the 13-foot-tall solar satellite.
    Although they look like gyroscopes, the wheels are different in a
critical way. A gyroscope spins steadily and imparts stability to
whatever it is attached. Ships and planes often have gyroscopes on
board to help keep them steady.
    But the wheels on Solar Max spin only when the position of the
satellite needs to be changed. They exert a precise power that is
gently and accurately applied.
    ''The spacecraft sends out commands to those reaction wheels, which
then spins them up or down,'' explained Dr. Frank J. Cepollina, the
head of satellite servicing at Goddard. ''In the process, they impart
momentum or take it away. And the spacecraft is basically rotated
over and steered and held precisely on the target it's supposed to be
on.''
    In 1980, however, an unexpected glitch came up when the fuses of the
system blew. The problem, according to Goddard scientists, lay in a
design flaw.
    The fuses are big enough to carry a certain amount of electric
current. But as the Solar Max was being designed, someone increased
the circuitry and thus the electrical load in the attitude control
without increasing the size of the fuses. ''Somebody looked and
thought the fuses were big enough but they weren't,'' said Maran.
    Ironically, the designers had originally considered heavier fuses,
not because of expected power flow but because the fuses are so tiny
that designers feared they could easily be damaged during
installation. In the end, the tiny fuses were used anyway.
    After the reaction wheels came to a grinding halt in 1980, flight
controllers switched to a backup system that used magnetic torquers,
which are basically short bars that can be magnetized so that they
interact with the Earth's magnetic field to move the satellite very
slowly. These magnetic bars were the heros earlier this week when
they were able to stabilize the satellite after a spacewalking
astronaut accidently put the solar observatory into a violent tumble.
    According to Cepollina, ''The torque bars lock on the Earth's
magnetic field and progressively, as we go through the orbit, we
apply current to those torque bars and they torque against the
Earth's magnetic field to allow us to point the spacecraft.''
    Also in the black box that was replaced Wednesday were precision
star trackers, tiny telescopes that help the satellite find its
position in space. ''They look out and see the stars,'' said
Cepollina. ''By comparing the stars they should be looking at versus
the stars they are actually seeing, they in effect say 'Ahhaaa, this
spacecraft is looking here and it should be looking there.''
    
nyt-04-12-84 1025est

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 84 18:15:00-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!liberte @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: big bangs
In-Reply-To: Article <12126@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Some possibilities:

More big bangs before and after our big bang.
More big bangs outside of our big bang, in outer big bang space.
Little big bangs inside our big bang - black holes?
BIG big bangs that include our big bang as one of several little big bangs.

Daniel LaLiberte,  U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{moderation in all things - including moderation}

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 15:15:00-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!jackson @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: EVA's painful on fingers

I read in some paper that when the astronauts execute an EVA, that their
fingers turn black and blue.  It also said quoted the astronauts as saying
that when they came back into the shuttle after an EVA that their fingers
felt like they had been beaten with a hammer.

Why does this happen?  I would think the pressurization of their suits
would keep this from happening.  Can anybody explain why EVA's are so
painful on the fingers?



Dan Jackson

..pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!jackson

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 22:57:45-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!psuvax!psuvm%d3u @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Tangerine Dream Someone was looking for TD albums.Some are available in U.S.only as imports

Electronic Meditation  1970 C.Schnitzler,Klaus Schulze,Edgar Froese
     TD,s first LP psychedelis,intense jamming,dirges,energy,classicalia,rock!
Shifts moods violently sometimes.Perhaps their best.Not easy listening
Alpha Centauri/Atem  reissue of these two LPs as double set.Not as intense,but
    still classical space sounds like a composition project  AC sounds like SF
soundtrack.Atem sounds like classical musicians went crazy.rec early 70,s

Zeit c.73 largo in four movements  meditative shifting sounds
 thes are the early period,music for enthusiasts.EM is about a journey through
a burning brain.the others are space explorations.

 midperiod includes Pheadra(74),Rubicon(75),Ricochet(live75),Stratosfear(77),
Encore(US tour77),Sorcerer     These have Mike Oldfield influence,esp Rubicon.
lotsa sequencer riffs. More mainstream than earlier LPs,but still not usual for
even progressive rock.
  Cyclone(78)  this even has lyrics and rock drumming ,recomended for prog rock
Force Majeur (79) good mix of earlier with newer directions.Good for intro toTD
 Tangram(80?) has schmaltzy sections,getting ready for next phase.
 Thief soundtrack,Exit these are even more "commercial"but still too out for so
me "progressive" tastes.
White Eagle  Clear,distinct sounds replace rolling magestic scapes
Logos live,Hyperborea their last two lps

compilation 3record setbox has a side of previously unreleased material
Also look for lps by Schulze,Froese,Schnitzler,Baumann

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 84 23:13:16-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!psuvax!psuvm%d3u @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Klaus Schulze left Tangerine Dream for Ash Ra Tempel.recorded 2 albums,AshRA Tempel(|st) an

d Join Inn.Plays drums and synthisizer  1971&1973
  |970 TD"s Electronic Meditation wild mood changes
   Early lps are usually less prominantly rhythmic,esp Cyborg and Picture Music
 Others:Blackdance,Irrlicht,Moondawn(has intense heavy rock section)
   Timewind   self explanatory
   these lps exemplify free "floating" music,like early TD
  Body Love I&II  I is called Moogetique in US    lotsa sequencer
  X,Live     excellent lps  Arthur Brown is on live
 Dig It commercial for KS
 Trancefer is good

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 12:45:47-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: sun!qubix!lab @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Triskaidekaphobia
In-Reply-To: Article <2712@alice.UUCP> <11700001@acf4.UUCP>

Said July 13 birthday occurs on FRIDAY the 13th this year...
-- 
				The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
				{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 84 4:07:53-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: EVA's painful on fingers - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <6800004@uiuccsb.UUCP>

It's because they have to do maneuvers requiring great
dexterity inside heavy, inflexible (though improved)
gloves.  They likened the job to threading a needle
wearing boxing gloves.  All the rubbing of their fingers
in the gloves is irritating.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 84 6:35:15-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Request info on Wash DC Area

I will be visiting Washington D.C. this summer and I would like to visit
any interesting sites near this area.  I saw Goddard Spaceflight Center
on the map, and the city of Langley (but no little box for a NASA center).
I am also interested in the Patuxent Naval Air Test Center, but I don't
know if it's open to visitors or if there's anything to see there.
Any other suggestions?  Assume I already know about the obvious places
like the Air & Space Museum.
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 13:11:26-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!dciem!ntt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Nautical miles - definition
In-Reply-To: Article <12155@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <2411@allegra.UUCP>, <24122@allegra.UUCP>

David Smith (David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa) notes:
	...  Given the coordinates of origin and destination, spherical
	trigonometry can be used to produce the arc length between them,
	expressed in angular measure (vertex of angle at center of earth).
	This arc is historically measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds.
	The nautical mile is defined to be one arc-minute over the surface of
	the earth.  I will tiptoe quietly away from the question of how the
	earth's oblateness is handled.

Phil Karn (allegra!karn) adds:
	By the way, the kilometer has a nice geophysical significance to it -
	[it] was originally defined as 1/10000 the distance between the
	north pole and the equator.*  It has since been redefined** (and the
	earth measured more accurately) but it is still a good approximation.

*Via Paris.  **Three times! (artifact, wavelength of light, speed of light)

Well, in at least some countries, the nautical mile has also been redefined.
According to a publication I have from the Canadian Standards Association,
the nautical mile is now defined as <flourish of trumpets>: 1852 meters.*

*Actually they spell it metres, but let's not get into that.

Mark Brader

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 84 10:53:06-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
In-Reply-To: Article <12153@sri-arpa.UUCP>

*

I disagree with the optimistic opinion expressed a while ago, that
the recent shuttle mission would have been a great success even if the
solar maximum satellite hadn't been able to be captured or repaired.
While it is true that many interesting things were demonstrated during this
mission (high apogee orbits, release of the heavy LDEF), the
repair of the solar max. satellite was the first attempt NASA has made
to back up one of the claims which were used to justify the expense
of the shuttle: that it would make launching satellites less espensive
in the long run, by providing the ability to retreive damaged
ones, and either repair them or return them to earth. Thus, 
satellites could be designed with less redundant systems,
dropping their cost and weight; also, insurance premiums on launches
could drop, as a satellite which failed on orbit could be returned
to earth for repair at a fraction of its original cost, and hence
insurance companies would spend less on such satellites, and hence could 
charge less in the way of premiums.
   The current shuttle mission cost in the range of $20M to $30M,
I beleive. That'd be a small price to pay for the repair of the
solar max. satellite (the actual cost was higher, as $50M or so of hardware
had to be provided for the mission). If the attempt failed, though,
NASA'd have (a) a still-broken solar observatory, and (b) an extra
$80M missing from it's 1984 operating budget: nothing for something!
They'd then have to consider sending up yet >another< repair mission,
for another $20-30M, which woud have a similar chance of failure to
that of the first mission. They'd likely not chance it, for fear of the
bad press if the >second< mission failed as well (the press can be
awfully fickle). The scenario in which the repairs failed utterly
would be a very bad one: the shuttle would have been proven
>un<-reliable in its satellite-repair role., and a lot of the economic 
justification for the shuttle would evaporate.

   Of course, this is all academic now, as the repairs to
the errant satellite were carried out in fine fashion, hurrah!
Now rescue missions for the palapa and westar satellites are being 
considered; perhaps insurance rates >will< go down for launches in the near
future, rather than up. We should realize that the success of the
recent shuttle mission was rather a momentous thing,
and be glad (especially seeing how close it come to failure).
-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Apr-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #176    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
			  Re: IMAX camera - (nf)
		  Re: Shuttle Main Engine stats request
		    Shuttle Main Engine stats request
			     Re: IMAX camera
		 Re: Challenger's new launching attitude
		       Re: Getting back to the Cape
		  The "grabbing onto Solar Max" Problem
			   Re: Trivia Question
			    Re: Re: big bangs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 84 1:18:44-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!bsmith @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: IMAX camera - (nf)

#N:zehntel:2400001:000:162
zehntel!bsmith    Apr 18 00:39:00 1984

Isn't IMAX the wide screen process used in filming 'Hail Columbia'
(The Smithsonian movie about the shuttle)?  If so, could that mean we may soon
see a sequel?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 16:45:00-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Main Engine stats request
In-Reply-To: Article <11700005@acf4.UUCP>

Nf-From: acf4!lwe3207    Apr 17 19:45:00 1984


[]

Oops...for "RMS" read "OMS".  ("Orbital Maneuvering System" vs.
"Cherry Picker".)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 84 16:43:00-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Main Engine stats request

Nf-From: acf4!lwe3207    Apr 17 19:43:00 1984


[]

Someone noted that the Shuttle doesn't use its main engines for
de-orbit burn.  I thought it would because I thought the RMS was
used primarily for direction-changing.  Which is used for "station-
keeping", i.e., in-orbit altitude changes?  How much fuel is actually
on-board for the main engines, and what does that translate to in
full-power burn time (or some other useful metric)?  What percentage
do the main engines contribute to the thrust required to achieve
orbit?  (I assumed that the solid rockets provided the majority.)

Someone told me that the Shuttle can't fly level, and that it doesn't
have enough lift to take off horizontally, even if it had the necessary
thrust.  Is this true?  If not, what are the actual "back-of-the-envelope"
estimates for the amount of main engine fuel required for the Shuttle
to take off horizontally under its own power?  Does it "break even"?:
i.e., would the poundage of fuel required to make it take off make
it too heavy to take off?

Just curious,

Lars Ericson
..cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 84 9:09:03-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rick @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: IMAX camera
In-Reply-To: Article <1418@zehntel.UUCP>

I saw Hail Columbia (for the nth time) with some friends at the
Air and Space Museum last week. This time, there was a little "promo"
before the film that said in essence "look for more IMAX footage
of the columbia in space 'coming soon'".

I'm not sure what the exact wording was, but it definaitely said
coming soon.

---rick

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 84 20:04:34-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Challenger's new launching attitude
In-Reply-To: Article <12075@sri-arpa.UUCP> <205@ames-lm.UUCP>

     The many references to the erroneous Boston Globe photo of the Challenger's
recent liftoff seem to be missing an important point.  If the thrusting force
of a rocket is to impart translational acceleration (and not angular acceler-
ation) to the vehicle, then it must thrust through its center of mass.
     Close inspection of the aft region of the space shuttle orbiter will show
that the main engines' neutral position points their thrust vector *below* the
plane of the orbiter's wings, as well as in the orbiter's forward direction.
This is necessary because the combined orbiter/external tank assembly has a
center of mass more nearly inside the tank than the orbiter.  (ET take-off
weight is something like 1 million pounds, whereas the orbiter's is around
250,000 pounds).  The main engines must gimbel during the ascent to keep
the thrust vector constantly pointing through the orbiter/ET center of mass;
remember that the ET mass is constantly changing due to fuel expenditure during
the ascent.
     The bottom line is that the orbiter *must* be below the tank during liftoff
so that the combined system accelerates upward and downrange.  Any configuration
with the orbiter above the tank could never produce thrust in the direction
of the local vertical (which, after all, is where the shuttle is designed to
go.)  Including the effects of SRB thrust direction (and aerodynamic forces)
will complicate the discussion for the first two minutes of flight, but
essentially produce comparable reasoning.

					      Karl Stapelfeldt
					      Princeton U. (and NASA ROTC)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 84 5:29:06-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!decwrl!rhea!raven1!bluejay @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting back to the Cape

On getting the shuttle back to the cape -

How about putting a fuel tank in the cargo bay? Then you could blast 
your way back to the Cape (of course, the wear & tear on the main 
engines may make this impractical). And I wouldn't want to be behind 
it in my Piper waiting for takeoff ("Caution wake turbulence" indeed :-) )


Winging my way across the net from	...decvax!decwrl!rhea!raven1!Bluejay

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 84 6:45:48-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: The "grabbing onto Solar Max" Problem

1)
Several previous notes have talked about whether a person would be strong
enough to stop Solar Max's rotation.  Here is a point that no one seems to have
mentioned:  Assuming that Pinky gets himself beside the solar panel at 0
relative velocity, then hangs on an shuts off his MMU jets, his grip/arms/etc
would have to supply a certain amount of centripital force to keep him from
flying out at a tangent to the spinning spacecraft.  The amount of force
depends on the rotation rate, the radius of the spin, and the mass of
Pinky/MMU.  I don't know how much that amounts to, but since he was able
to rendezvous with the panel, we have to assume that force is less than or
equal to the force that his jets can give, which is only a few kg.  (I think
I heard around one pound per jet).  Now suppose while he is hanging on, he
cranks up his jets to produce force in the same direction (tangential).  The
jet's force simply adds to the centripital force, with the result being
2*(a few kg), certainly within range of even a weak person's muscles.  Thus,
I don't think that an astronaut's strength has anything to do with the problem.

2)
>Why not just hold on and use attitude hold?
>>It would come to some difficult-to-predict equilibrium, not stopped

Sure it would if he had no propulsion, but he does! I contend that if he could
hold on long enough, AND he had enough fuel, AND he could exert force on the
solar panels in all directions to counter all the various precession movements
the thing might make, that he could stop it.  Undoubtedly, though, one of the
various conditions above could not be met, and thus the wobble.  Thank heaven
for magnetic torqueing and clever ground controllers!

Burns

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 1984 2006 PST
From: Doug Freyburger <DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Trivia Question
To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc
Reply-To: DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA

        It stricks me that diamond has the highest melting point.  There are
chemistry problems with it for rockets, though.  There is a metal, Hafnium I
think, that's up in pretty high range, too.
        Doug
------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 84 9:13:30-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!esj @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: big bangs
In-Reply-To: Article <12126@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Just as an aside, Hoyle was the last diehard proponent of the
Steady-State Theory (matter being created continuously from
nothing/virtual pairs/whatever). Narlikar is a disciple of Hoyle.

-- 

"Don't you ever get lonely up here, Talby?"

ihnp4!ihuxl!esj

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Apr-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #177    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Orbital plane change
			   nautical miles again
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #175
			     Re NASA funding
		       Re: Getting back to the Cape
		      Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, 23 April 1984 12:18:43 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@mit-mc.arpa>
cc: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Re: Orbital plane change
Message-ID: <1984.4.23.15.47.55.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

In my original message about using aerodynamic lift for orbital plane
changes, I neglected an important fact.  If L/D is 4, then you get
four times the effective thrust for an equivalent rate of fuel expenditure.
But this does not mean that the fuel requirement is one-quarter what it
would have been.  Rather, it means that for equivalent delta-V, the required
mass ratio is the fourth root of what it would have been.  This follows from
the fact that deltaV = Vexhaust * ln(mass ratio).

Let's take the problem of transferring between the orbits of two space
stations, each with orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees (latitude of
Cape Canaveral), but launched 12 hours apart, so that the tug has to make a
57 degree plane change.  As I recall, that came out to about a 16,400 mph
delta-V.  And let's be old fashioned and use chemical rockets.

The specific impulse of hydrogen-oxygen rockets is often listed as 425
"seconds."  This is 425 seconds of kilogram-force per kilogram of propellant.
Make that 425 * 9.8 = 4165 newton-seconds per kilogram.

Use the formula of f = ma = m dv/dt, and consider that instead of
accelerating a finite block of exhaust over some time, we kick out an
infinitesimal of mass at instantaneous exhaust velocity.  This changes the
force formula to f = Ve dm/dt.  Combine this with 4165 n-s/kg, and we get
Ve = 4165 meters per second, or 9319 mph.

If we want to get that 16400 mph with pure propulsion, then the mass ratio
must be exp(16400/9319) = 5.81.  Using the L/D=4 maneuver, the mass ratio
must be 5.81**(1/4), or 1.55.  The aerodynamic plane change cuts the
required propellant by a factor of 8.7.

This analysis ignores other factors, such as:
	mass of wings
	reduced mass of tanks
	fuel to lower and raise perigee
	fuel and structure that would have been required to put 8.7 times
		the propellant into orbit (either from the earth or the moon)

					-- David Smith

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 23 April 1984 12:33:43 EST
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: nautical miles again
Message-ID: <1984.4.23.17.21.1.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

As I noted, historical use of the nautical mile is based on historical use
of degrees, minutes, and seconds to measure angles.  Maybe we could get rid
of nautical miles by forcing everyone to measure angles in grads (right
angle = 100 grad).  On the surface of the earth, 1 grad = 100 km.

But I'm not holding my breath.

			David Smith

P.S.  It seems to me that the most natural angular measure for public use
would be the "piradian," defined as 1 piradian = pi radians.  On the surface
of the earth, 1 millipiradian = 20 km.

			DRS

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 84 13:32:20 PST (Monday)
From: Cherry.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #175
In-reply-to: OTA's message of 22 Apr 84 03:03 PST
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Cherry.es@XEROX.ARPA

re: Tangerine Dream Albums

There is a boxed set of 3 or 4 (I can't remember which) tangerine albums
released on the Virgin label and has catalog number VBOX2 (or maybe
VBOX3) {VBOX1 is the Mike Oldfield boxed set of 4 albums}.  It is an
import only album and is usually available through record stores which
have a GOOD selection of imports.  I have seen this set in the LA area
and the Denver area.

Good Luck
Bob

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 84 8:14:00-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!emjej @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re NASA funding

It has long been my opinion that the way to fund a lunar colony is
to go to the Enormous State University Alumni Association and tell
them how awesome football can be in 1/6 gee... :-` (half serious?)

						James Jones

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 6:35:18-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!ralph @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting back to the Cape
In-Reply-To: Article <7182@decwrl.UUCP>

Well, this is an interesting concept, but I don't think it will fly
(pun intended, of course). The shuttle is a veritable flying brick,
and you can't carry enough fuel onboard to make it fly from point A
to point B like a conventional airplane.

				Ralph Keyser
				AT&T - CP
				inuxc!ralph

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 84 18:59:36-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
In-Reply-To: Article <1191@sdccs7.UUCP>

There was plenty of fuel for the MMU's.  It was (is)
the shuttle that was (is) running out of propellent.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Apr-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #178    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
			       Re: spinoffs
		  Re: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success
		Re: The "grabbing onto Solar Max" Problem
				 BIG BANG
			   Re: Trivia Question
	       Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International
			  What engines are what.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 19:49:45-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocse!dls @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: spinoffs

I believe that you are making some incorrect points about the nature of
research in Japan. MITI does NOT sponsor pure research or straight
development, but hews to an intermediate zone of high payoff, high
potential work some where in the middle, such as the construction of
supercomputers. In fact, MITI programs usually have built on basic
research done in Britain and the US.

I agree that NASA should not be justified via spinoffs.  NASA's goal
should be the exploration and development of space, not the production of
frying pans. Unfortunately, NASA's goals are politically determined,
rather than guided by a rational, step by step progess toward the
commercial use of space. The construction of a space station is a welcome
turn toward a more measured, results oriented program as opposed to one
with an emphasis on "firsts" and "spectaculars."

We have an entire agency in this country for funding basic reseach(NSF)
with a budget of over one billion dollars.  What america needs is the
technology base to permit industry to exploit the possibilities present in
space exploration. NASA is a techonology oriented agency, and is ideally
suited to providing this base.

Giving money to many small, high-tech firms will result in much
duplication of effort and dilution of effect.  The govenment is ill-suited
to the task of deciding which firms to fund in any case.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 84 8:36:23-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!astrovax!elt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max Mission Failure/Success

With an operation as large the Shuttle program and with the complexity and
arbitrary nature of modern accounting systems, it is almost impossible to
say what the "true" cost of a Shuttle mission is in any meaningful sense.
You can bet it is a hell of a lot more than they claim when they're trying
to make it sound like a good deal though.  They even admit that they are
not amortizing the development costs which could well far exceed the other
expenses at this point.

From a scientific point of view, the Shuttle could probably repair every
scientific satellite in the sky for free, and it would not make up for the
damage its cost over runs did to scientific programs during the 70's.

Ed
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 5:29:36-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!russ @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The "grabbing onto Solar Max" Problem

My understanding, according to AvWeek articles, is that the MMU has only
an attitude-hold mode, not an inertial position hold mode.  The
attitude-hold mode was critical for the dock-and-halt maneuver since the
docking point was relatively near the man-sattelite center of gravity.  At
that position, nearly all motion is rotational, rather than translational.

...Russ Schnapp

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 84 08:30 PST (Tuesday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject:BIG BANG
Re: SPACE Digest V4 #175
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA

	With regards to the on going discussions on BIG BANGS, anybody
really interested should look at this months Scientific American, there is
an excellent article on the Inflationary model of the universe, by the
originator of the theory, Guth.  It provides some interesting insights on the
origin of the observable universe, and hints at the possibility that the
observable universe is only a fraction of the whole universe!!!!!!!.

					David (Eyes to the Sky)
					Braunstein

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 1984 8:27-PST
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: doug@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: Re: Trivia Question

I've heard the highest melting material is hafnium carbide, with a
melting point of 4500 C (7100 F).

Paul Dietz (dietz@usc-ecla)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 84 10:54:18-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!tekchips!wm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International
In-Reply-To: Article <1237@ucf-cs.UUCP>

Well, shouldn't that be Orlando Intergalactic Airport, then?

			Wm Leler    503/627-5151
			wm.Tektronix@csnet-relay
		{ucbvax|allegra|decvax|ihnp4}!tektronix!wm

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 84 6:57:48-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: What engines are what.

NO!  There is absolutely no fuel left on board for the SSMEs (Space Shuttle
Main Engines) after the ET (External Tank) drops.  The SSMEs are not started
again until the next launch.  As a sanity check on this assertion, think of
what you would have to do to save any reasonable quantity of liquid H2 and
liquid O2.  (Insulation, high pressure tanks, etc etc).  Also think of how
little energy is actually required to start the reentry process as compared
to the amount required to get up into orbit to begin with.  Using the SSMEs
for deorbit does not make sense!

Here are the major engines on the shuttle and their acronyms (in order of 
power):

	SRBs  (Solid Rocket Boosters) - millions of pounds thrust.  Used only
		during first (1.5?) minutes after launch, then dropped off and
		recovered.

	SSME  (Space Shuttle Main Engines) - 10**5s of pounds thrust.  Used
		from launch until just before orbital insertion.  Draws fuel
		from ET (external tank) which is dropped just after the SSMEs
		stop.  Not used again until the next launch.

	OMS  (Orbital Maneuvering System) - 10**3s of pounds (?) thrust.  Used
		to insert the shuttle into a reasonable orbit after the SSMEs
		stop.  (OMS-1 and OMS-2 [OMS-1 was omitted during the last
		mission, because of the unusual trajectory/burn time planned
		for the SSMEs-required for the unusually high orbit])  Also
		used for orbital changes during the mission (e.g. rendezvous
		etc.), AND FOR DEORBIT BURN (retrofire for us old-timers).

	RCS  (Reaction Control System) (isn't every rocket?). - Small thrust.
		Used to change or maintain orbiter attitude while on orbit.
		Also can be used to make small orbital corrections for
		station-keeping or final phases of rendezvous.  Also used
		during the early phases of reentry for attitude control in
		various combinations with the control surfaces depending on
		the thickness of the atmosphere.

	RMS  (Remote manipulator system).  The "robot arm".  Not an engine.

Burns (picky picky) Fisher

<Is this coming close to being a flame?  Sorry...>

	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Apr-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #179    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
			   Why are SSMEs on SS?
		       Re: SPACE Digest V4 #178    
			   Shuttle landings   
			       Re: Big Bang
		     Re: Request info on Wash DC Area
	       Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International
			Re: What engines are what.
			       Re: spinoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 1984 09:55-EST
Subject: Why are SSMEs on SS?
From: MHARRIS@BBNF
To: Space@MIT-MC
Cc: MHarris@BBNF
Message-ID: <[BBNF]25-Apr-84 09:55:22.MHARRIS>

So it's probably obvious, but not to me:  if the Shuttle Main Engines are
used only with the external tank, why aren't they //mounted\\ on the tank?

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 1984 09:42-PST
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #178    
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]25-Apr-84 09:42:06.WARD>
		
This issue contains two items that I can not let by without some
comment.

To ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocse!dls @ Ucb-Vax: Re: spinnoffs

Of course NASA can not be justified on spinnoffs alone.  This is
just one of the reasons for a vigorous space program.  The
argument centered on the questions of how quickly the space
program accelerated the development of these technologies and its
cost effectiveness.  Your message was a good statement of another
reason for a strong space program; however, you should not
underestimate the value of "firsts" and "spectaculars".

To ihnp4!astrovax!elt @ Ucb-Vax: Re: Solar Max Mission
Failure/Success

It is unfortunate that people who attempt to develop a reasonable
scientific view of the natural universe so often loose sight of
humanity's interaction with it.  It is out write silly to
maintain that shuttle cost over runs did any damage to scientific
programs in the 70's.

The causes were (and are) political.  The supporters of
scientific research were not strong enough to defend and extend
the R&D parts of the budget.  How much of the "cost over runs"
were because NASA used the lowest estimate in order to get by
short-sighted congressmen and presidents?  (For that matter, how
much of the military aspects of shuttle where paid for my the
military?  Probably not much.  It was a big win for them to have
NASA pay for it).  How many science projects died in committee
because some other lobby got to the congressman first?  The
scientific community can not blame the shuttle for its own
failures.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 84  1726 PST
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Shuttle landings   
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n503  2154  24 Apr 84
BC-SHUTTLE-04-25
    By William Hines
     (c) 1984 Chicago Sun-Times (Independent Press Service)
    WASHINGTON - If planners at Mission Control in Houston have their
way, there will be no more space shuttle landings at NASA's Florida
launching base until next winter at the earliest.
     Four reasons - including Florida's notoriously fickle weather -
were cited in a memo, now making its way up through the bureaucracy,
that proposes ending the next five or six shuttle flights at Edwards
Air Force Base, in the California desert.
     This is where the shuttle Challenger landed April 12 after mission
commander Robert L. Crippen got a last-minute orbital waveoff due to
rapidly deteriorating weather at Cape Kennedy. The Houston planners
have proposed ''to baseline Edwards AFB as the nominal end of mission
landing site for flights 41-D through 51-B,'' according to the memo.
     The next flight after 51-B is now scheduled for launching Dec. 22,
using the shuttle Discovery, which will make its maiden trip into
orbit in June.
     A desire to improve weather forecast capabilities, to improve the
shuttle's landing ability under low-visibility conditions, to
demonstrate the craft's landing in a crosswind and ''to correct
nosewheel steering deficiencies'' were reasons given for the proposal.
     Crippen was taken by surprise at a televised press conference when
asked about the change of landing site. He said he knew of planners'
concerns over the Florida weather, but added, ''I am not aware of any
nosewheel steering deficiencies.''
    Crippen, the most experienced pilot in the space shuttle program
(with three flights out of a total of 11 to his credit) also said he
did not see how demonstrating fully automatic landing capability
would help solve problems of sudden changes in the Florida weather.
     Only one shuttle flight has actually touched down at the $27.3
million, three-mile airstrip that was built especially to reduce the
expense and turnaround time involved when Florida-launched missions
end in California.
     The 2,500-mile piggyback return of a space shuttle on top of a
specially rigged Boeing 747 jumbo jet costs several hundred thousand
dollars and takes roughly five days to prepare for and carry out.
     END
    

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 84 8:27:13-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!linus!jgb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Big Bang

>       Here is an interesting question posed by a friend. It is believed
>that we live in an expanding universe that was created from an very small
>very dense and very hot 'point' that let go around 20 billion years ago.
>There are two outcomes of this. One being that this event was a one time
>thing and the universe is open. That is that it will keep expanding until
>entropy sets in and the stars die out and that is the end of it. The other
>theory is that the universe is an oscillating one. That is it expands, and
>after some time it contracts again into that 'point' and the big bang starts
>over again with a new universe with new phyisical laws and constants.

>      I tend to subscribe to the latter theory since the contraction of
>the universe into a primordal 'point' that goes off again makes some
>sense. If the universe is a one time occurance, then one can say that
>perhaps the first line in the bible explains it all .... In the beginning
>there was light ! ......

>                                                harpo!jrl


harpo!jrl is entitled to this opinion, but I can't help noticing the
absurdity of this reasoning.  Since we haven't sufficient information about
the density of the universe, the only valid, scientific statement we can
make is that we don't yet know which theory gives a more accurate
description of the universe.  A scientist doesn't "subscribe" to a theory
because he likes its philosophical consequences.  In this case harpo!jrl
seems to favor the perpetual contraction theory merely because the
alternative theory resembles too much the account given in the bible.

As a point of information, the first line of the Bible reads:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

-- 
					Jonathan G. Bressel

ARPA:	linus!jgb@mitre-bedford
UUCP:	...{decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!jgb

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 84 16:20:57-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!mcnc!philabs!cubsvax!rocky2!cmcl2!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Request info on Wash DC Area

[]

> I found Goddard Space Flight Center and the city of Langley
> but no little red box for a NASA Center

There's a good reason for the lack of a red box on Langley, Virginia.
Langley, VA is the home of the CIA, not Langley Research Center.

Langley Research Center is in Hampton, VA (near Norfolk and Newport News).
The Research Center is co-located with Langley Air Force Base, which is
easier to find on most maps.

Meanwhile back in DC:
NASA Headquarters are across the street from the National Air & Space Museum.

	Doug Davey (ex-NASA Langley employee)
	Bell Communications Research
	Piscataway, NJ

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 84 18:55:35-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International
In-Reply-To: Article <1237@ucf-cs.UUCP>

As an interesting aside:  If the shuttle were not able to
land at KSC after completing its deorbit burn (for such
a catastrophe as an accident on the runway (weather and
chase planes taking off and landing) leaving debris that
would not be cleared), it would land at none other than
Orlando International Airport.  As a matter of fact, the
shuttle can land at any airport with a runway of 15,000
feet or more.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 84 19:36:52-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!mat @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: What engines are what.
In-Reply-To: Article <7252@decwrl.UUCP>

I believe that the SRB's each generate about 2.7 million lbs (what's that in
Newtons?) of thrust.  The three ``main engines'' contribute about another 1.4
million lbs.  Total:  A little over 7 million lbs.  This is assuming the second
generation SRBs and the 104% thrust liquid engines.

Compare this with the Saturn V used on the last moon shot.  Total thrust from
five engines: about 7,780,000 lbs.  The center engine was either a little more
or less powerful than the others in order to avoid both excess stress to the
structure of the booster and a troublesome reverse-direction gas flow under
the booster.  The main booster and second stage put 300,000 lbs in earth orbit!

We've got to take the shuttle a bit further before it will be really ready
to pave the way into space.
-- 

					from Mole End
					Mark Terribile
		     (scrape..dig)	hou5d!mat
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 84 18:05:17-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!minow @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: spinoffs
In-Reply-To: Article <210@ames-lm.UUCP>

You forgot Tang, the astronaut's favorite imitation orange juice.

But seriously folks, NASA inventions are oriented towards NASA's
goals, which aren't necessarily the best goals for the rest of
American industry.  For example, consider solar power cells.

NASA needs high output per cell (also low mass) and high reliability.
According to an All Things Considered report, a Japanese company
licensed a solar cell technology from an American company that
didn't have very good efficiency, but was dirt cheap.  They build
a pilot plant and, in order to get some use out of the resulting
cells, began to sell solar-powered calculators.

The obvious manufacturing-productivity things happened:  by getting
a product to market, they subsequently improved the process yield, price,
and efficiency far beyond the American originator's abilities.
There are even rumors of photovoltaic roofing tile.

NASA is a good idea, but there are mundane needs that it cannot solve.

Martin Minow
decvax!minow

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Apr-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #180    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
			       Main Engines
			 Re: Why are SSMEs on SS?
		    Space Archive laser disk #2 - (nf)
	       Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International
			       Re: spinoffs
			 Shuttle Propulsion Specs
			 Airspace during landing.
				    L5
			     Re: solar cells
		      Re: Fuses and Reaction Wheels
			       Re: spinoffs
		    Re: Wernher von Braun and shuttle
		  Re: Shuttle Main Engine stats request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alan Parker <parker@NRL-CSS>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 84 10:39:04 EST
To: space at mit-mc
Subject: Main Engines

They are not mounted on the ET because they cost big bucks and the ET is
lost after launch.    To build them to be recovered would probably
add cost and weight.  Remember, the main point of the Shuttle was for as
much as possible to be resusable and for time between launches to be 
minimized.

-Alan

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 84 10:11:55 PST (Thursday)
From: lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Why are SSMEs on SS?
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: MHarris@BBNF.ARPA, lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA

"if the Shuttle Main Engines are used only with the external tank, why
aren't they //mounted\\ on the tank?"

The shuttle main engines are mounted on the Shuttle rather than the
External Tank so they can be brought back for reuse.  The tank is
relatively cheap and expendable.  Tossed at nearly orbital speed, it is
destroyed on reentry, and so would the engines be if they were mounted
on the tank.
/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 7:23:00-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!sheppard @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Archive laser disk #2 - (nf)

The second Space Archive laser disk is available now. I just picked
it up at the local Videoland for $39.95 (same price as the first).
The subject of this one is the flight of Apollo 17 - the last of the
Apollo missions, I believe. The format is similar to the first - lots
of still photos mixed with movie film. I've only watched the first
side, but it looks to be as good as the shuttle disk was.

Andy Sheppard
Convex Computer Corporation

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 84 11:17:56-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International

Talking of catastrophes, it could also land at McDill Air Force Base or
Tampa International in the Tampa Bay area, or possibly Patrick Air Force 
Base just to the south of KSC.

But the last I heard, NASA was not considering either Orlando or Tampa
Internationals for their list of standard continengcy landing sites because
they decided that if the shuttle could make it to Florida it could make it
to KSC.  Doesn't make sense to me either.  


ave discordia				going bump in the night ...
bruce giles

decvax!ucf-cs!giles			university of central florida
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay			orlando, florida 32816

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 84 11:36:27-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!osu-dbs!julian @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: spinoffs

> The obvious manufacturing-productivity things happened:  by getting a
> product to market, they subsequently improved the process yield, price,
> and efficiency far beyond the American originator's abilities.  There
> are even rumors of photovoltaic roofing tile.

A lot of things are obvious once someone else figures them out.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 84 18:15:00-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!pyle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Propulsion Specs

According to my references, here are the specs on the STS propulsion
systems:

Solid Rocket Booster (SRB, 2 per flight):

	Used from T+0:0:02.64 (i.e., 2.64 seconds after check of main
	engine status) until T+0:02:00, separate at T+0:02:07

	Length: 149 feet, Diameter: 12 feet,
	Weight at launch: 1,300,000 pounds each,
	Thrust at launch: 2,650,000 pounds each

	Propellants: fuel - aluminum powder (16%), oxidizer - ammonium
	perchlorate (69.83%), catalyst - iron oxide powder (0.17%),
	binder and curing agents - (14%)

	SRB nozzles gimbal up to 6 degrees for steering under power
	of SRB Auxillary Power Unit (APU)

Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME, 3 per shuttle):

	Typically operate from T-0:0:03 until T+0:08:38

	Rated thrust: 375,000 pounds, variable from 65 to 109% of
	rated value

	Designed to operate 7.5 hours between major overhauls,
	in reality this has not been met

	Propellants: hydrogen and oxygen with final burn ratio of 1:6

Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS, 2 engines per shuttle):

	Operates during orbital insertion, deorbit burn, and
	as needed for orbital changes

	Thrust: 6,000 pounds each

	Propellants: fuel - monomethyl hydrazine, oxidizer - 
	nitrogen tetroxide

	Length: 77 inches, weight: 260 pounds, gimbaled in
	pitch and yaw

Reaction Control System (RCS):

	Primary thrusters: 38 engines with 870 pound thrust

	Secondary thrusters: 6 engines with 25 pound thrust

	RCS thrusters are grouped in three modules: one in nose,
	and in each OMS pod

	Propellants: same as OMS engines


Keith Pyle

UUCP: . . .{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,kpno,gatech}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!pyle
ARPA: pyle@ut-ngp

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 84 23:48:42-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: bart @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Airspace during landing.

At Edwards AFB, the shuttle is in restricted airspace for the
whole time below FL450.  It flies through some combination of
restricted areas R2524, R2502x, R2515. and R2505.

The airspace around Edwards and the AFB itself is open until 30
minutes before landing time.  The last half hour of open time (from
60 until 30 minutes before touchdown) is a real zoo.  You have
NASA stuff landing (everything from C135's to Falcon's), F4's and
F16's are coming home, VIP's, and a collection of random others.
Everyone wants to get home.  If they don't, they get sent out to
George AFB (about 45 miles SE) until it's all over.

We were landing during this period, and we got instructions like
"Centurion one golf foxtrot, follow that flight of 16's ahead in
the one-eighty pattern.  Keep your speed up on final, you're followed
by a cargo heavy."
					--bart miller
					  u.c. berkeley

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 1984 17:28:02-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: L5

Anyone interested in being included in a directory of L5 members on the
network(s) please mail the following info to me:

	Name
	Chapter affiliation (if any)
	L5 office (chapter officer, national committee member, phone tree)
	L5 member or just interested
	Useful info: ie work for JSC, Pres. of USA, etc
	Site name
	City, state
	Various network mailing addresses (ARPA, CSNET, UUCP, etc)

	You will be added to a directory and also to a mailing list that is
	being kept up in San Diego.

	send mail to:
			amon@cmu-ri-fas.ARPA

	The SSME's are mounted on the shuttle because otherwise the very
expensive engines would do just what the ET does: reenter and burn.
Interestingly enough, this is exactly the way the Russky shuttle is built.
Cost effectiveness is NOT their goal. It is thought that they intend to use
the same booster for other purposes, so they included the engines as a throw
away.

	And by the way, anybody out there who isn't already a member of L5
or L5 Spacepac should be embarrassed and hiding their head in shame. We're
the front lines in the space shuttle battle, so get your flak jackets and
helmets and send your palsley, insignificant sum of $25 to:

	L5 Society
	1060 E. Elm Street
	Tucson, AZ 85719

And be sure to indicate that Pittsburgh L5 sent you!!!

				Ad Astra and into the trenches,
				Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 1984 20:17-EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: Re: solar cells
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <451876679/dmw@CMU-CS-VLSI>

According to a March Spectrum article, RCA achieved 10.1% efficient
amorphous cells in 1982.  This technology was licensed to Solarex.
Fuji, Sanyo, and Sharp have plants, the latter in a joint venture with
Energy Conversion Devices of Troy, Michigan.  Sharp is using it to
build solar-powered calculators.  The cost is about $7 per peak watt,
about the same as solar modules (cells in assemblies) made with
commercially-available single-crystal cells.

Low price per peak watt for the cell isn't the goal, it's low price per
kilowatt hour.  This takes into account balance-of-plant costs such as
power conditioners, and as an example, for a typical plant, 12.6% cells
could cost $400M, 10% cells could cost $320M, and 5% cells would have
to cost -30M for the same busbar power cost.  So efficiency does matter
for power plants.  This example comes from Southern California Edison,
the utility with more solar experience than anyone.

So NASA's goals aren't all that different than those of the real world.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 84 13:24:49-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Fuses and Reaction Wheels
In-Reply-To: Article <12307@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Sheldon Meth observes:

    I heard an (unconfirmed) story that Solar Max's fuses
    blew because the gas contained in them diffused into
    space resulting in a lower current rating than
    the (well behaved) circuit they were in.

According to the chief scientist for Solar Max (a talk from him was
part of the NSI launch tour I took for the 41C launch), nobody was
quite sure what the problem with Solar Max's attitude-control system
fuses was.  There was a great deal of interest in examining the bad
module to try to determine what caused the problem.

He also said, incidentally, that the bring-it-back-to-Earth-if-we-
can't-fix-it option was definitely a last resort, because there was
no funding allocated for either repair or relaunch after return.
"We are planning for a successful in-space repair."  He must have
been awfully happy when the last grabbing attempt succeeded.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 84 11:57:40-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ucbtopaz!unisoft!ed @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: spinoffs
In-Reply-To: Article <3771@utzoo.UUCP>

It may be true that Japan hasn't spent much until recently on basic R&D.
I think it's still true that they aren't spending on research.  A
professor I know, who is involved in VLSI including chip-disign systems
and methodologies, recently (about 2 years ago, actually) visited with
some Japanese companies.  One of the things he reported was a comment
made by one of the Japanese folks.  When asked how it was that the
Japanese seemed to have the best design and design-rule checking
software aroune, the Japanese replied that it wasn't anything new
or original.  They'd just implemented some of the published US
research!

What I think this really means is that the US companies are suffering from
a bad case of Not Invented Here.

-- 
Ed Gould
ucbvax!mtxinu!ed

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 84 1:20:48-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Wernher von Braun and shuttle

     A couple of weeks back one of you folks on the net asserted that Wernher
von Braun was not a shuttle supporter.  Our system has long ago purged the
article, but I recall that my request for specific references on this
surprising assertion went unsatisfied.  In the course of some research work
I am doing I have come across the following citation which (as I expected)
shows Dr. von Braun's *support* of the program.

[From Hearings before a subcommittee of the Senate appropriations committee,
92nd Congress, first session, June 29 1971, p.682] :

   "The shuttle program proposed by NASA is the top priority space program of
the 1970's.  It is the keystone of our long range plan for both manned and
unmanned programs."

     At the time of this testimony NASA was still considering the two-stage,
fully-reusable, manned flyback booster shuttle concept.  However, it's hard
to understand von Braun changing his mind just because of the design change. 
I now really need some new information to indicate if and how his mind was
changed on this.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 84 13:36:06-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!oliveb!jerry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Main Engine stats request
In-Reply-To: Article <11700005@acf4.UUCP> <3764@utzoo.UUCP>

I don't have the article in front of me but I remember on reading
the thrust vs. weight figures that the shuttle engines can lift the
shuttle and its payload into orbit.  The solid fuel boosters lift
themselves and the strap on fuel tank.

					    Jerry Aguirre
    {hplabs|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-May-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #181    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
				LEM specs.
				Correction
			Space archive laser disks
			 Re: Why are SSMEs on SS?
	       Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International
		     Re: Getting it back to the Cape
			Margin of Error 4 Landings
			Emergency landings and OMS
		       Re: Getting back to the cape
			   von Braun & Shuttle
			 Re: Re: big bangs - (nf)
		   Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984
				Why 104%?
			   NASA ( ** FLAME ** )
			  ICs are NASA spinoffs?
	       Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International
	    "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"
	    Space station?? How about other things too/first?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 11:56:11 PST (Friday)
From: Jef Poskanzer <Poskanzer.PA@XEROX.ARPA>
Subject: LEM specs.
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA

Can someone tell me some of the specs on the Apollo lunar module?  Such
as dry mass, fueled mass, max and min thrust, max and min fuel
consumption, etc.?

Can someone tell me a good reference in which to look up this kind of
thing for myself?
---
Jef

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 1984 15:24:51-EST
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Correction

Read 'Space station' instead of 'Space shuttle' on my previous post. It'll
make more sense!!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 84 16:15:24 pst
From: Ross Finlayson <rsf@Pescadero>
Subject: Space archive laser disks
To: space@mit-mc

From the description, these seem wonderful. Unfortunately, I don't have a laser
disk player. Does anyone know whether this company also sells videocassettes?
Could someone also post (or repost) their mailing address?

	Ross.

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 27 Apr 84 17:22 MST
From:  Charlie Spitzer <Spitzer%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  Re: Why are SSMEs on SS?
To:  MHARRIS@BBNF.ARPA
cc:  Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840428002218.879875@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>

Because the ET drops off and burns up. The engines are reusable, and
they wouldn't be in very good shape after dropping out of near-LEO.
 Charlie Spitzer
 (Spitzer%pco@CISL)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 84 10:00:48-PST (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxw!thor @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International

Maybe we could even land it on that strip in Grenada. 

Mark Kohls
ihuxw!thor

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 84 21:15:35-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!jmd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape

   The shuttle has just enough aerodynamic characteristics to get
it back down to the ground in a reasonable plummet.  It has the
glide characteristics of a large rock.  That is, if you had the
shuttle and a 747 at 30,000 feet with a forward velocity of 200
miles per hour, with no further engine power - the shuttle would
fall to the ground much quicker than the 747.   Next time, watch 
the shuttle drop from an altitude of several thousand feet (at about
200 mph) and compare that to a commercial liner.  You'll be amazed 
how much faster the shuttle drops!

			This is what happens after you live with
			an aero major!!!
			Jeff Diewald   ...harpo!inmet!jmd

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 84 9:53:14-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!brahms @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Margin of Error 4 Landings

Since the topic of shuttle landings have come up, I have a question:

	What is the margin of error for the shuttle when making a
deorbit burn?  e.g. If the deorbit burn is done 10 miles to late/early
(I would think there is a larger margin of error than this)
than it should be, would it still be able to land at its target?
  Conversely, when a shuttle does come out of orbit, how big
of an area (on the ground) can the target be in?

			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@USC-ECLC

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 84 8:41:20-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Emergency landings and OMS

If I were a Shuttle pilot, and decided that I was going to come up short
(or would that be "come down short"?) of the runway, I would be tempted to
fire up the OMS engines to stretch out my glide path a little.  Could
someone in the know say to what extent this is practical, and whether
NASA has considered this in its contingency plans?

And where can the Shuttle land (besides Easter Island, thank you
Mr. Stine/Correy) if it poops out partway up to a polar or sun-synch orbit?
If the Shuttle floats like it flies, I wouldn't want to try to ditch it,
though I s'pose if the tiles stayed on they might actually serve as
floatation for a short while.  I wouldn't put any money on the tiles staying
on, though, or even on the whole bird staying in one piece.  What say?

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 84 17:29:55-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!ron @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting back to the cape

Last summer when they were flying the shuttle back to the cape they
did loops around the Baltimore and Washington beltways.  They were
at some lower altitude so people could see them easily from the ground.
(Actually...I am refering to circuits around the circular highway here,
they didn't actually do loops).

=Ron

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 84 7:06:07-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!ths @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: von Braun & Shuttle

Recent comments regarding von Braun and the space shuttle took me back
into his biography (by Erik Bergaust). I could find no disparaging
remarks. It should be noted that von Braun was instrumental in the
re-design of the shuttle from its form as a totally reusable vehicle
to its current configuation employing a "throw-away" fuel tank. It
is alledged that this redesign cut the cost of the shuttle development
in half.

THe shuttle is not as cost effective as it was advertised to be, nor
is it as efficient in lifting to LEO as the Saturn V. But then few of
us are the same as our resumes represent us to be. There was, and still
is a lot of "salesmanship" in the shuttle program.... but it ain't a bad
flying machine. I'm looking forward to Shuttle II.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 84 21:06:09-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!cca!ima!ism780!darryl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: big bangs - (nf)

For several different possibilities on the beginning of (our) universe,
see this month's (May) Scientific American, "The Inflationary Universe".

	Darryl Richman  ...!ima!ism780!darryl

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 84 5:21:59-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984

The reason announced last night on ABC was that the weather at the Cape
is just too lousy during the next 4 months to be predictable.  They
decided to shift all operations back to EAFB to avoid the constant
changes in weather at the cape.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 30 Apr 84 08:46:12-EDT
From: Anthony J. Courtemanche <AC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Why 104%?
To: space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC

Could someone please explain what 104% thrust is?  To the uninformed
(like me), that term sounds pretty silly.

					AC@MIT-OZ

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 84 9:26:30-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!marla @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: NASA ( ** FLAME ** )

In his article in net.space, Martin Minow (decvax!minow) says:

> NASA is a good idea, but there are mundane needs that it cannot solve.

So what? NASA has caused the production of many things that HAVE
solved many mundane needs!  What about computers?, remote
monitoring? Just because everything they do doesn't have IMMEDIATE
"mundane" applications, doesn't mean that they are not a valuable
research organization.  Sometimes, they have to inspire research
that advances their own aims.  NASA has done more to promote pure 
research than almost any other government group I can think of. 
(Except perhaps the NSA)

****************** FLAME ON ********************************

I really hate these "If they're not perfect, they're not worth
having" attitudes.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people around
that think that because NASA hasn't solved their "favorite" problem,
it should be gotten rid of! BULL SH*T!!!!!!  NASA hasn't solved the
problem of world peace, hunger, cancer, or many other major problems
facing the world today.  But that doesn't mean that their
contribution isn't useful!  In fact, in some ways, they have made
contributions in many of these areas:  Internation cooperation,
tracking weather problems to help farmers, new pharmicuticals, etc!

************************ FLAME OFF *************************

(Whew!  That feels better!)

Marla S. Baer
ssc-vax!marla

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 84 10:04:50-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!tekchips!vice!keithl @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: ICs are NASA spinoffs?

There they go again...

NASA may have indeed spun off most of the things on the posted "spinoff"
list (I don't know one way or the other), but not the microcircuit or the
microprocessor.  The first integrated circuits were intended for weapon
fuses, the first TTL circuits were supplied to the Minuteman program, the
first MOS circuits were developed for encryption systems, and the first
MOS microprocessor was intended for a terminal.  In electronics,  NASA is
small potatoes compared to most commercial markets, and the original research
they do is pretty meager compared to many major universities or companies.

Missing from the list, of course, are the technological means (rockets,
guidance systems, improved re-entry methods, etc.) for thermonuclear
devastation, although we should probably give most of the credit for this,
as well as many other "space spinoffs", to the vastly better funded D.O.D.

And don't forget Pillsbury Space Food Sticks! :-)

    An IC designer and private space researcher,
        in the heart of the Silicon Forest:
-- 
Keith Lofstrom
uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!vice!keithl
CSnet:	keithl@tek
ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 84 13:55:09-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International

25 April 1984

     I'm looking at a copy of the approach and landing charts the astronauts
use during Shuttle returns.  It identifies all the possible landing sites for
the Orbiter.  In addition to KSC runway 33, which is the normal landing site, 
the following are identified in the vicinity of KSC:

A 10000 foot skid strip at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (adjacent to the
Kennedy Space Center)
Orlando International
MacDill Air Force Base near St. Petersburg, Fl
Cecil Field Naval Air Station, near Jacksonville, FL
Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City Fl
Elgin Air Force Base, Pensacola, Fl

The last two mentioned are about 300 nautical miles from KSC, the rest are
within about 120 nautical miles.  


                                              Dani Eder
                                              Boeing Aerospace Comapny
                                             ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 84 13:10:40-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!akgua!sb1!sb6!diy @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"

This is a question I haven't been able to find an answer to, so maybe the
net can help.  I would think that NASA would have taken into
consideration, when they designed the shuttle, the possibilities of
problems of SOME type popping up during landing.  And since they're
gliding in, and have no power, it's "land the damn thing anyway".  That's
the overiding reason (and a good one,I think) why I wouldn't be a shuttle
passenger.  Does anyone know what happens say if the shuttle is up in
space the maximum number of days, HAS to land, and there's bad weather at
both the Cape and Edwards?

Other military airports?  What about problems during landing...any options?
I'm sure there might be others with these same questions, so please post to
net if you got the answer.  I'd LOVE to orbit the earth, but I'd feel a lot
safer if my pilot had a second chance!!!

dennis

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 1984 05:33-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
To: Dale.Amon @ CMU-RI-FAS
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

I favor an unmanned space platform asap. It would provide:
  (1) A physical place to mount various instrument (experiment)
    packages so they wouldn't get lost in space;
  (2) Three-axis stabilization and real-time data-feed telling the
    location and attitude in case experiments (such as telescopes) may
    need to pivot to aim in some particular direction or at least know
    what direction they are randomly aimed at if fixed-mounted;
  (3) Electrical power, provided by a centralized power source
    (nuclear) or convertor (solar), so each instrument doesn't need
    its own solar collector;
  (4) Communications, including both incoming control from Earth and
    outgoing telemetry/data from the experiment.

STS crew would test new experiment packages in the cargo bay to make
sure they still function after launch, then unplug them from the STS
and plug them into the unmanned space platform. Experiments needing
periodic resupply of fuels could be resupplied by STS. Experiments
needing return to Earth, or jettison, could be retrieved by STS crew.

Experiments requiring more than a week duration in space (one STS
flight time) could be flown, without needing to build a special
satellite for it. Thus many more random experiments could be flown
from time to time than with traditional methods. (Note the
long-duration explosure facility has two major limitations: no power,
only passive exposure; and everything must be put up and retrieved at
the same time. My proposed space platform would be much better and
more flexible.)

[In addition to this new item, I continue to desire: lunar polar
orbiter to search for water-ice, ion-rocket or solar-sail deep-space
propulsion system, docking&analysis of asteroids for possible mining
use, permanently-manned space station, ... eventually lunar&asteroid
mining facilities, large space manufacturing and large space habitat, ...]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-May-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #182    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V4 #181    
	  Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
		      Re: Margin of Error 4 Landings
		       Re: When is the next launch?
	  Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"
		   Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984
			 When is the next launch?
			  Shuttle Tiles Question
			Re: Shuttle Tiles Question
			Re: Shuttle Tiles Question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 May 1984  15:54 EDT
Message-ID: <MINSKY.12011917616.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
to:   SPACE@MIT-MC, minsky%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #181    
In-reply-to: Msg of 1 May 1984  06:04-EDT from Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A.ARPA>


At some meeting around 1974 or so, I discussed colonization
with von Braun.  At that time, anyway, he regard the shuttle as
a good thing.

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 1984 1433 PDT
From: Doug Freyburger <DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Cc: rem@mit-mc,Dale.Amon@cmu-ri-fas
Reply-To: DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA

  (1) A physical place to mount various instrument (experiment)...
  (2) Three-axis stabilization and real-time data-feed telling the...
  (3) Electrical power, provided by a centralized power source...
  (4) Communications, including both incoming control from Earth and...

A manned station would supply all of this and more, like on-line repairs,
experiment redirection, etc.  The station need not even be permanently manned,
just frequently to usually.

There are even economic reasons for wanting people up there.  People are so
much more flexible than machines.  There is some sort of equation of
productivity that goes like this:

2 humans + 10 robots = 4 humans + 0 robots = 0 humans + near-infinite robots

The tradeoffs in payload mass win big with a robot-heavy population with
spatterings of humans.  When we get really good AI programs that can handle
goal-oriented action as well as humans, we will only be a small portion of the
way there.  We also need robots that know how to repair other machines (and
each other) which is no trivial image processing and knowledge-based AI task.
Plus we need that creativity that lets a human deflect hisher path in the
middle of a project because s/he noticed something very important on the side.

The only part-for-part replacement for a man is still a wo-man.  And they both
seem to fit neatly into the definition for "hu-man".  Chuckle.

                        (-)NX,
                        Doug
------

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 84 16:16:16-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Margin of Error 4 Landings
In-Reply-To: Article <401@trwspp.UUCP>

I can't answer your questions directly, but I think the fact that the shuttle
possesses the capability to fly 1100 miles of cross range (distance between
orbit ground track and landing site) makes up for any small error on the
de-orbit burn.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 84 16:14:04-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: When is the next launch?
In-Reply-To: Article <614@ariel.UUCP>

According to the most recent issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology
(available at many libraries), June 20 is the planned launch date for
STS-41D (the twelfth shuttle mission).  It is planned to be a seven day
mission with a six person crew.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 84 15:19:21-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!mit-eddie!barmar @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"
In-Reply-To: Article <160@sb6.UUCP>

--------------------
Does anyone know what happens say
if the shuttle is up in space the maximum number of days, HAS to land, and
there's bad weather at both the Cape and Edwards?

Other military airports?
--------------------

I think this is a very unlikely situation.  First of all, the mission
schedules probably leave lots of leeway between the planned landing and
the "HAS to land" time, so it is unlikely that the weather would be bad
at both EAFB (in a desert) and KSC.  Also, the shuttle CAN land in
imperfect weather; NASA has just chosen so far to play it extremely
safe, since we are still new at this game.  Finally, in an extreme
emergency, I have heard a rumor that it is possible to land the shuttle
on some ordinary runways (like Kennedy Int'l in NYC, although they would
probably choose a military airport); one problem with this would be that
they would have to erect a crane there in order to mount the shuttle on
the 747 to bring it back to the Cape.
-- 
			Barry Margolin
			ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
			UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 84 13:49:39-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984
In-Reply-To: Article <711@pyuxa.UUCP>

>>  The reason announced last night on ABC was that the weather at the Cape
>>  is just too lousy during the next 4 months to be predictable.  They
>>  decided to shift all operations back to EAFB to avoid the constant
>>  changes in weather at the cape.

The weather in Central Florida is not too lousy to be predictable, it is
too lousy.  Period.  In fact, I was surprised they ever expect the Cape
to be contiuously usable for landings.

I don't have official Weather Bureau statistics in front of me, but as a 
life-long resident I know that during the summer months in Florida, expect
a heavy thunderstorm between 3:30 and 5:30 pm.  Every day.  You can also 
include about a half-dozen hailstorms and minor tornadoes during the summer
months also.   And, if a hurricane passes within 400 kilometers, the 
blue skies visible before and after the aforementioned storms will
disappear for 4-5 days straight.

Florida the "Sunshine State".  Humphf.  Ask anyone who moved to Orlando 
around April or May, expecting to see sunny skies constantly.  Everyone
I know who did went into a severe shock:  It was either near 100 degrees
Fahrenheit with 85-95 percent humidity, or raining at 3-4 inches/hour.
(That is -- If you are on the road, you generally must pull over because
your wipers on `high' are not powerful enought to clear your windshield).


ave discordia				going bump in the night ...
bruce giles

decvax!ucf-cs!giles			university of central florida
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay			orlando, florida 32816

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 84 12:17:41-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!wrp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: When is the next launch?

Will the next launch be on June 4? I ask this because I am interested in
taking the trip to KSC to see it happen.

I am also interested in any info on  where  to stay; how early to get there;
what  the closest (best) possible viewing area is for us  non-V.I.P.  types.
Also, is the film "Hail Columbia" being shown in the vicinity of the KSC.

Thank you for any information.

				Bill Pennock
				AT&T Information Systems Laboratories
				Holmdel,  NJ
				... houxg!ariel!wrp

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 5:58:13-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Shuttle Tiles Question

In the vein of 'spinoffs', I have a question concerning the heat tiles
used on the shuttles.  From what I understood and read (from the media,
so I don't trust the reports 100%), the tiles are designed to absorb
heat on reentry and dissipate the heat over a longer period of time.
I seem to recall a news report that featured a guy heating a tile
with a torch for about a minute, then picking up the tile with his
bare hands and not being burned.

Now, my question is, if the tiles do indeed have this property, would
it be possible to line a gas or oil=fired furnace with these tiles,
apply heat for a short period, then turn off the heat and allow the
stored heat to slowly dissipate, thus providing a heat source over a 
long period of time and saving fuel?  Could this be a possible use
in the area of conservation?  If engineered correctly, could a whole
new generation of devices be developed to take advantage of the heat
retention properties of the tiles?
T. C. Wheeler

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 12:41:51-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cmaz504 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Tiles Question
In-Reply-To: Article <721@pyuxa.UUCP>

That's funny I thought it was just the opposite:the tiles are suppose to
dissipate heat very quickly. One story I heard said that during one of the
demonstartions after he had heated the thing up to >1000 degrees the
engineer grabbed hold and nearly burned his fingerprints off. Apparnetly 
the tile only cools quickly on the edge and he grabbed it in the middle 
(could be the other way around). 

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 10:07:13-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!ho95b!jam @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Tiles Question
In-Reply-To: Article <721@pyuxa.UUCP>, <440@ihlts.UUCP>

I also saw something on television once about the shuttle tiles -
After showing how they were made and how and why each one is
individually shaped, they had a graphic demo of their insulating
properties.  They took a red-hot tile out of a furnace, and then
came back a while later when the core of the tile was still
glowing cherry red (you could see it through the sides of the tile).
A man simply picked it up, handled it thoroughly, and passed it to
a reporter. The outside was obviously cool enough to handle while
the inside was still red-hot!

They went on to explain some of the history behind the long effort
to develop the material that could perform so well, but I forget
the details.  

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-May-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #183    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Emergency landings and OMS
			  Re: Emergency Landings
		       Re: SPACE Digest V4 #182    
		       Re: SPACE Digest V4 #182    
			      Space station
	  Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
			   orbital mechanics ?
			   Space Station Tally
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 11:53:48-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Emergency landings and OMS

>	If I were a Shuttle pilot, and decided that I was going to come up
>	short of the runway, I would be tempted to fire up the OMS engines
>	to stretch out my glide path a little.
>		Larry Wall

Nice trick, since all remaining reactants are purged from the OMS/RCS tanks
long before touchdown.  I do not know if the He tanks are left pressurized
until landing or not.  In any event, the OMS engines would have a small
effect (thrust) at sea level--probably negligible compared to the kinetic
energy of the "dry" orbiter.  Only the SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines)
and, of course, the SRBs (Solid Rocket Boosters) were ever intended to be
used anywhere outside the vacuum of space.
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 11:36:49-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihopa!jao @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Emergency Landings

Thanks to all for the information about alternative landing
site possibilities.  How's this for some historical perspective:

Once upon a time, when I was looking around in a research
library, I found some *very* old copies of "Aviation Week."
These were *long* before it became "Aviation Week and Space Technology."

There was an article by one of the Wright brothers on his view
of the future of aviation.  He envisioned a future in which it
would be possible to fly safely across America.  The technology
would become so sophisticated, he felt, that planes would be
capable of *gliding* safely for several miles after (inevitable)
engine failure.  So runways would be constructed every 10 miles
all across the country to provide for safe emergency landings.
-- 
	Julia O'Keefe
	..!ihnp4!ihopa!jao
	AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il.

------------------------------

Date:     Wed,  2 May 84 11:44:45 CDT
From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.ARPA>
Subject:  Re: SPACE Digest V4 #182    
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-Id: <8.animal.Dione@Rice>

The important fact about the tiles is not that the temperature goes down
so quickly or so slowly, but rather that the tile material does not easily
transfer the heat.

Although the temperature of the tile may be hundreds or even thousands of
degrees Farenheit, it can still be safe to pick up because it won't easily
transfer that heat to the fingers. Likewise, these same tiles will not
transfer that heat to the shuttle during landing.

If you consider the material that makes up most of the volume of the 
tile(air) I think you will also realize that it must have a very 
low heat capacity as well.  I think that makes it unsuitable for that 
furnace application suggested.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 2 May 84 13:21:55-EDT
From: Gern <GUBBINS@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #182    
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A.ARPA>" of Wed 2 May 84 03:04:00-EDT


In the unlikely event that the shuttle has to make an emergency landing
and both Edwards and KSC and every place other is not usable (highly
unlikely), Griffiss Air Force Base (where I am) in central New York
State has been specified as a landing site.  Our 3 mile long runway
and NORAD communications/radar facility and standard SAC Base facilities
would be a lot of help in the event.

Cheers,
Gern
-------

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 1984 18:34:51-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Space station

A national group is being formed to lay to rest the supposition that
'scientists don't want a manned space station'. This reached a peak on
Monday when Congressman Green held a press conference in Washington DC to
state that as a fact.

The name of the new organization has not been formalized but will probably
be 'Scientists for a Manned Space Station'. Membership requirements are:

	a) You work in science (not necessarily a Phd)
	b) You agree that a manned space station is a good idea

Dr. Jastrow and Dr. Sheffield will be spokespersons at a press conference to
be held in DC next week. Many others have already joined us; Dr. James
Fletcher (Former NASA director), Dr. Noel Jarret (tech. dir. at Alcoa),
Gordon Woodcock, Peter Vijk, Marvin Minsky, John McCarthy, and many. many
others.

To lend your support, mail me the following information:

	Name:		Dr. Public
	Title:		Professor of Foobaz
	Affiliation:	Foobaz Dept, Farkle University
	Mail:		<work addr or home addr>
	Phone:		<work phone and/or home phone>

Get people in other departments if you can. Get info to me as soon as
possible. We want to have as large a support base as possible by the time of
the press conference. But even if it's late, it's welcome.

	amon@cmu-ri-fas.ARPA

	AD ASTRA!!!! Onwards through the fog...

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 1984 21:43-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
To: DOUG @ JPL-VLSI
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 1 May 1984 1433 PDT
    From: Doug Freyburger <DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
      (1) A physical place to mount various instrument (experiment)...
      (2) Three-axis stabilization and real-time data-feed telling the...
      (3) Electrical power, provided by a centralized power source...
      (4) Communications, including both incoming control from Earth and...
    A manned station would supply all of this and more,
Unfortunately the manned statin won't be around for about ten years
according to R.Reagan's proposal. In the meantime I'd like to see
SOMETHING up there to mount long-term experiments, something that will
cost only one shuttle launch instead of twenty and cost some
infinitesimal fraction of the cost of a manned station, thus might get
up there in a couple years from now.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 84 11:22:00-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!emrath @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: orbital mechanics ?

I don't remember enough mechanics from high school or college.
I read in Aviation Week & ST that the deorbit burn on the last
shuttle mission resulted in a retrograde delta-v of about 460
feet per second.  This is consistent with the figures of 6000 lbs
thrust per OMS engine, a mass of 75-100 tons, and burn time of 8 min.
However, I figure the shuttle's velocity must be close to 25k fps at
an orbit of 250 nmiles.  I'm suprised that less than a 2% change
brings it down rather than just bringing it to an elliptical orbit.
Is the de-orbit burn done at an orbit just above the atmosphere
so that the new low point is within, thus allowing friction to
take over?

	Perry Emrath, UofIL
	...{decvax|inuxc}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!emrath

------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 84 19:00:12-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!rbc @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Station Tally

	It has been a week now and the votes for/against a space station
have come in.  Unfortunately the sides were a little unbalanced.
	Two people expressed dissatisfaction with the space station, claiming
the money could be used elsewhere, and the possibility of the station
becoming a center for defense systems.  
	The countless others who mailed in were all for the space station.
Some proposing elaborate and debatable ideas, while others just simply
said YES.  The view this newsgroup as a whole seems to be overwhelmingly
for the space station.  However, this cannot be viewed as the opinion of
the majority of the citizens of the U.S..  It is only the tally of the active
members of this newsgroup.


The final tally:			~73 to 2

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-May-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #184    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:
	  Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"
		      Re: Emergency landings and OMS
	  Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"
	     There's a Gator on the Strip - Fire Up the OMS!
	  Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"
		   Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984
	  Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
	  Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
			    Orbital mechanics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 11:18:18-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-cvax!nmtvax!levaseur @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"

   Don't forget, there is Northrup Strip at White Sands Missile Range
here in New Mexico.... we don't get much weather here, or so it seems
for many days (weeks) at a time.    When they landed there in the spring
of 82, they had to put togeather a makeshift rig of cranes to lift it
up and get the 747 carrier under it; it was a challange, but they
were able to do it.

roger

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 13:22:43-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Emergency landings and OMS

Larry Wall asks, in part:

    And where can the Shuttle land (besides Easter Island, thank you
    Mr. Stine/Correy) if it poops out partway up to a polar or sun-synch orbit?

The basic answer is:  "in the ocean, far from help".  The eastern
Pacific is very, very wet.  Easter Island sits in the middle of many
millions of square kilometers of empty ocean.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 13:18:55-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"

Barry Margolin comments:

    ..........................................  Finally, in an extreme
    emergency, I have heard a rumor that it is possible to land the shuttle
    on some ordinary runways (like Kennedy Int'l in NYC, although they would
    probably choose a military airport); one problem with this would be that
    they would have to erect a crane there in order to mount the shuttle on
    the 747 to bring it back to the Cape.

It's not that bad.  The Shuttle is capable of landing on any decent
runway, although it helps if the right navigational aids are available.
Just about any 747-capable airport would suffice, and lesser ones would
probably be OK in a pinch.

You actually need two cranes to hoist the shuttle onto a 747.  One is
a standard commercial heavy crane; the other is a special beastie that
NASA keeps on hand just in case.  (It was originally used for hoisting
what is now Challenger for static tests at Marshall, and was deliberately
kept around in case of a shuttle recovery at an unplanned site.)  You
need two cranes, not because of the mass, but because both the shuttle
and the 747 have wings which get in the way.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 84 14:47:03-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!pyle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: There's a Gator on the Strip - Fire Up the OMS!

Regarding the use of the OMS engines in the event of an emergency
during landing, it would be probably not be too helpful. The 12,000
pounds of thrust they provide (6,000 each) and the limited burn
time is not going to change the energy of the 80+ ton orbiter
greatly. Also, the flight plan info I have seen indicates that
the forward RCS propellants are dumped just after the OMS deorbit
burn to change the orbiter's center of gravity. There is no
mention of dumping the OMS or aft RCS propellant. I seem to recall
mention made after the first Columbia flight that John Young was
rather proud of the amount of OMS propellant remaining - an indication
of his and Crippen's abilities.

Keith Pyle

UUCP: . . .{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,kpno,gatech}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!pyle
ARPA: pyle@ut-ngp

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 84 16:51:11-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!mees @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"

All this talk of landing at alternate sites (military or civilian) brings
to mind the problem of purging the fuel immediately following shuttle
touchdown.  As I remember, at both Edwards and KSC there are a veritable
plethora of strange and unique looking vehicles which flock about the shuttle
The question thus remains, can it REALLY land at an alternate site, you know,
one that isn't equipped to handle the shuttle's remaining corrosive
propellants.

		jim

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 84 8:13:30-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!jlw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984

Politics, Politics, Politics.

You may not know this, but there is a thing known as the National
Range System.  White Sands Missile Range is run by the Army,
Edwards and Vandenberg are run by the Air Force, Point Mogu(sp)
is run by the Navy, Kennedy is run by NASA.  WSMR, where I was
stationed for two years in the Army, is ideal for full shuttle
operations.  It wouldn't even need a new runway; the one at
Holloman AFB was until recently the longest paved runway in the world.

					Joseph L. Wood, III
					AT&T Information Systems
					Laboratories, Holmdel
					(201) 834-3759
					ariel!jlw

------------------------------

Date: 03 May 84 09:02:10 PDT (Thu)
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@Mit-Mc>
cc: DOUG@Jpl-Vlsi, SPACE@Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>

As I understand, at least one version of the plans for a manned station
show the station as a manned pod surrounded by a string of unmanned
platforms.  I think what you are asking for is a prototype platform.

Maybe a corporation can be convinced to buy an empty LEO module, fit some
hinged struts on it and lease out space for instruments and experiments to
be mounted by the shuttle crew?

------------------------------

Date: 03 May 84 09:23:27 PDT (Thu)
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@Mit-Mc>
cc: DOUG@Jpl-Vlsi, SPACE@Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
From: "Tim Shimeall" <tim@uci-750a>

   Date: 2 May 1984 21:43-EDT
   From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
   To: DOUG @ JPL-VLSI
         A manned station would supply all of this and more,
     Unfortunately the manned statin won't be around for about ten years
     according to R.Reagan's proposal. In the meantime I'd like to see
     SOMETHING up there to mount long-term experiments, something that will
     cost only one shuttle launch instead of twenty and cost some
     infinitesimal fraction of the cost of a manned station, thus might get
     up there in a couple years from now.
Something like the space telescope?  IRAS?  Seriously: the manned
space station program is planned to be an Apollo-type program, and as
such, I'd expect it to include several unmanned platforms of increasing
complexity, leading up to the manned station.  I know that the talk I
heard on the space station included 2 platforms, one in polar, one in
28.5-degree inclination orbit in the INITIAL space station plans.
More platforms are intended to be added as the station develops.  The
only reason the platforms are lumped in with the station is that they
share the same stablization and power technologies, and so the
platforms may very well be used to test for the station.
				Tim

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 84 5:58:28-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Orbital mechanics

>  I'm surprised that a 2% change in velocity can bring them down...

Yes...the small delta-v just lowers the altitude at the opposite side of
the orbit from the burn so that it is in the atmosphere.

Do a sanity check:

    Columbia is orbiting at (very) roughly 4000 miles from the center of the
earth.  A altitude change of 2% is about 80 miles.  Most STS missions are
orbiting at an altitude (from the surface) in the vicinity of 150 miles.
Lowering part of the orbit by 80 miles brings it to 70 miles, well within the
range of atmospheric friction.  I make no representation that velocity change
is linear with altitude (in fact I am sure it is not); this is just a quick
very rough sanity check to help make my assertion plausible to unbelievers.

Burns
	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-May-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #185    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:
		   a commercial unmanned space station
		   Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984
		    Satellite booster problems solved 
		  Re: "WHADDYA MEAN ... Dont you know?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 May 1984 09:42:35-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-VLSI
Subject: a commercial unmanned space station

Lockheed's planned Leasesat (or maybe it was Leasecraft) satisfies most or
all of the requirements listed by some people on this digest for an unmanned
space station.  The craft is permanently deployed in space, and provides
utilities such as power to experiment modules plugged into it.  These modules
are serviced and transported by the shuttle.  Obviously NASA shouldn't be
duplicating the work of commercial ventures.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 84 8:00:25-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!tgg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984

>WSMR, where I was
>stationed for two years in the Army, is ideal for full shuttle
>operations.  It wouldn't even need a new runway; the one at
>Holloman AFB was until recently the longest paved runway in the world.

What is now the longest? KSC landing? Saudi Arabia? Interstate 80?
	Tom Gulvin - AT&T IS - Holmdel

------------------------------

Date: 04 May 84  1716 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Satellite booster problems solved 
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a228  1414  03 May 84
AM-Rocket Fixes, Bjt,750
Solve Rocket Problems on Lost Satellites
By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of the space agency said Thursday
engineers have overcome problems with two types of rocket motors that
caused the loss of two $75 million satellites, the near-loss of a
third, and postponed two space shuttle flights.
    NASA administrator James M. Beggs received a report that a
McDonnell-Douglas team has found a way to determine which rocket
nozzle will fail in space and which will work. Such a procedure might
have saved two communications satellites that went into useless
orbits after being ejected from the shuttle last February.
    A spokesman for the firm said Beggs was told that McDonnell Douglas
is optimistic that launches using the rocket can proceed on schedule.
    Beggs told wire service reporters in an interview that the solution
comes too late to put a Canadian communications satellite on the next
shuttle, scheduled for June 19, but in time for the launch of two
satellites in August. Canadian authorities postponed the launch of an
Anik satellite until next year because of the failures of the PAM
rockets.
    Beggs had good news, too, about a much larger satellite rocket
carrier called IUS. The biggest, most complex communications satellite
ever launched was almost lost last year because of an IUS failure; it
was saved through use of onboard fuel intended only for small
positioning maneuvers.
    The IUS will have one more firing test this month, Beggs said, and
if that goes well ''we will feel confident enough to fly the IUS again
just as soon as we can get ready.'' The first use would be on a
twice-postponed secret military flight in November.
    The Pentagon rescheduled one of its flights from last year to next
July because of the IUS failure and then postponed it again. NASA,
too, had to postpone the launch of a second Tracking and Data Relay
Satellite - a vital piece of equipment for a number of space
operations - because it did not trust the IUS.
    The successive PAM failures in February, after 18 successful
launches, apparently were caused by a bad batch of material.
    ''We have been running some medical type of CAT-scan tests on
nozzles,'' said Jeff Fister of McDonnell Douglas, the manufacturer.
''We have been getting good data from those tests. These tests will be
able to show us which nozzles are good and which are bad.''
    McDonnell-Douglas charges $4 million to $5 million for each PAM
rocket.
    ''The problem with this ... material is that it varies from lot to
lot and literally, nozzle to nozzle,'' Beggs said.
    ''A good question is why didn't we do this (testing) before'' he
added. ''We got a little overconfident because we had 23 successful
firings in a row (including test firings) and everybody kind of
breathed a sigh of relief and said the infant mortality problem is
over.''
    Then, NASA ran into three successive problems with nozzles. One
affected the big rocket boosters that help lift the shuttle to orbit.
To their dismay, engineers found one set of nozzles nearly completely
burned through by the end of its flight. Had it happened earlier, the
burn-through might have caused the shuttle to cartwheel.
    The second problem was with the IUS, which is used to lift very
heavy satellites. A seal, not unlike a rubber tire, blew out during
flight, and the rocket - unable to swivel its nozzle to steer - sent
the $100 million TDRS satellite it was carrying into a misshapen
orbit.
    Beggs said the blowout was caused by heat tracking through the
nozzle to the ''tire.'' The solution was to seal the passages.
    The third problem caused the losses of Westar 6, owned by Western
Union and Palapa-B, owned by the government of Indonesia, both carried
by PAMs.
    NASA wants to retrieve those satellites next November if the two
owners pay the cost. Negotiations are proceeding, but there has been
no decision.
    In the interview, Beggs also said that space shuttle operations will
move ''step by step, probably over the next five or ten years,'' from
the Johnson Space Center in Houston to the Kennedy Space Center in
Florida. The mission control center is in Texas, while the shuttle is
launched from Florida.
    Beggs said the move ''will be something that takes place slowly,
over time, because obviously you can't pick up and move it all
overnight.''
    But, he said, ''bit by bit, we're going to force the center of
gravity on the shuttle operations from Johnson to Kennedy.''
    
ap-ny-05-03 1909EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 84 17:37:21-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxhh!kurt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: "WHADDYA MEAN ... Dont you know?"

<->           _____
I am always supprised how little people know about the space shuttle.

The gvmt of Spain was very proud of there part in the program.
They built a special runway with NASA just for the use of the 
shuttle in an emergency.

I think the problem is that the news (and newspapers) no longer give the
shuttle the covverage that It deserves.

The only way to fix this is to complain to thhe editors. BUt they dont
have a net address do they ? :-)

-- 
Kurt Gluck SPL 1c273a  Bell Communications Research Inc 6 Corporate Place	Piscataway NJ, 08854
      ihnp4!pyuxhh!kurt                   (201)-561-7100 x2023

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-May-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #186    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 186

Today's Topics:
			       Free flyers
		   Re: Trivia Question (diamond rocket)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 May 1984 15:49:03-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Free flyers

At this time there are at least three shuttle serviced free flyer platforms.

1) Fairchild Leasecraft: Has not yet flown, but will provide rented plugin
   space for industrial packages. Seems like a reasonable place for MACDAC
   and Johnson&Johnson to put their operational electrophoresis unit.

2) MBB SPAS: Has already flown. This is an ultra cheap free flyer. Cost less
   $10M to develope and build. Used off the shelf hardware like scuba tanks,
   etc to keep costs low.

3) NASA LDEF: currently in orbit with tomato seeds and other experiments.

I don't think the governement need lift a finger to insure the heavens are
filled with free flying pallets. The technology is old and simple, the
economics are favorable. I would not be terribly surprised to see a
privately funded and built MANNED space station in the 15 year time frame.
There are certainly going to be commercial modules attached to a NASA
station, and I think that this experience will thouroughly convince
corporate leaders that:

	A) They can do it.
	B) They can make money at it.
	C) A space station is a log cabin, not an airplane and can
	   thus be built at a tiny fraction of the cost that the NASA
	   station will require. ('Hey Joe, would you give the Oxygen valve
	   a good whack? I think it's stuck again")

So let's keep NASA out in front, proving NEW ground instead of replowing the
same old furrows.

They can build the FIRST manned platform,
	       the FIRST lunar habitat,
	       the FIRST manned assay trip to an asteroid.

Free enterprise can be counted upon to do the rest. In fact, if the
government doesn't hurry up, they just might get left behind...

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 84 14:36:33-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!dms @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Trivia Question (diamond rocket)

Your diamond rocket may have a high melting point but it has
another problem:  It'll burn.  It seems to me some Frenchman
demonstrated that with a burning glass back in the days of the
sun king.

			---David
...{decvax!microsof,uw-beaver,allegra,lbl-csam,ssc-vax}!fluke!dms 

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-May-84  0305	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #187    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 187

Today's Topics:
	   listen to 150 MHz Russian satellites on your scanner
		  First Person Launched in a Spacecraft
		      Re: Emergency landings and OMS
			 Re: NASA ( ** FLAME ** )
			       Re: spinoffs
	  Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"
		       Re: Arthur C. Clarke's 2010
		   Re: Trivia Question (diamond rocket)
		   Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984
		      Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
		    Re: Challenger's tight fuel budget
			     Re: Moon bullets
			   SMM Repairs Effected
		    Partial eclipse coming on May 30th
		      Re: Emergency landings and OMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 May 84 6:11:28-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihuxf!parnass @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: listen to 150 MHz Russian satellites on your scanner

x
       According to Monitoring Times magazine (May  1984,  pg  11),
       Russian	NAVSAT	satellites  operate  on	150.000	MHz.  It is
       claimed that they "are quite audible  on	 most  any  scanner
       even with indoor	antennas."

       Here in northern	Illinois, I can	hear these  satellites	for
       about  10  minutes every	2 hours	on my scanner with a ground
       plane antenna at	17 feet!  I even heard one faintly using  a
       19" piece of wire on the	back of	a different scanner!

       The telemetry sounds something like AFSK	superimposed  on  a
       time standard signal.

       Has anyone else out heard these signals?


-- 
==========================================================================
Bob Parnass,  AT&T Bell Laboratories - ihnp4!ihuxf!parnass - (312)979-5414 

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, 6 May 1984 11:28:52 EDT
From: Richard.Goldschmidt@cmu-cs-h.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: First Person Launched in a Spacecraft

>From Parade Magazine, May 6, 1984:

	The first person launched in a spacecraft was an American woman - and
    a dead one at that.

	She was Margaret (Maggie) McGrew, a missile engineering executive at
    Patrick Air Force Base, Fla., in the early years of spaceflight
    developement and one of the first women to achieve career success in
    missle research.  McGrew died in January 1956 at age 46.  Her body was
    cremated, and the remains were shipped to the Boeing plant in California.
    There, in accordance with her wishes, friends sealed the ashes into the 
    nose cone of a new Bomarc missle.

	The missle was launched that spring at Cape Canaveral, and the
    lift-off went flawlessly.  It exploded at 40,000 feet, however,
    scattering McGrew's ashes over the Atlantic.  Still, it secured her
    place as the first person - in the opinion of her friends - to be
    launched in a spacecraft.

	It wasn't until 1961 - five years later - that Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri
    Gagarin's orbital flight qualified him as the first man in space.  The 
    first @i(living) woman to make the trip? Cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova,
    who was launched into orbit in 1963.

	(Idea submitted by Brad Whitacre, Melbourne, Fla.)

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 84 10:43:20-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Emergency landings and OMS

Helium tanks provide the pressurization for the OMS, RCS, and the APUs.
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 84 4:44:12-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!idis!mi-cec!tam @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA ( ** FLAME ** )

ditto...and amen.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 84 20:28:20-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!jsq @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: spinoffs

The U.S. equivalent of Japan's MITI is Microelectronics and Computer Corp.,
or MCC, which is a consortium of a dozen or so firms (DEC, Intel, CDC, etc.).
Evidently those companies didn't think a large number of companies doing
duplicate reseach was cost-effective, either, or that the government was
the appropriate entity to choose who should be funded.

Of course both MITI and MCC are very goal-oriented and do little basic
research (if basic research is taken to be that which has no immediate
goal); we have NSF to fund that, and DARPA has in the past had a large
effect in certain fields such as computer graphics and networking (they
eventually wanted military networks, but were willing to take a
while).

I was under the impression that NASA's purpose is exploration of space
and development of access to space, for both scientific and industrial
uses (communication and weather satellites are early examples; IRAS is
currently being noticed; pharmaceutical synthesis may be next).  Spinoffs
are a convenient way to show that even if you don't agree with NASA's
purposes, the space program is beneficial, but spinoffs are not the
object:  the direct use of space is.
-- 
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 USA
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 84 13:14:17-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!foros1!rhino!marcum @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: "WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T CIRCLE FOR A LANDING???!!"

As a previous article mentioned, there are numerous emergency
landing strips available.  If I recall, in addition to those
right around The Cape, White Sands can be used, and there is a
runway at Honolulu Int'l built specifically for use by the
Shuttle in an emergency (I think it's 8R/26L, the "Coral
Runway").  I also suspect that, if a real emergency cropped up,
most any ol' 'port ina storm would suffice (i.e. ~10000' runway
with few obstructions around).
-- 
Alan M. Marcum		Fortune Systems, Dearborn, Michigan
...!hplabs!hpda!fortune!rhino!marcum

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 84 13:20:13-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Arthur C. Clarke's 2010

I have just learned heard something absolutely terrible about the upcoming
film "2010: Odyssey 2", and I heard it directly from Arthur himself (appearing
at GWU SEDS April 30).  Arthur says that the writer of the screenplay for his
film will be Peter Hyams.  Who is he, you say?  You're not going to like it.
Peter Hyams wrote and directed "Capricorn One", the biggest piece of anti-space
filth ever brought to deface the silver screen.  And it wasn't a good adventure
story either, even if you don't mind the political intonations.  Arthur says
that he's never met Hyams, but will meet him soon.  Evidently MGM assigned him
to the project.  My expectations for the film have dropped greatly.
     We are also told that Tony Banks (??) will be writing an original score
for the film, i.e. not much old classical music will be used.

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 84 13:47:19-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Trivia Question (diamond rocket)

<tap tap tap CLINK (OH NO)>

As any jeweler who is a diamond-cutter can tell you, the
diamond is a very hard crystal but it is also very brittle.
It shatters very easily.

The tensile strength of a material has definite bearing on
whether it would be useful as a liner for rocket engines.
Diamonds, besides burning, would shatter.

Hutch

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 84 14:41:30-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: EAFB May Be Used Throughout 1984

The Representative from Brevard County (where KSC is located) held a press
release recently, declaring that the above rumor was incorrect: KSC will
remain the primary landing site for routine missions throughout the rest of
the year.

I have the newpaper article at home; but since our school term is over I
keep forgetting to bring it.  Hopefully I'll have the full text submitted
by next week.

On a tangent, the above representative (Bill Nelson) is also considered to
be the best choice for first politician in space.  His home district
includes KSC, he is chairman of the Space and Technology sub-committee (or
something similiar), has been very active supporting the space program, and
if I recall correctly is in the military reserve.  So, once NASA starts 
taking on passengers, I know who I suspect will be among the first!


ave discordia				going bump in the night ...
bruce giles

decvax!ucf-cs!giles			university of central florida
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay			orlando, florida 32816

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 7:42:31-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-vgr!wmartin @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)

I'm mystified about this business regarding the fuel for the MMU's vs
the Shuttle maneuvering fuel. Not only the network news people (NBC)
but also the advisors (astronauts, scientists, whoever) were
specifically discussing that Pinky's MMU fuel gauge was "red-lined";
that he only had enough MMU fuel to get back to the Shuttle, so
he had to let Solar Max go and get back. There was no choice; it
was a "mission rule". I assumed he ran out because he had the MMU
thrusters on full while he hung on to Max trying to slow its rotation.
It wasn't surprising that he would run out. And since they wanted
to do the activity in sunlight, they had to wait until the next
orbit anyway to continue, as they approached nightside. But what
irked me was that NOBODY (advisors, newscritters, whatever) ever
mentioned refueling the MMU -- they talked about using the OTHER MMU.
They never said that it wasn't possible, that it would be possible
but wasn't wise or safe, or that there wasn't any source for more
MMU fuel, or ANYTHING! They just left the topic hang!

Now I see net discussion saying that it wasn't the MMU fuel, but
the shuttle thruster fuel that was the limiting factor. That is
NOT what was clearly and specifically said at the time. The term
"red-lined" was used repeatedly, and it was the MMU they were
referring to.

Now that the point is moot, I expect no one will ever say anything
publically about it again, but I still am irritated by the
failure of the people on the tv to ask and answer the OBVIOUS
questions that occur to the audience. 

Will

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 15:38:34-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!homxa!osd7 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Challenger's tight fuel budget

Well, if this was an exceptional mission with respect to
the maneuvers the shuttle had to perform, are there any
plans to upgrade the fuel capacity so that the shuttle can
be effective on Space Station construction, etc.?
I just want to learn more, not critizicing.
-- 
Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz/AT&T Bell Laboratories/201-949-1532
....ihnp4!homxa!osd7  /Crawfords Crnr. Rd., Holmdel, NJ, 07733

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 12:47:16-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Moon bullets

There are also numerous perturbations to a lunar satellite due to the
moon's triaxial ellipticity. These perturbations are much larger
in relation to the two-body forces than they are for earth satellites,
and many have the effect of changing perilune altitudes. The Apollo
flights had to be very careful of these effects when in lunar
orbits with perilunes of 10 km or so. Another interesting item
is that the Apollo 11 landing overshot its intended target by
some number of kilometers (5-7 comes to mind) because the precise
nature of the moon's gravitational field was still unknown, even
with all the experience from the Lunar Orbiter series.
A primary goal of Apollo 12 was to achieve demonstratable accuracy
in landing (based on Apollo 11 tracking results) by landing next
to a defunct Surveyor.

All this makes a story about rifle bullets fired from the surface
of the moon going into lunar orbit pretty far fetched.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 12:32:57-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SMM Repairs Effected

Mission specialists Melson and Van Hoften today
effected repairs on the Solar Max satellite,
replacing two defective units.  NASA will know by
tomorrow whether or not the repairs will enable
SMM to be placed back into orbit.

------------------------------

Date: 07 May 84  0015 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Partial eclipse coming on May 30th
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a013  2252  06 May 84
PM-Eclipse, Bjt,600
Nation Expected to See 'Diamond Necklace in the Sky' This Month
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The rare sight of a ''diamond necklace in the
sky'' may be visible to Americans this month, when the moon edges in
front of the sun to provide a partial eclipse visible across much of
the nation.
    Unlike the more dramatic total eclipses, the sun won't disappear
completely this time - at least a tiny bit will remain shining on
Earth, according to experts at the U.S. Naval Observatory.
    Instead of abandoning mankind - the implication of the Greek
derivation of the word eclipse - the sun may instead provide an
unusual display known as Baily's Beads.
    Because of their positions in the sky, the moon appears to be a tiny
bit smaller than the sun when it moves in front. If the moon's
surface were smooth, a simple ring of light would then form at the
heigt of the eclipse.
    But instead, the moon has mountains and valleys. And in the seconds
just before the maximum eclipse, light shining between the peaks
gives the appearance of bright beads around the moon, a ''diamond
necklace in the sky,'' as some have described it.
    Baily's Beads were named for the 18th century astronomer who
discovered them.
    Naval Observatory spokeswoman Gail Cleere reports that a second rare
phenomena is also possible during the eclipse - the shadow band
effect.
    This looks like the wavy sunlight bands that can be seen at the
bottom of a swimming pool. It is caused by the light being distorted
by irregularities in the Earth's atmosphere.
    In the United States, only residents of Alaska will be unable to
observe at least some of the eclipse, expected the morning of May 30,
according to the U.S. Naval Observatory.
    But the best place to view it will be in the Southeast, along a path
from just north of New Orleans to just south of Richmond, Va. Indeed,
Ms. Cleere noted that Interstate 85 nearly parallels the path of the
eclipse for more than 600 miles from Georgia to Virginia.
    Along that line the eclipse will be nearly total, with 99.8 percent
of the sun covered by the moon. Across the rest of the United States
and Mexico, a partial eclipse will be visible - with less of the sun
blocked out farther from the line.
    The eclipse isn't total because the path of the moon around Earth is
not a perfect circle. The closer the moon is to Earth the bigger it
appears, the farther away the smaller. Thus, sometimes the moon blocks
out the whole sun and sometimes, as this time, it doesn't.
    The eclipse will begin in the Pacific Ocean at 9:54 a.m. EDT, and
will move eastward across Mexico and into the United States. It will
be most visible in the late morning and early afternoon. It will peak,
for example, at Petersburg, Va., at 12:43 p.m. EDT.
    Officials of the Naval Observatory stressed that at no time will it
be safe to look directly at the sun. The sun will never completely
disappear and the intensity of the light from even the small visible
area can severely damage the eyes.
    Use of a cardboard with a pinhole to focus the image of the sun on a
second sheet of cardboard is recommended. But do not look through the
pinhole at the sun. As a safe alternative, they suggest, watch the
event on television.
    Use of welder's glass or a double thickness of exposed
black-and-white film are other methods that have been tried, but
caution must be exercised and the sun watched for only a few seconds
with these methods, officials said.
    
ap-ny-05-07 0151EDT
**********

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 84 6:23:33-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!tgg @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Emergency landings and OMS

The shuttle uses He to allow the crew to play around with high-sqeeky
voices to abate boredom. A secondary purpose is to pressurize the fuel tanks.
	Tom Gulvin	AT&T IS - Holmdel

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-May-84  0310	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #188    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
	     The Final Definitive Answer on the Fuel Question
		      Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)
		     Interstellar Laser-Pushed Sails
	     Re: Re: How to solve NASA's budget probl - (nf~^
			    SMM to be Released
		    Re: Challenger's tight fuel budget
			  Re: Obvious questions
		  Re: Trivia Question (diamond rockets)
			  SHUTTLE T.V. COVERAGE
			 Congressman Green; text
		       Re: Arthur C. Clarke's 2010
	   Re: The Final Definitive Answer on the Fuel Question
			  41C Coming to a Close
			    Triskaidekaphobia
		Re: The "grabbing onto Solar Max" Problem
		     Re: Getting it back to the Cape
			 Optimistic Booster Words
		       Re: how to grab a satellite
	       Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International
			     2010............
			       Re: spinoffs
			       Re: spinoffs
	   Scientists for a Manned Space Station, Press Release
			    Emergency Landings
			Re: Shuttle Tiles Question
			Re: Shuttle Tiles Question
				      
		      Re: Emergency landings and OMS
			 Bulletin Boards in Space
       Re: Purging corrosive propelants at alternate landing sites
			Technical info on shuttle
		     cmsg cancel <121@lakehead.UUCP>
		     cmsg cancel <119@lakehead.UUCP>
		     Support of Manned Space Station
		      Re: Emergency landings and OMS
		      Re: Emergency landings and OMS
			   Space Station Alert
		       Re: Orbital mechanics - (nf)
			 Re: Space Station Alert
	    Re: Fuses in Solar Max, they protect the batteries
			 Bulletin Boards in Space
				      
	       Sagan Seminar at Ames Res. Ctr. (reporting)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 16:27:50-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: The Final Definitive Answer on the Fuel Question

OK, this is an all encompassing answer to all the fuel questions.

1) Nelson's MMU did ''red-line'' on fuel.  That is why he
   broke off the SMM stabilization attempt and flew back
   to the shuttle.
2) There was another, fully-fueled MMU on board.
3) The MMU's can be refueled in orbit in about 20 minutes.
4) The shuttle itself ran low on maneuvering fuel, due to
   numerous attempts to grab SMM with the RMS while the
   satellite was wobbling and tumbling.  The fuel reserves
   for the front steering jets dropped to about 21 percent.
   This is why no further MMU-propelled EVA was executed;
   there may not have been enough shuttle fuel left to pick
   up the astronaut if his MMU failed.
5) There was no danger to reentry due to the low fuel reserve
   on the shuttle.
6) It was decided that there was enough shuttle maneuvering
   fuel (nitrogen tetroxide and monomethyl hydrazine, for those
   who are wondering) to attempt another grab at the SMM once
   it was stabilized (but still spinning).  As an aside, the
   additional maneuvers performed Tuesday in which the snare
   was successful burned up only half the fuel that ground
   controllers thought they would.

That should answer any and all questions.  If I missed any,
let me know.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 16:13:23-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Solar Max troubles - (nf)

As I understood it from the later news reports, Nelson's MMU did indeed
require refilling, but it was far from empty - just at the point
where the rules required a return.  However, the crew tried a grab
with the RMS arm later even with the nutation that had been introduced
earlier and it was this attempt that ran the forward RCS propellant below
the level at which further use of the MMU could be allowed. It was
flatly stated then that the MMU would not be used again on this flight.

However, this morning after the repair operation had been completed, they
did indeed try out the MMUs again untethered! I guess the rules can
be bent a little.

It had occurred to me too at the time Nelson attempted to grab the solar
array that this was an ill-advised thing to try. The possibility of
introducing nutation didn't occur to me right away, I was more concerned
about damage to the array arm. I also noticed later on, before we
heard stories about the ground's concern, that the solar panels no
longer seemed to be tracking the sun. I suspect that there will be
some pointed questions asked of the crew after this mission, at least
in private.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 11:47:00-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Interstellar Laser-Pushed Sails

The latest *Journal of Rocketry and Spacecraft* has an article by Robert
L. (*Dragon's Egg*) Forward on interstellar laser-pushed sails.
He gives details on an aluminum sail that would make it to Alpha Centauri
in ~41 years. The laser would be focused through a Fresnel lens.
The sail comes in two main parts: a smaller sail with the payload,
surrounded by a sail with a larger surface area and a high reflectivity.
At a given point, they separate, and the larger sail is accelerated
away from the payload sail, plus, its high reflectivity focuses light
back on the other side of the payload sail, thus slowing it (the p.s.)
down for a leisurely glide into the Alpha Centauri system.
He also writes about a three stage sail that would go to Epsilon
Eridani and return, but I haven't read that far yet.
					Wombat
					ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 11:36:00-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Re: How to solve NASA's budget probl - (nf~^

It's not easy to give money directly to NASA. When the Viking Fund had
collected contributions for NASA to be used on Viking communication and
study of data, they had to go through paperwork and regulations and
absence of guidelines before NASA got the money, as I recall. But I
don't think NASA was allowed to publicly guarantee the money would be used
for Viking.
						Wombat

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 19:05:09-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: SMM to be Released

Solar Max has checked out, and the crew of the shuttle will
release it shortly after 0400 EST Thursday morning.  After
it is redeployed facing the sun, the shuttle will tail it for
one orbit.

Meanwhile, on the ground, the situation for landing did not
look good weatherwise, and NASA is considering extending the
flight a day or two.  Another alternative would be to land
at EAFB.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 84 19:02:05-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Challenger's tight fuel budget

Yes, there is something called an "OMS kit" which can be installed
in the orbiter's cargo bay to carry extra propellants for the Orbital
Maneuvering System. This is intended mainly for very high
altitude (relatively speaking) missions such as those to sun-synch
orbit from Vandenburg.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1984 14:34:44-EDT
From: Walter.Smith at CMU-CS-SPICE
Subject: Re: Obvious questions

Not only do newscasters fail to ask the "OBVIOUS questions" regarding a
mission, they often ignore (or don't understand) what's been said, and ask
REALLY STUPID questions.  My favorite example is from Jane Pauley during the
last launch, when the external tank was to be dropped in the Pacific Ocean
instead of its usual Indian Ocean target.  Seconds after one of the
on-camera experts explained that the change was because of the higher orbit
required to reach Solar Max, she asked if the change was made for political
reasons(!).  Arrgh.  Perhaps NBC could bring back NBC Overnight in the
mornings (just for shuttle launches).

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1984 1327 PDT
From: Doug Freyburger <DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Trivia Question (diamond rockets)
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Reply-To: DOUG@JPL-VLSI.ARPA

A diamond rocket nozzle would work just fine if the fuel mixture produced a
reducing enviroment instead of an oxidizing one.  I can't think of any
chemical way to do this, though.  There is even a problem with some reducing
enviroment chemistries.  Take a nuclear heated hydrogen plasma.  It would
"anti-burn" the diamond into methane if it where hot enough.  Diamond also has
manufacturing problems that make it not worth while; it can't just be "grown"
under reasonable conditions to a shape.

I have heard that some are working on saphire nozzles for rockets.  Saphire
has almost the temperature performance, much better chemistry as a stable
neutral substance, and it can actually be "grown" to shape.  Is work still
being done on this, and any progress that anyone knows about?

                        (-)NX,
                        Doug
------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 May 84 15:11 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: SHUTTLE T.V. COVERAGE
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA

I have talked my cable co. (Century Cable in Redondo Beach, Ca.) into
broadcasting the shuttle video/audio signal available on COMSAT ch. 3 on
their public access cable channel 3.  They will begin with the next
launch, which is currently scheduled for 6-20-84.  This signal is
available to anyone, and I don't believe cable companies need FCC or
NASA approval to rebroadcast (according to Century Cable).  Also,
according to Century Cable, it is very easy for them to do and not at
all expensive.

Only 3 cable companies so far in the U.S. have rebroadcast the shuttle
signals in the past (Group W Cable in Santa Monica, Ca., and a cable
company each in Ohio and Wisconsin).  I think it would be a great
benifit to all space enthusiasts to call or write their cable companies
and request that they do the same and to send letters of appreciation to
those companies that do.  Hopefully, if we show enough interest, there
will eventually be 24 hour coverage of all space activities (maybe a
dedicated space network) in the future.

By the way, Century Cable was not even aware that the signal was
available, so if you contact your cable co., you may enlighten them.
Thankfully, the engineer I was talking with was also a space enthusiast
and got most of his information the same way I do (monitoring JPL's NASA
rebroadcast on 2 meter here in L.A.).

Craig Anderson <Anderson.es@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1984 19:44:36-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Congressman Green; text

(This is the text in full of a press release issued by Congressman Bill
Green, R-NY)

      CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED MANNED SPACE STATION

     Congressman Bill Green (R-NY)  today said American space
scientists were concerned about the Administration's proposed manned
space station and he said that Congress should not allow NASA to
"lock us into a purely manned system."

     Green said he and many scientists that he surveyed were
concerned because of the high costs of a manned space station could
"put the sqeeze on other vital  scientific programs."

     Green is ranking minority member of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on HUD and Independent Agencies and which is to vote on
NASA appropriations in the near future.  NASA is requesting $150
million in planning money for a manned station.  Green said he is
considering requiring NASA to "take a two track approach" that would
include unmanned space platforms that would not depend upon a manned
station.

     "A two-track system might be best," Green said, "as any cost
overruns in the manned system would be somewhat less likely to take
funds from an independent unmanned program.  Furthermore.  NASA's
ability to fund the manned station without cutting other programs
depends upon its receiving a 1% real increase in each year's budget.
But the promise of that 1% from the Office of Management and Budget
cannot be guaranteed given economic and political uncertainties in
the future."

     Green said many scientists were concerned that cost overruns
in the space station would jeopardize other programs, and noted that
this happened when the Shuttle program jumped about 3% (to $8.8
billion from the original projected cost of $6.5 billion).

     "While a manned space station has some advantages, including
human drama," Green said, "most scientists surveyed tell us they do
not need a space station for their projects.  Even among those who
would welcome ar accept a station, more would prefer an unmanned
station."

     At a press conference in Washington, Green released the results
of a survey of members of the space science community that he had
conducted.  More than 75 percent of the respondents said their work
did not require a space station.  Forty-seven percent said they
would support a space station even if it had no immediate scientific
value, as it may have engineering, social or political value.
Within this group, there was slightly more support for an unmanned
station.

     Green noted that in testimony before his Subcommittee, Dr.
George Keyworth, the President's chief scientific advisor, conceded
that a manned station (with a projected cost of $8 billion) would be
more expensive and that costs per experiment in space run five times
more when done on a manned vehicle.

     "What we have to consider is mot only what we would _like to
do_ but what we reasonably can _afford_ to do," Green said.  "And
while a manned space station may be desirable as a step in man's
exploration of the stars, we should not permit one program to
jeopardize other less dramatic but valuable scientific
exploration."

contact: Hank Roden
212-826-4466/202-225-2436
Release: April 30, 1983

________________________________________________________________________

There will be furthur word on 'Scientists for a Manned Space Station'.
Stay tuned to this channel for new bullitens, as the story is breaking...

				amon@cmu-ri-fas.arpa

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 7 May 84 18:24:56 PDT
From:           Douglas J. Trainor <trainor@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
To:             hplabs!hao!kpno!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax
CC:             SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject:        Re: Arthur C. Clarke's 2010

[In regards to the unsigned message about 2010...]

So you don't like Hyams.  Well I don't like people ripping apart
directors and actors solely based on one film.  The news media suffers
greatly from this.  So CAPRICORN ONE wasn't up to par, you can't condemn
the guy forever.  Have you seen one of his more recent films, like
OUTLAND?  You make it look like Clarke doesn't approve.  Clarke & Hyams
have been in constant communication (via computer no less) since the
beginning.

As for the music, Tony Banks (of Genesis) is great.  It would be easy
for Hyams to pull out some classic, I admire him for doing something new.

Why don't you wait and see the film...

	Douglas James Trainor
	Video Image Associates, MGM/UA
	Marina Del Rey, CA

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 84 9:46:03-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!ralph @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The Final Definitive Answer on the Fuel Question

A couple of additional points:
1) The "red-line" on the MMU was pretty high. Nelson had just under
   50% of his fuel remaining when he returned to the shuttle.
2) The shuttle is the second backup in the event of an MMU failure.
   If an astronaut has an MMU failure, then either the shuttle itself
   or another crew member in the second MMU would go for the rescue.
   Because the shuttle was low on fuel (down to 21% in the forward RCS)
   [See Adam's article for more details], the second MMU was tested
   inside the cargo bay only. Ox did the flying on that one.

CNN provides much better coverage of inflight events than the
networks. They were very clear about the entire fuel issue and what
it meant to the mission.

				Ralph Keyser
				ihnp4!inuxc!ralph

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 84 17:59:05-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 41C Coming to a Close

With an empty cargo bay, NASA's symbol of success for
this mission, the crew of 41C prepared to come home
tomorrow.  Landing is set for 0707 EST, 13 April,
at KSC.  If there is early ground fog, the landing
can be postponed one orbit, until 0847 EST.

41D, the debut mission of the Discovery, is due to
launch on 19 June.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 84 17:00:29-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Triskaidekaphobia

The shuttle will land tomorrow, Friday the 13th.
The Solar Maximum Satellite completed 23,013 orbits today.
Tomorrow (landing day) is 13 years to the day that Apollo
	13 sufferred its explosion en route to the moon.
The shuttle will land after its 91st (7 times 13) orbit.
James D. van Hoften, a mission specialist, is 39 (3 times 13).
George D. Nelson was born on 13 July.

Call it as you will...

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 9:21:45-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!warner @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: The "grabbing onto Solar Max" Problem

[bugs]

Could this be the space equivalent of steer riding in a rodeo?
Grabing a rotating object in space could turn into a wild ride.
Maybe this will be one of the asteroid miner's sports.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 84 8:35:41-PST (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!witters @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape

There was a plan at one time to mount regular jet engines on the Shuttle for
test flights.  At some point, NASA decided to buy a used 747 and do drop tests
instead.  I'm not sure, but I think there may have been a plan to mount jet
engines on the Shuttle after an orbital mission, and fly it back to the Cape.
The engines would be removed before the next orbital flight.  Are you out there
NASA?  Please give us the straight scoop on this.

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 84 18:53:59-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Optimistic Booster Words

NASA today reported some encouraging words on two
troublesome secondary stage rockets, the PAM and
the IUS.  McDonnel Douglas, which manufactures the
PAM, which put two satellites into errant orbits
this past year and 18 previous successes, says it
has devised a method whereby it can tell which
rockets will work and which will not.  The method
involves a CAT-scan-like test of the rocket nozzle,
pinpointed as the source of trouble earlier this
year.  The report comes too late to launch a Canadian
satellite on the 19 June mission (Canada has rescheduled
the satellite for a 1985 mission), but it does now make
it possible to launch two communications satellites
in August.

NASA also reported that the IUS will undergo one more
test-firing, and if that works well, it will be ready
for use in launching a twice-postponed DoD package and
the TDRS-2 satellite.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 9:09:32-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: how to grab a satellite

*

   When the astronaut grabbed the solar max satellite in an attempt to
stop its rotation, he wasn't planning to change the rotation rate by
"giving it a shove". Instead, he was planning to activate the "attitude
hold" feature of his manoeuvering unit. The gyros in the MMU would
sense that their reference platform was rotating, and send out
commands to the MMU's gas jets to apply a torque in the direction
required to stop the rotation (I assume).

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 21:06:54-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle landings & Orlando International

During the approach for the first (and only) KSC landing, the ground track
of the shuttle passed directly over Orlando International Airport.  I
should mention that this should be a relatively rare occurance; those
ground tracks covered nearly all of Central Florida when the paper
publishes them in case of an (emergency) landing at KSC.

For those unfamiliar with Central Florida, OIA (MCO on tags) has two 15000
foot ex-military runways and is less than 50 miles from KSC.  Yet, when the
shuttle passed overhead, I recall it was at something like 60,000 feet!

The airspace controllers generously gave up 3000 ft of their own airspace,
lowering the ceiling for all flights thoughout Central Florida to 30,000
feet, so you can see that there was no real effect from the shuttle.

As to the sonic booms, that may become a problem.  I know several people
who were awaken by the shuttle passing overhead, and I could imagine
an aircraft at half the distance could be in for a surprise.  But, nothing
has been mentioned here, despite generally good coverage as a local event.


ave discordia				going bump in the night ...
bruce giles

decvax!ucf-cs!giles			university of central florida
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay			orlando, florida 32816

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 84 08:22 PDT (Tuesday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: 2010............
Re: SPACE Digest V4 #187
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA

	AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!  I didn't expect 2010 to be exactly like
2001, but I least expect it to stand on it's own.  But I agree with you that
it is a little disconcerning that MGM chose Hyams for the screenplay.
We'll just have to wait and see. Don't forget that Dune is also coming out
at the same time.  Oh, yeah Tony Banks is the keyboardist for the
band Genesis, one of the premier art rock bands of the '70s, but have no
fear they are not a punk band in any way(- remember the Lamb Lies
Down on Broadway ~'74).
						
						David Braunstein

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 9:15:33-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: spinoffs

*

To BILLW@SRI-KL:  I attempted to send you a reply through the reply
facility of our news system, but it didn't seem to make it through
to you. So, here's the message:
   Please send me a copy of that NASA economic-benefits report, if you have
any of them left. My address is...
Kieran A. Carroll
University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies
4925 Dufferin Street
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M3H 5T6

Thank-you!

------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 84 13:37:07-PST (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: spinoffs

dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA comments:

   ............................. I still think NASA spending on specific
   space projects is a poor way to foster general technological progress.
   It certainly isn't necesary (Japan spends much less on space, for
   example).  By "basic research" I really meant to include "basic
   development": research intended to produce new materials, technologies,
   etc., such as Japan's MITI sponsored research.  ...

My understanding is that Japan, until quite recently, has spent almost
nothing on basic research or basic development.  Most of their work has
been on production and reliability, with heavy reliance on basic R+D
done elsewhere.  It remains to be seen whether their recent initiatives
in home-grown basic research are going to work; these efforts cannot yet
be cited as evidence for anything.

Venture capital investment is very good at bringing technologies to
market, i.e. tidying up the rough edges and selling it.  It does very
little for making the blasted stuff work in the first place, because
basic R+D is too long-term to be attractive to venture capital.  With
the exception of a few farsighted large corporations, it is hard to find
*anybody* who is willing to sink a substantial amount of money into work
that is really long-term.  A typical manager's idea of "long-term planning"
is two years.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 1984 19:57:05-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Scientists for a Manned Space Station, Press Release



Scientists for a Manned Space Station
---------------------------------------------------------------------
   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                         April 30, 1984

                                  Contact:  Dr. Robert Jastrow
                                            (603) 646-3361

                                            Joe Hopkins
                                            (206) 773-7984

In today's competitive world, the United States must depend more
than ever on our scientific vision and our commitment to
technological excellence.  Therefore, after a decade of neglect,
America needs to undertake major new investments in our civilian
space enterprise.

Many leading U.S. scientists support a bold new venture in space and
see a manned space station as an essential first step towards any
such effort.

A partial listing of leading scientists who support a manned space
station as a doorway to longer-term goals follows [affiliations
listed only for identification purposes only.]:

Prof. Paul Coleman
President, Universities Space Research Association
Earth and Space Sciences Dept., UCLA

Dr. Robert Jastrow
Earth Sciences Dept., Dartmouth College
Former Director, Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Dr. James Fletcher
Former Administrator, NASA

Prof. Gerard O'Neill
Physics Dept., Princeton University

Prof. Marvin Minsky
Former Director, Artificial Intelligence Lab, MIT

Dr. Peter Glaser
Vice President, Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Prof. James Koutsky
Chemical Engineering Dept., University of Wisconsin

Prof. Gregory Benford
Physics Dept., University of California-Irvine

Prof. Gerald Rupert
Chairman, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics,
University of Missouri-Rolla

Prof. James H. Lawler
Former Chairman, Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Dept.,
Trident Technical College, Charleston, S.C.

Dr. Philip Chapman
Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Dr. Lawrence A. Taylor
University of Tennessee

Prof. John Park
Vice Chancellor, University of Missouri-Rolla

Prof. Bill Johns
Materials Science Dept., Washington State University

Prof. Paul Cloutier
Space Physics and Astronomy Dept., Rice University

Dr. Hugh R. Anderson
Senior Scientist, Science Applications, Inc.

Dr. Robert Bussard
Nuclear Physicist

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 3:18:25-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Emergency Landings

There was some problem with this message before, I will will
repost.  The shuttle has emergency landing sites in Dakar,
Senegal (primary abort landing during first phase of launch),
Rota, Spain (former primary abort site), EAFB (primary abort
after one orbit site), White Sands Missile Base (secondary
abort after one orbit site), and a site in Japan.  In the
unlikely event that all of these are stricken by bad weather
at once, the shuttle can land at any airport with a 15,000
foot runway (Orlando, most all of your international airports,
military airports, etc.)  So a place to land will never be
a problem.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 20:57:22-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hplabsc!faunt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Tiles Question

The thermal conductivity of the tile material is low enough that
one end of my sample piece 3"x1"x1" can be red hot and the other end
can be held in your hand.
I got the sample at the first launch.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 84 8:19:27-PST (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle Tiles Question

>	I seem to recall a news report that featured a guy heating a tile
>	with a torch for about a minute, then picking up the tile with his
>	bare hands and not being burned.
>		T. C. Wheeler

The person probably picked up a tile by its corners, which can indeed be
done safely.  Handling a face of a tile would seriously burn you.
	Roger Noe		ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 84 22:01:14-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!amd70!phil @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 

-- 
Phil Ngai (408) 749-5286 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!phil

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 84 10:12:46-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!ron @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Emergency landings and OMS

He tanks?  What does the shuttle do with Helium?  Fission engines?

-Ron

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 84 12:14:51-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Bulletin Boards in Space

Be sure to see this article on page 88 of the May 1984 BYTE. It is
an excellent description of the proposed PACSAT (Packet Radio Satellite)
that AMSAT and VITA are working on.

Phil Karn, KA9Q

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 84 14:38:45-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!judd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Purging corrosive propelants at alternate landing sites

some one mentioned that the OMS produces rather light thrust (few hundred lbs).
Since this is the only fuel left on-board why not turn the shuttle 'round w/ 
a tractor and then taxi about untill all fuel is gone??   it might be hard on 
the OMS motors but safer in the long run.

-- 
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa:   judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!judd

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 84 14:00:24-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Technical info on shuttle

Shuttle documentation can easily fill several rooms of a building.

My suggestion is,
if you want simple general documents write NASA HQ in Washington DC or
the public information office of the nearest NASA Center.  Get an idea
from these documents what you really want.  The Manned Space Center in
Houston is probably the best.

You can also write contractors such as Rockwell in Downey, CA for lots of
info.  You should find that most of this stuff is free.  I wrote away
and got TONS of it when I was in 9th grade, more than any one could want,
the only problem is that it get outdated so fast.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 84 12:12:26-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!lakehead!gamiddleton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: cmsg cancel <121@lakehead.UUCP>

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 84 12:03:41-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!lakehead!gamiddleton @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: cmsg cancel <119@lakehead.UUCP>

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 84 7:55:54-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!teklds!hercules!marcw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Support of Manned Space Station

The proposal for the manned space station is meeting its first major
opposition in the House Appropriations Committee.  If you support
funding for this station call:

	Ed Boland (Committee chairman)
	(202) 225-3241
and/or
	Bill Green (Committee co-chairman)
	(202) 225-3481

and voice your support.  To be most effective, calls should be made
before Tuesday, May 8, 1984.

Thank you for your time and support.
					Marc Wells

via uucp:    ...!{dec | ucb}vax!tektronix!marcw
via CSNET:   tektronix!marcw@tek
via ARPAnet: tektronix!marcw.tek@rand-relay

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 84 13:02:35-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!mees @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Emergency landings and OMS

Forgive me if this has been posted before. I've been subscribing for
quite awhile and have never seen an answer to this question:  some of
you keep referring to "technical references" on the shuttle.  Can someone
please send me titles and probable locations where I can obtain same?
Thanks.

		jim
		decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!mees
			ucbvax!sdcsvax!dcdwest!mees
		(619) 578-3080		(last resort)

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 84 11:00:15-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Emergency landings and OMS

*

   If the shuttle does have helium tanks (I'm pretty sure that it does, 
but must admit that I've not checked any technical references),
then it probably uses them to store the helium that's used to pressurize
the hydrazine fuel used by the orbital manoeuvering engines and attitude
control engines. The pressurized helium is used to force the fuel out of 
its storage tanks, rather than using heavier and more complicated
fuel pumps to provide pressurized fuel to the engines.

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 84 20:34:33-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Space Station Alert

I received the following Spacepac alert Saturday May 5, 1984
---------------------------------------------------------------

SPACEPAC Emergency Alert
Suite S
2801-B Ocean Park Blvd
Santa Monica     CA 90405



VICTORY IS NEAR:  ONE MORE SHORT, FOCUSED, MAXIMUM EFFORT IS REQUIRED!
     Thanks in part to your efforts, the space station victory is within sight.
Of the three swing-vote Congressmen that we asked people to contact in the last
E-COM message, one is now on our side and the other two are leaning in our
direction. Dr. Hans Mark, Deputy Administration of NASA, has recently written
us commending our pro space station efforts.
     We have come from behind to a position where we have at least an even
chance of victory despite significant organized opposition. This battle is
being fought in the most difficult of all the subcommittees that the space
station legislation is faced with.  If we lose here, we will be forced to
engage in a long series of expensive time-consuming battles, the main objective
of which will be damage control.
     Thus we are calling upon everyone for a short, maximum effort drive aimed
at obtaining a decisive victory. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CALL OR TELEGRAM
CONGRESSMAN EDWARD P. BOLAND, even if you have recently done so. As Chairman,
he is by far the most powerful Congressman an the Committee. At this point
his blessing would be decisive. WE HAVE UNTIL THE END OF BUSINESS HOURS ON
TUESDAY, MAY 8, TO REACH CONGRESSMAN BOLAND BY PUBLIC OPINION TELEGRAM OR BY
PHONE. Phone calls should be made during business hours in Washington;
BOLAND'S PHONE NUMBER IS (202) 225-5601. Public Opinion Telegrams (20 words or
less, address not needed) may be sent any hour of the day or night by calling
Western Union at the toll-free number listed in the white pages of your phone
book. ASK CONGRESSMAN BOLAND TO SUPPORT FULL FUNDING ($150 MILLION) FOR THE
PERMANENTLY MANNED SPACE STATION. Don't forget to ask your friends to help.
     The space station war has become an enormous undertaking. Examples of the
types of activities that L-5 and Spacepac are engaged in include: E-COM; phone
tree alerts; mail to people outside of our collective membership; local and
foreign chapter alerts; efforts to obtain help from other organizations;
special local efforts aimed at key Congressmen, such as visits from our local
people; Congressional testimony; potential Spacepac donations to campaigns;
Washington lobbying activity (Gary Oleson, our Washington representative,
has been working only half time for the last three months in order to volunteer
more time to these efforts); as well as an enormous amount of volunteer time.
     We do this because it is important. It is also expensive. We need not only
your time, but also your dollars. These should be sent to Spacepac (Dept. X)
at the above return address.  Remember, you are entitled to a 50% tax credit
for the first $100 donated ($200 for couples), whether you itemize or not.
    Our entire internation network is totally mobilized and committed. The
system is under enormous strain. We need whatever help you can give.
Signed: Mark M Hopkins, Spacepac Chairman, L-5 Society Executive Vice Pres.
(E-COM software by Lagrange Systems, 3231 Audley Suit 104 Houston TX 77098)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


 OK, you have all read it. I hear a lot of lip banging on this net about
support for the space program and the space station. Here is your chance to
do something more productive than pounding a keyboard.
 
                 CALL NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                    Fred Mendenhall AT&T CP
                                    Indianapolis, Indiana

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 84 14:43:00-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!emrath @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orbital mechanics - (nf)

#R:decwrl:-750600:uiuccsb:15700011:000:327
uiuccsb!emrath    May  5 16:43:00 1984

Thanks,  I did that same sanity check, but on the mission in question,
their orbit went to something like 250-290nm, so bringing them down 80
or so wouldn't be enough.  I guess you had to be there.
Anyway, it makes me realize that when they say LEO, they mean it!

	Perry Emrath, UofIL
	...{decvax|inuxc}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!emrath

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 84 9:00:10-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!palmer @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station Alert

<>

    It's time to get on the horn and start the wheels of politics
rolling.

    Call Congressman EDWARD P. BOLAND, (202) 225-5601.  He is Chairman
of the House Appropriations committee, which makes him rather
influential.  Ask him to support FULL FUNDING FOR A PERMANENTLY MANNED
SPACE STATION.

    We have until the end of business hours on Tuesday, May 8 to get
our voices in.  CALL NOW.  If it is after Tuesday, call him anyway.
ANY statement of support will help.

    I called his office at 10:40 EDT this morning, and they had already
logged 50 calls.  This is what is known, in political circles, as a
groundswell, and it will not be ignored IF WE KEEP IT UP.

    Phone today, it will make the future a much better place to live in.

    That's CONGRESSMAN EDWARD P. BOLAND  (202) 225-5601.  Do it.




                        David Palmer

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 84 12:35:47-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!oliveb!jerry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Fuses in Solar Max, they protect the batteries

The fuses are not there to protect the module.  They are there to
protect the power supply!  The idea is that if module X shorts out it
can drain the battery dead.  Module X might have a minor function or
even have a redundant backup in module X2.  But if the space craft
loses power then thats the whole ball of wax.  The telemetry and
control radio link is lost and all other modules stop functioning.  And
of course it might be possible for the overload to overheat the
surrounding modules.

Given a real short circuit and no fuses they would never have been able
to cancel the tumble from ground control and the repair mission would
have failed!

Resettable fuses are a nice idea but would weigh and cost more.  It's a
trade off with including a larger experiment package or bigger battery/solar
cells.  Also they would have their own reliability factor.

					    Jerry Aguirre
    {hplabs|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 84 12:14:51-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Bulletin Boards in Space

Be sure to see this article on page 88 of the May 1984 BYTE. It is
an excellent description of the proposed PACSAT (Packet Radio Satellite)
that AMSAT and VITA are working on.

Phil Karn, KA9Q

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 84 9:50:31-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!kpno!amd70!phil @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: 

-- 
Phil Ngai (408) 749-5286 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!phil

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 84 16:47:01-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Sagan Seminar at Ames Res. Ctr. (reporting)

Today, May 9, Carl Sagan (Cornell) spoke to the Center about the search
of life in the Universe.  Hopefully, since he is in the Bay Area, others
will get a chance to hear him in public lectures (today's was for Ames
personnel only). The following is a summary of topics.

Sagan began by making a distinction between the search for life versus
the search for intelligent life starting in the solar system.  He covered
the work preceeding and including Harold Urey and Stanley Miller.
The focus then moved to space looking first at the basic results of the
Viking Mission to Mars, and then the latest Voyager Titan data.
(He hinted that we should put together a Titan probe because of previous
Ames probes to Venus, Jupiter and Saturn.)

If any person doubts that Carl has foresaken research for public life,
it must be noted that he presented his latest research analysing and
modelling the atmosphere of Titan [this is the latest stuff].  He detailed
atmospheric profiles for complex organic molecules which won't be
reproduced here.

Lastly after a light set of questions, he gave a plug for the joint research
done on the nuclear winter study with Jim Pollock, Brian Toon, and
Tom Ackermann (all at Ames).

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,hao,dual,research}!ames-lm!statvax!eugene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-May-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #189    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
			      Administrivia
		   Re: Support of Manned Space Station
			 Re: Space Station Alert
			   Re: Why 104% thrust
			 Re: Space Station Alert
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 84 12:46:26-PDT (Fri)
From: Ted Anderson <ota @ S1-A>
Subject: Administrivia

Sorry for the last massive space digest.  Our system was down for several
days due to a disk crash and although nothing was lost there was an awful
lot of queued mail.  I should have held the log jam back and let it out a
little at a time but I forgot.
	My apologies,
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 84 9:40:26-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Support of Manned Space Station

Congressman Boland's office tells me that they've had about 400 calls
so far. Keep it up!

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 84 10:21:20-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!oddjob!jeff @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station Alert

<>

		Why do we need a Space Station????


		            Jeff Bishop    || University of Chicago
		      ...ihnp4!oddjob!jeff || Astrology & Astrophysics Center

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 84 21:45:11-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!pyle @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Why 104% thrust

The often heard phrase "104 percent thrust" refers to 104% of the engines'
RATED or design thrust.  That is, the engine is designed to produce a given
thrust for a given time before major overhaul.  In the case of the Shuttle
Main Engines, the engines are designed to produce a higher than rated
thrust but at the sacrifice of time between repairs and/or failures.

An analogy is that automobiles are designed for typical driving with
maximum speeds on the order of 55 MPH (at least in theory, they are).
You can choose to drive at higher speeds but the vehicle will require
more maintenance or it won't last as long due to the increased wear.


Keith Pyle

UUCP: . . .{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,kpno,gatech}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!pyle
ARPA: pyle@ut-ngp

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 84 9:50:43-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space Station Alert

      Astrology ???? and Astrophysics ?   I guess that explains why
someone (possibly) involved in Astrophysics would ask why a space
station is needed!!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                |
    "Things always look         |  A message from the mental maze that 
    darkest just before         |      calls itself:
    they go totally black!!"    |                                          
                                |
       -- Col. Hannibal Smith   |      ERIC STROBEL
                                |
--------------------------------|

UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET:       els @ pur-phy.UUCP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-May-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #190    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:
			Re: transponder? scramjet?
			Re: LDEF orbital elements
			Re: LDEF orbital elements
			      IMAX IN SPACE!
		      R. Forward's Laser Light Sail
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 May 84 23:47:43-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!dual!proper!chris @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: transponder? scramjet?

A question.....

As to the tracking cameras that NASA uses to track the shuttle after
liftoff, etc....  Does the shuttle have any type of transponder for
identification/tracking purposes, or is it all done by ground radar?

Also, I was idly wondering how practical it might have been to put a
ram/scramjet engine on the shuttle.  The former type has no moving parts,
will *ONLY* work well at mach > 2 velocities, and consumes relatively
little fuel/thrust. It would seem like a good idea.....

			Tnx in advance...

	Chris Hayes
	ucbvax!dual!proper!chris

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 84 15:03:51-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: LDEF orbital elements

Figure approximately 530 km circular altitude in a 28.5 deg inclination orbit.
The orbit will decay over the LDEF's stay in orbit by perhaps 20-30 km.
Due to the low inclination, however, the LDEF will probably not be visible
from the northern parts of the US.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 84 10:25:29-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: LDEF orbital elements

Yes, LDEF is almost 10 meters tall, but it's oriented by gravity gradient
so that one sees the "end", only about 4.3 meters wide (a dodecagon, I
think).
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 84 11:51:28-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!abnjh!cbspt005 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: IMAX IN SPACE!

According to a UPI story, the first 27 minutes of film made in space with
the large 70MM IMAX movie camera was screened unedited on May 9 for the
first time for a small audience of NASA and Smithsonian Institution officials
at the National Air and Space Museum.  The film was shot on the Challenger's 
most recent mission.  The astronauts have not yet seen the footage, but will
at a private screening next week.

IMAX Systems Corp. of Toronto plans to have the final half-hour movies ready in
the summer of 1985 after more footage is hot on the next shuttle flight in
June and on a flight scheduled for October.  The film is a project of IMAX,
the Air and Space Museum, and Lockheed Corp.

    "When the first frames of the high fidelity 70MM film appeared on the 50
by 75 foot screen at the museum, the audience gasped.  It appeared as if
you were in the shuttle Challenger, looking through a rear cockpit window at a
bus-sized satellite suspended over the shuttle's cargo bay on the end of the
ship's robot arm. 

     Part of the blue,tan and white Earth and the blackness of space served as
a panoramic backdrop as the ship cruised at more than 17,000 mph and some
300 miles high.

     The next frames showed the big satellite, called the Long Duration 
Exposure Facility, coasting along beside the Challenger after the satellite
had been released by the astronauts.  Then there were shots of tan western
Africa and the cloud-pocked South Atlantic Ocean.

     One of the sunrises the astronauts saw every hour and a half also was
captured on film, beginning with various shades of blue topped by a layer
of orange gradually brightening until finally the sun appeared.

     After a few inside shots of astronauts Robert crippen, Dick Scobee, Terry
Hart, James van Hoften and george Nelson, the camera showed the Solar Max
sun-watching satellite the astronauts retrieved. It was shown mounted in
the open payload awaiting repairs."

-Eric Carter
AT&T-IS
S.Plainfield,NJ
{allegra,mhuxl,akgua}!abnjh!cbspt005

 

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1984 11:49-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: forward@USC-ECL.ARPA, rforward@USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: R. Forward's Laser Light Sail

Forward has used his laser propelled light sail in a science fiction
story.  The story appeared in abbreviated form in Analog as
"Rocheworld",  and has been published in full length as "The Flight
of the Dragonfly".  The full length version goes into considerable
detail about the laser light source.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-May-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #191    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 191

Today's Topics:
			      Re: scramjets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 May 1984 1329-PDT
From: LEE at SU-STAR
Subject: Re: scramjets
To: SPACE%MIT-MC at SCORE
Reply-To: LEE at SU-STAR


	Indeed, a scramjet might be very interestingas part of a hybrid propulsion
system. They could be used during the supersonic/hypersonic atmospheric flight 
phase of a Shuttle-type vehicle
ascent to orbit. Unfortunately,
according to Ben Rich, the new boss of Lockheed's Skunk Works, a scramjet has
yet to achieve any net positive thrust.(note that this was a public statemet) Any
propulsion people out there willing to give an opinion?
				Emilio P. Calius
				Dept. of Aero & Astro
				Stanford
------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-May-84  0304	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #192    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 192

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #190
		    Re: big bangs / ultimate problems
			  Re: Fuses in Solar Max
			    Westar 6 AKM fired
	      Re: big bangs / ultimate problems (Monopoles)
			Westar 6 Orbit Stabilized
			  Discovery Moved to VAB
			Re: transponder? scramjet?
			    Re: NASA spinoffs
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #191
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kyle.wbst@XEROX.ARPA
Date: 14 May 84 10:47:34 EDT
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #190
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: kyle.wbst@XEROX.ARPA

Re: Chris Hayes question about a transponder or radar on the shuttle for
the tracking cameras... I've been at press site 39 for two Apollo
launches, and one shuttle launc and saw a large tracking camera set up
for video tape applications which (if memory serves me correctly) was
locked on by infrared sensors tracking the exhaust from the launch
vehicle (at least that's what the operator told me). Perhaps that's why
they want clear days for launches.

Earle.

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 84 11:57:35-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: big bangs / ultimate problems

*

   The New Physice (according to a recent Scientific American article)
indicate that magnetic monopoles, should they exist (the theories
predict that they should, but in minute numbers) would be able to
catalyze the decay of protons, attended with a rather vast release of
energy. If we could find and capture a few monopoles,
they'd make a greatpower source, better even than fusion promises
to be.

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 84 0:06:56-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Fuses in Solar Max

Fuses are common practice in spacecraft. Normally, they are sized such
that only a catastrophic failure of the associated subsystem will
blow the fuse. This prevents a failure of a (possibly replicated) subsystem
from dragging down the common power supply bus and possibly losing the
entire spacecraft.

Subsystems which could reasonably be expected to draw occasional overloads
are indeed often protected instead with resettable (by command or by timer)
"circuit breakers". But there are still many failure points in a spacecraft
which are hard to protect against without total redundancy of each
and every subsystem, which is often just not practical. You also have
to weigh the (normally high) reliability of fuses against more complex
(and hence more likely to be unreliable) auto-resetting circuit breakers.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 84 16:33:27-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Westar 6 AKM fired

The apogee kick motor on Westar 6 was fired today to circularize its
orbit at 600 miles in order to keep it in orbit long enough for a possible
rescue mission. If it is to be repaired, it will have to be brought down
to a 300 mile repair orbit with maneuvering thrusters.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 84 18:32:45-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!oddjob!matt @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: big bangs / ultimate problems (Monopoles)

Yes, monopoles would catalyze baryon decay, giving about 100 times the
efficiency of fusion, but to get a usable rate of interaction you would
need to compress your fuel to the density of a white dwarf or thereabouts!

Keep thinking though.  If we don't solve the energy problem pretty soon we
will have to go back to brushing our teeth by hand.                    :^}
___________________________________________________
Matt			ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford		UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 84 20:01:00-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Westar 6 Orbit Stabilized

Ground controllers today fired Westar 6's on-board rocket
and brought the satellite into a circular, 600 mile high
orbit.  Before the operation, the satellite, in a 150 by
500 mile orbit, was in danger of falling into the atmosphere.
Today's maneuver preserved the satellite for a possible
future rescue attempt.  NASA is conducting negotiations with
Western Union about such an attempt being made in November.
Palapa B, in a similar 150 by 500 mile orbit, would also
have to be raised soon to protect it.  If the satellites
are to be rescued, they would have to be brought back down
into the shuttle's range, about 300 miles.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 84 7:31:53-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Discovery Moved to VAB

The space shuttle Discovery was moved to the VAB yesterday,
following work in the OPF.  After it is mated to its external
tank and SRB's, the Discovery will be moved to the launch pad
next week.  On 1 June, its three main engines will be test
fired, and on 21 June, it will be launched on the 7-day 41-D
mission.  Its crew will include America's second woman in
space.

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 84 9:51:32-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: transponder? scramjet?

Since the Apollo days, NASA manned spacecraft have used something called
the "Unified S-Band Tracking and Telemetry System". This is a coherent
two-way transponder system in which the ground tracking station sends up
a phase-modulated carrier on 2106.4063 mhz. The shuttle carries a
phase-locked-loop synthesizer which multiplies the received carrier
frequency by 240/221 and transmits the resulting 2287.5 mhz signal.
The ground can now lock onto this carrier and regenerate its original
uplink frequency, which will of course be doppler shifted. In fact,
if the system stays locked, the ground can count individual wave fronts
as the shuttle moves, much like a police radar (but much more reliable).
The phase modulation on both the uplink and the downlink can go on
simultaneously with the doppler measurement, but it can also contain
pseudo-random data sequences to provide range information as well as
velocity. Take these numbers and put them into a least-squares nonlinear
curve fitting program with an orbit model, and you get the shuttle's
orbital elements.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 84 1:29:29-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: NASA spinoffs

Anyone who wants to know about NASA's contribution to general
technology should subscribe to "NASA Tech Briefs", a quarterly
put out for the specific purpose of diseminating NASA technical
innovations.  My copy of the "Summer 1983" issue arrived a 
weel or so ago, and includes myriad ideas and inventions available
under varying degrees of licensing  -- all non-exclusive, if any.
(I think the 1983 is a misprint)

Topics include:  Electronic force gauge for welders; Improved
o2/h2 gas mixture sensor; High power (400A 1200V) transistors;
Normal incidence X-ray mirror; A compact skin-friction gauge for
wind tunnels; NRZ Data asymmetry corrector and convolutional
encoder; Self modulated Laser rangefinder; Transducer joint
for kidney-stone ultrasonics; ANd many more


Surely anyone can find something useful in one of these volumes.
Also included are listings of new books and available computer
programs; I sent off for info ona set of VAX/VMS security programs
for a friend who manages a multi-VAX VMS installation.

Subscribe by sending the following information to
	Manager, Technology Transfer Division
	P.O. Box 8757
	Baltimore/Washington Int'l Airport, MD 21240

1.Name
2.Title
3.Company
4.M/S Code		Phone
5.Street
6.City			State		Zip
-----FOR HOME DELIVERY------
Street
City			State		Zip
(Home delivery is possible only if items 1-6 are completed)


I have 4 cards left in my copy, and will fill them out for anyone
who mails me complete information specified above; omit home
address if you want delivery at work.

Subscription is free.

Berry Kercheval		Zehntel Inc.	(ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry)
(zehntel!berry@BERKELEY, I think)
(415)932-6900

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 84 05:12 EDT
From: dmrussell.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #191
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

Would someone define "scramjet" as opposed to "ramjet"?  (I know ramjet,
just not the other...)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-May-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #193    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
			    Magnetic Monopoles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 May 84 08:13 PDT (Tuesday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Magnetic Monopoles
Re: SPACE Digest V4 #192
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA

"	If we could find and capture a few monopoles,
they'd make a greatpower source, better even than fusion promises...."

		
	Good idea if we could capture a few monopoles, but we have yet
to confirm the existence of the monopole.  Blas Cabrera at Stanford has
measured one isolated 'event' using a superconducting SQUID detector on
Feb. 14,1982, but recorded no others since then, leaving open the possibility
of either a very low monopole flux, or an equipment malfunction. 

	Anyways, in addition to monopoles being far and few between,  they
are also very massive, ~1.0e16GeV, or about the mass of an amoeba, and
very small, ~1/100th radius of the electron,(1.0e-15cm?).  Any monopole
travelling through space with a collison course with earth, would pass right
through the earth with little perturbation along the way, so good luck in
catchingm one.  For more (accurate) information on monopoles, read the May or
April issue of Physics Today. Also there was a Scientific American article
in ~spring 1981-82 on monopoles.




						David Braunstein


							Xorex, El Segundo

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-May-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #194    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 194

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Partial eclipse coming on May 30th
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 May 84 18:41:42-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!gsw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Partial eclipse coming on May 30th

A safe and cheap way to observe the eclipse is to use welder's glass
of the proper shade.  Here is a quote from Sky and Telescope, November,
1983, p403:

	"One safe way to look at Sun is to hold a rectangular
	welder's glass of the proper shade in front of the eyes.
	In a major study of radiation hazards to the eye in
	`Applied Optics', January, 1973, pages 1-33, D. H. Sliney
	and B. C. Freasier noted that a shade density of AT LEAST
	No. 13 (visual transmission 1 part in 130,000) is
	required for viewing the Sun. Shade No. 14, the densest
	made, provides glarefree viewing comfort during the
	partial phases, even when the Sun is high in a clear sky.
	But for the details of the beads of sunlight at the limb
	during annularity a No 13 shade may be preferred."

I bought a No. 13 and a No. 14 shade a few weeks ago.  They cost me about
$1.40 each from S.O.S. Gases in Middlesex, New Jersey.  Most welding
suppliers stock welder's glass, though only two of the four I tried
stocked the shades necessary for viewing the Sun.  The glass comes in
two sizes the smaller of which is sufficient for viewing with both
eyes at once.  They measure 2" by 4 1/4".

WARNING:
If you prefer to use over-exposed negatives as suggested in the A.P.
article (and I don't) DO NOT use color negatives as they are transparent
to infra-red.

Observing the "Diamond Necklace"
--------------------------------

The A.P. article says:

>	    Because of their positions in the sky, the moon appears to be a tiny
>	bit smaller than the sun when it moves in front. If the moon's
>	surface were smooth, a simple ring of light would then form at the
>	heigt of the eclipse.
>	    But instead, the moon has mountains and valleys. And in the seconds
>	just before the maximum eclipse, light shining between the peaks
>	gives the appearance of bright beads around the moon, a ''diamond
>	necklace in the sky,'' as some have described it.

>	    But the best place to view it will be in the Southeast, along a path
>	from just north of New Orleans to just south of Richmond, Va. Indeed,
>	Ms. Cleere noted that Interstate 85 nearly parallels the path of the
>	eclipse for more than 600 miles from Georgia to Virginia.
>	    Along that line the eclipse will be nearly total, with 99.8 percent
>	of the sun covered by the moon. Across the rest of the United States
>	and Mexico, a partial eclipse will be visible - with less of the sun
>	blocked out farther from the line.

In order to see the "diamond necklace" you must be somewhere on the path
described above.  This path is 6 miles wide when it arrives on the Louisiana
coast line at 12:02 CDT and is only *3* miles wide when it leaves the Viginia
coast at 12:49 EDT.  If you are intend travelling to view this phenomenon,
known as an annular eclipse, you will need to know exactly where to go.

It is probably too late to write but the U.S. Naval Observatory will supply
(for free) a set of maps and reams of data for this eclipse by asking for
Circular 166 at the U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C. 20390.
Alternatively you can telephone me during the evening on (201)671-7780.
I will photocopy the maps you require and mail them the following day
(also for free, fool that I am.)

Finally, meteorologists for the Observatory estimate that there is only
about one chance in three that the sky would be clear enough along most of
the path of annularity, though this can be significantly improved if you
are mobile.

I will be standing where Route 1 crosses Interstate 85 about 6 miles west of
Petersburg, Virginia.  See you there?


	Gordon Watson, AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, New Jersey.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-May-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #195    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
		      New computers for shuttles ??
	  Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 May 84 7:42:01-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!akgua!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: New computers for shuttles ??

(c) 1984 The Orlando Sentinel
-----------------------------

Space shuttle may fly on new computers in '86

by James Fisher
of the Sentinel Staff
--------------------------------------------

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER -- Frustrated by the limitations of the space
shuttle's computers, NASA is planning to replace the 1960s-era system in
1986 with faster units that can store more information.

The memories of the five computers on each shuttle orbiter are "100 percent
full" during launch, preventing technicians from adding any new launch-
related information before a mission unless they remove some existing data,
computer managers said.

That process is inefficient, time-consuming and costly but will have to
continue until replacement computers are installed, said John Garman,
former deputy chief of the spacecraft software Division at Johnson Space
Center in Houston.

The five computers usually have more than enough memory when the shuttle
is in orbit because they can tap into two separate mass-memory units.

However, there is no access to these units during critical launch and
re-entry activities, limiting the computers to their individual smaller
memories.

"Yeah, of course it's a problem," Garman said.

The computer crunch doesn't endanger the flights, he said, but "it just
hurts, that's all."

Since the design of the computers began in the late 1960s, computer 
technology has expanded rapidly.  But the shuttle's computers weren't 
upgraded because changes would have affected other systems being developed
and tested, NASA officials said.

Planners wanted to get the shuttle operating smoothly before modernizing
individual systems such as the computers, said Dan Marlowe, a shuttle
avionics engineer in Houston.

Although technicians were able to expand the memories once during shuttle
construction, the capacity problem has plagued programmers since the first
flight little more than three years ago.

With each mission, NASA "keeps adding and modifying and doing things,"
Garman said.  As launch sequence data is added, "we have scrubbed and cut
down" on existing data.

"I don't think there's ever been a critical point.  It just costs more
money," he said.  "It'll make it a lot more cheaper when we don't have
to keep pulling good stuff out to replace it with better stuff."

Replacing data in the computers is time consuming because technicians have
to run a series of checks to make sure the changes haven't disrupted other
instructions in the memory, Marlowe said.

Each of the modified IBM general purpose computers weighs 104 pounds and is
in two metal boxes that measure 7-1/2 by 10 by 20 inches.  They are in the
front middeck crew compartment.

Four computers operate simultaneously, and any one can run the shuttle.
The fifth is a backup if all the others fail.

Each computer has about 106,500 words of memory.  The two mass-memory units
that aid the computers store up to 34 million bytes of information.  A byte
is comparable to a word in computer language.

Data in the computers instruct them to monitor all the shuttle's systems, 
gather information, find problems, control communications and provide
guidance, navigation, and control for launch, re-entry, and landing.

The launch sequence puts the most stress on the computer memories because 
of the amount of information and because the mass-memory units aren't
accessible, Garman said.

Along with instructions for ascent, the computers have to keep handy the
means for the shuttle to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in case of trouble
and land at one of several sites.

NASA officials said they are discussing computer improvements with Rockwell
International and IBM, but no contracts have been awarded.  Officials with
the space agency and both companies would not speculate on how much new 
computers would cost.

Plans call for each replacement computer to be combined into one box.  The
memory would be expanded to accomodate 256,000 words and could issue 
instructions to the computer four times faster.  The mass-memory storage
units would still be used.

Installation probably would be done in phases, one orbiter at a time,
starting in 1986, Marlowe said.  NASA has three orbiters -- the Nina, the
Pita, and the Santa Maria.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That last bit was to see if anyone was still awake.  The original article
correctly identified the orbiters as Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ave discordia				going bump in the night ...
bruce giles

decvax!ucf-cs!giles			university of central florida
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay			orlando, florida 32816

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 84 10:21:38-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Space station?? How about other things too/first?

*

   Well, there will be "something up there" in the interim period, while
the space station is being designed. There are free-flyer version of 
Spacelab, for example, which are designed to be left on orbit for
a few months. There's the Long Duration Exposure Facility, ditto.
There have been other proposals from the European Space Agency, 
if I remember aright, for unmanned stations on a small scale, that'd
provide power/cooling/pointing/communications on a reusable basis,
in the near future.

-Kieran A. Carroll

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-May-84  0302	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #196    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:
			New Computers for Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 May 1984 07:18:06 EDT
From: METH@USC-ISI
Subject: New Computers for Shuttle
To:   SPACE@MIT-MC
cc:   METH@USC-ISI

Parkinson's Law:  Things expand to fill the available space.

How long after the new computers are approved do you think the NEW memory will be full?

ALL spacecraft experience the same problem.  The Space Telescope's flight computer exceeded memory goals a few months ago!


-Sheldon Meth
 The BDM Corporation
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-May-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #197    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
		      Re: Cost of the Shuttle - (nf)
			   Call for Scientists
			Observing May 30th Eclipse
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 84 23:12:00-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!smu!clardy @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)

#R:sri-arpa:-1244000:smu:17700003:37777777600:200
smu!clardy    Apr 29 03:12:00 1984

[sacrificial line, to imaginary bugs]


Could someone out there who is able to attend the lecture please
summarize it to the net, for those of us who do not (currently)
live in California.

Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 84 9:32:00-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!cozadde @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Cost of the Shuttle - (nf)

#R:astrovax:-31600:trsvax:56000015:000:1822
trsvax!cozadde    May  9 11:32:00 1984



	To: Ed Turner	astrovax

	I, too, think the manned space program was a waste of money,
	but only the part between the X-20 Dyna-soar and the space
	shuttle.  The entire part of the manned space program that
	includes the Mercury project through the Apollo project was
	a publicity stunt dreamed up by the Kennedy admin.  If the
	X-20 had been completed and the space shuttle (which uses
	mostly 1965-1970 technology) had been started on time, the
	space scientist types would be complaining about not getting
	enough money for their 1000 kilometer base-line radio tele-
	scope in Lunar orbit or their 10,000 inch optical telescope
	in Lagrangen-4 or 5 orbit.  So, the manned space program lost
	between 10 to 20 years (more than half of a hopeful astronaut's
	career) to a publicity stunt.  Maybe if we worked together, we
	can make up for some lost time.  Instead, it seems the 'space'
	scientists would rather sit at the bottom of a 100 mile well of
	dirty air that is getting more polluted by the day.  I have
	heard the IRAS unmanned telescope was able to produce more infor-
	mation in 1 day than an earth bound telescope could produce in a
	year.  What kind of productivity would a manned IRAS type tele-
	scope in Lunar orbit have in contrast to an unmanned IRAS in LEO.

	In conclusion, there is a saying that has a collolary:  In your
	life some rain must fall, but it might wash the dust from your
	eyes and your mouth if used properly.  If the 'space' scientists
	would get behind and push for the manned space program instead of
	throwing rocks all the time, the benefits they may receive could
	be greater than they could ever hope for by clinging to the dust
	of the earth.

					lt. of marines
					David E. Cozad
					Chairman DFW SpacePac
					...microsoft!trsvax!cozadde
					...ctvax!trsvax!cozadde

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 84 9:24:31-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!marla @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Call for Scientists

*
I am posting the following at a request from Dale Amon of the L5
society. It was  origionally posted on the ARPA space-BB.

Replies may be made through me at ssc-vax!marla or directly to Dale
at  AMON@CMU-RI-FAS.ARPA.

**************************************************************************

This afternoon at 1:45 a press conference was held by Congressman Greene,
who is on the House Appropriations Committee. He recently did an informal
survey of universities and claims he could find no scientists supporting a
manned space station. He would like to see a strictly robotic station.

A number of us at L5 have been working around the clock to generate an
organization to be called 'Scientists for a Manned Space Station' or
something along those lines. It will essentially be a list of names.

Our retaliation has two parts. A member of the White House Science Office
is at the above mentioned conference, and will proceed to name some
important scientists who back a manned station. This neutralizes the initial
press coverage. About a week from now, Dr. Sheffield or Dr. Jastrow will
hold a press conference to expand on the stand that many scientists ARE for
a manned space station.

I would like you to collect the following information from as many
individuals who are working scientists as you can find:

1) Name
2) Title: Mgr of whatzits
3) affiliation: Univ of North Podunk
4) phone number
5) address

The more names and the more influential the names, the better. But be
selective. We do not want to warn our opposition!

Get friends to ask their friends, and so forth. Collect as many names as
quickly as you can!

These individuals will have to do nothing more than agree that the space
station should be a reasonable mix of robotics and humans.

If you have a really big name, contact Joe Hopkins in Seattle,

	206-773-7984 (Gordon Woodcock's office)
	206-821-3303 (home)

and tell him I referred you.

Pass this message along to interested friends so they can widen this to
include their friends as well.

For our purposes, a scientist is anyone making their living primarily from
research, regardless of whether they are a Phd.

					Ad Astra,
					Dale Amon
					amon@cmu-ri-fas.ARPA

************************************************************************

Marla S. Baer
ssc-vax!marla

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 19 May 84 20:24 EST
From:     Charles Weems <weems%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject:  Observing May 30th Eclipse

    It should always be stressed that one should NEVER look directly at
the sun.  Only a short period is required for permanent damage to the eye
to take place.  If observing the sun through a telescope, this is even
more important as only a brief glance will cause irreversible damage.
Even when looking at the sun through dark filters, one must be careful
that the filter eliminates the infrared end of the spectrum.  This is often
NOT the case.  The darkest welders glass will do this as will a totally
blackened black and white negative.  One must be careful with the latter
however.  The reason a B&W negative works is due to its silver content --
and it must be really totally black (believe me, the sun is plenty bright
to be seen even through this).  Some newer B&W films are also going to
switch to a die based emulsion (to save silver cost) -- these will be

unsafe even when fully blackened.  The filter of choice for solar observation
is a metal coated film or glass, which eliminates the infrared.  The best
kind is Inconel coated optical glass (because it gives a nice yellow color
to the image).  These are now in short supply (due a run on them for the
eclipse).  The next best is aluminized mylar.  This is available from
graphics supply stores in about 3' wide rolls, sold by the foot.  Try to
get the stuff that is aluminized on both sides and that is very thin.  If
it is only available in singly aluminized, you can double it over but it
won't be quite as clear.  Try to get a piece with as few scratches as
possible.  If you can't find it in rolls, the aluminized mylar baloons
that are often available from party supply places and florists can be cut
up and used as well.  Hold it over your eyes (or glasses) so that you
block out the reflections from backlighting and you will get a good
view of the sun (with blue coloration).

    For those with telescopes, it is recommended that you use only a
objective covering filter (again, mylar or glass, metal coated).  Both
refractors and cassegrains can be damaged by the heat from direct sunlight.
An objective filter prevents this entirely.  For newtonian reflectors,
projection onto a white screen can be done, but the heat of the focussed
solar image can damage an eyepiece.  DO NOT use the little dark eyepiece
filters that are supplied with many cheap telescopes (labelled "solar
filter").  These are frequently subject to shattering due to expansion
from heat.  Some better refractors (those costing in the range of $1200 to
$6000) come equipped with a solar prism, filter and aperture reducer:  These
can be used safely if all directions are followed.

    For indirect observation, you can make a pinhole in a piece of cardboard
and hold it so that an image from it falls on a white sheet of card stock
behind it.  If you want to be more elaborate, use a cardboard box and
replace the back side with frosted drafting acetate to for a rear projection
type viewer.

    It is recommended that you test the apparatus you choose on a sunny
day sometime before the eclipse, so you'll have time to make adjustments
before the real thing.

chip
(Former telescope salesman from Oregon -- where everyone's frightened
of the sun 'cause we don't see it but twice a year.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-May-84  0303	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #198    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
			re: Russian Space Program
			Re: Russian Space Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 May 84 12:40:51-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix241 @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: re: Russian Space Program

line-eater


If this is a repeat posting, my apologies.
 


   >The Russians have *NEVER* returned soil samples from the moon.
   >Yes, I did read the note that said they did, but whoever wrote it
   >was either misinformed or simply ignorant.

   Sorry, that is misinformation.  The soviets returned at least two
   small (kilogram size range) samples from the moon.  This is a very
   small fraction of what the Apollo program returned but valuable
   because they are from other places on the moon.  What was cute and
   normally political for the soviet government was how our lunar
   scientists got a sample so we could work with it.  NASA and the NSF(I
   think) offered several grams of lunar soil from a couple of Apollo
   missions in exchange for roughly 200-300 milligrams of Lunokod
   sample.  The US side thought this was fair because we knew and the
   relevant soviet scientists knew that it would take larger samples for
   the soviets to get a comparable amount of information to what the US
   would get from 100 milligrams or less.  The soviet government would
   have none of that. "The Americans are not better!!! We give the same
   as we get."  So we got a couple of grams of theirs and they got a
   couple of grams of ours.

   I refer you all to James Oberg's Red Star in Orbit.  If you think
   Kennedy was grandstanding with Apollo, you don't know what
   grandstanding really is.



					John Testa
					UCSD Chemistry
					sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix241

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 84 0:39:41-EDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Russian Space Program

 
>The Russians have *NEVER* returned soil samples from the moon.
>Yes, I did read the note that said they did, but whoever wrote it
>was either misinformed or simply ignorant.
>
>   smu!clardy
 
Perhaps you know something the rest of us don't. I will give you 
a reference at the end of this message and then you may assess the
last line of your message and judge exactly to whom it might
conceivably apply.

In 1970 a SOVIET unmanned lander ( LUNA-16) collected and returned to earth
some lunar soil fines from the Mare Fecunditas. LUNA-20 landed near
Appollinus C. Results have been published and the lunar material has been
sent to laboratories around the world (including the lab here at ukc).

In case you do not trust the Soviet literature, refer to

 NASA SP-370 1974 Part II
ed.s J.H. Pomeroy and N.J. Hubbard
Proceedings of The Soviet-American Conference on Cosmochemistry of the
               Moon and Planets.
Held in Moscow June 4-8 1974.

Published by NASA in 1977


With Best Wishes,
dgd@ukc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-May-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #199    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:
	     NASA Transfers Delta Launches to Private Company
			usefulness of Apollo, etc.
		      Re: Russian soil sample return
			  Re: Soviet Moon Rocks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 May 84 3:06:50-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: NASA Transfers Delta Launches to Private Company

NASA yesterday transferred all Delta launch operations and
services to the control of TCI.  The private company will
take over promoting, selling, and launching Delta rockets
after NASA finishes its launch contracts, which run through
October, 1985.  TCI will pay NASA for the use of KSC launch
facilities and tracking services.  The Delta rocket has a
93.8% success rate, and its last 40 flights have been suc-
cessful.  Other companies are negotiating to take over
Atlas-Centaur launches from NASA and Titan 3 launches from
the Air Force.

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 21 May 1984 09:34:14 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-vlsi.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: usefulness of Apollo, etc.
Message-ID: <1984.5.21.13.29.33.Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-vlsi.arpa>

The statement that the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs were worthless
has some very large holes in it.

We lacked some important things like good computers, reusable engines,
composites, etc needed to make a worthwhile shuttle.  And the bugs still
aren't worked out of the engines.

All of those programs built a body of knowledge that was very useful to later
programs.  A simple example is space medicine.  So don't say those programs
were worthless.

Those programs also got back lunar soil sooner than a fully reusable program
would have.

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1984 1233-PDT
From: LEE at SU-STAR
Subject: Re: Russian soil sample return

	Chronology of Soviet lunar soil sample-return missions:
(From Space Technology,"chief author" Kenneth Gatland, Harmony Books,
New York, 1981)

NAME	DATE	COMMENTS

Luna	4/15/69	Failed to reach Earth orbit
Luna	6/12/69	Failed to reach Earth orbit
Luna 15	7/13/69 Failed to achieve softh lunar landing
Cosmos
300	9/23/69	Failed to leave Earth orbit
Cosmos
305	10/22/69 Possible succesful trans-lunar injection only
Luna	2/19/70	Failed to reach Earth orbit
Luna 16 9/12/70	Succesful. On the moon for 26hr 30min.
		Extracted c.100gr of rock & soil to a depth of 13.8in.
		(35cm) from Sea of Fertility@0deg 41min S, 56deg 18min E.
Luna 18	9/2/71	Crashed Sea of Fertility
Luna 20	2/14/72	Succesful. Returned samples from thelunar highlands
		@3deg 32min N, 56deg 33min E, between the Seas of 
		Fertility and Crises.
Luna 23	10/28/74 Failed to return due to landing damage
Luna	10/13/75 Failed to reach Earth orbit
Luna 24 8/9/76	Succesful. Returned samples taken toa depth of 6.56ft
		(2m) from Sea of Crises @12deg 45minN, 62deg 12min E.

Note: All of the above were estimated to mass c. 5.5metric tons.
				Emilio P. Calius
				Dept. of Aero & Astro
				Stanford U.

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 84 8:37:36-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!tiberio @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Soviet Moon Rocks

When I was a geology undergrad at U. Mass. (grad 1977), my advisor Dr
Stephan Haggerty asked me to stay on as a grad student and do research on
Soviet Moon rocks. Steve is a well known South Africian Mineralogist and
had been looking at US moon rocks for some time.  We used to get calls
from the flat earth society and other organizations wanting to know if WE
really went to the moon or if the money went to the CIA.  It was a fun
time.

seismo!tiberio

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-May-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #200    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 200

Today's Topics:
			 Discovery Rolled to Pad
		  Re: Trivia Question (diamond rockets)
			      Up on the farm
			Soviet soil sample probes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 May 84 9:29:25-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Discovery Rolled to Pad

The space shuttle Discovery, newest in the expanding fleet, was rolled to
pad 39A yesterday.  On 2 June, its main engines will be test fired, and on
21 June, it will list off on 41-D.

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 84 8:43:24-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Trivia Question (diamond rockets)

17 May 1984

     Many solid rocket nozzles are made of a carbon-carbon composite, for
example the Star-48 motor used on PAM-D's and the SRM-1 motor used on the
IUS.  These are made by forming a graphite-epoxy structure, then heating
it until the epoxy chars, leaving carbon fibers reinforced by carbon
particles.
     The composition of this nozzle is nearly 100% carbon, which is the
same as diamond.  The nozzles are used because they are strong for their
weight at the extremely high temperatures they operate at.
     The nozzle throats (the narrowest part) DO erode during the motor
operation, but it is hard to find anything that won't do that at
those temperatures (6100 F for a Star-48).

Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace / ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-0570

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1984 12:28-EDT
From: cu-arpa.dietz@Cornell.ARPA
Subject: Up on the farm
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <84/05/22 1228.410@Cornell>

Photosynthesis is very inefficient in converting light to usable chemical
energy (efficiency ~ 1%).  One problem is the thermal nature of sunlight.
Much of the energy arrives at wavelengths where chlorophyll absorbs
inefficiently.

The massive part of a space farm is likely to be the pressure vessel
and soil in which the plants are grown -- reflectors for sunlight have
low mass.  Too much sunlight focused on the plants causes heat
dissipation problems.  One can differentially reflect different
wavelengths of sunlight with plastic diffraction grating mirrors.
Focusing only those wavelengths where chlorophyll absorbs efficiently
could greatly increase crop yields,  without too much waste heat frying
the plants.  Ultimately, one would want to breed plants of algae to
efficiently absrob light in a narrow frequency range, then illuminate
with a laser beam of that frequency.  If the laser was chosen to
radiate at a frequency where the human body was fairly transparent,
perhaps the algae could be encouraged to grow in the human body,
eliminating the need for breathing.

So: how efficient is chlorophyll at various wavelengths?  Has anyone
ever tried growing algae by laser light?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 May 84 15:13:58 pdt
From: Ross Finlayson <rsf@Pescadero>
Subject: Soviet soil sample probes
To: space@mit-mc
Cc: rsf@Pescadero

This is astonishing.  I had not been aware of so many failed Soviet
attempts, prior to the 3 successful missions.  Does "Failed to reach Earth
orbit" mean that the module containg the soil samples did not reach Earth
orbit after liftoff from the moon, or that the initial liftoff from Earth
was unsuccessful?  In any case it's interesting to note that any of the
first three attempts, had they been successful, would have preceded Apollo
11, and therefore would have upstaged it (to some degree).  So it seems
that the USSR hadn't totally conceded the 'race to the moon' after all.

	Ross.

ps.  I wonder how long we'll have to wait for soil samples from Mars (or
even harder, Venus!)?  A Mars soil sample return should be feasible with
current technology, although not with current levels of funding.  If only
we could cooperate with the Soviet Union on projects like this.... (dream
on)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-May-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #201    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 201

Today's Topics:
			Some word from NASA (long)
		   Re: ssc-vax.139: Call for Scientists
			      Up on the farm
	     Re: is the American Space Foundation worthwhile?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 May 84 11:39:25-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Some word from NASA (long)

(Somewhat long)
Topics:	Private space vectures
	Societies on Space
	Applying to NASA

1)

NASA is not exactly set up to assist private space ventures.  NASA is supposed
to help spread information, but this runs a foul in several ways.  NASA does
work in the public domain, and many companies don't want to distribute their
information for a competitive edge.  This is a problem obviously for those
companies.  Information is there, you just have to sift for it.

Also, NASA is not very good at PR.  It suffers many of the same problems as
other US Govt. agencies like HUD and the old HEW.  I am aware of firms
doing private space in Texas and locally in the Bay Area.  In general:
firms in areas with lots of money to begin with, an extension of model
rocketry in some ways.  The problem here is one of physics and mechanics:
it is difficult and complex to actually get a satellite off the ground
(maybe more difficult in some ways than assembling nuclear devices).
I say this from working on SEASAT and VOYAGER.  I am trying to release
work on a TM and work on a recuriting brochure.  Can't imagine the
paperwork.

2)
Space societies: the official NASA position is one of "beign negligent"
(not my words).  I am partial to the Planetary Society (Bruce Murray 
and Carl Sagan) and the Viking Fund.  I know those who started the World
Space Foundation.  The problem is too little money being spread too thin
(another NASA problem).  Most NASA higher ups tend to disregard this groups
because their "time is too precious."  Yes, I guess I am a space nut
and want to see space as a means of "speaking for Earth."  I think on the
whole these societies are something of a waste (don't mean to offend anybody).
It to bad, too.  All that energy.

I like the idea of the Viking fund supporting existing data collection.
The WSF's ideas of actually sending a solar sail into space, are neat too!
Other societies spend too much for things too far into the future
[it is important to have an imagination (something some NASA bureaucrats
lack, to the surprise of some) this is the role of dreams such as those
of Robert Goddard, but I really want to put something out there now!].

The militarization of space is something that worries me (and others).
I only hope we are not too late.  NASA is a civilian Agency, but I
have met more and more former military types the farther I wander from
the Center I started at.  Not to fear, entirely.

3)
Applying to NASA (Again).
NASA desparately needs computer scientists and EEs.  They are many obvious
factors for this.  Most critically, they need an infusion of new blood,
people familiar with UNIX/C, distributed networks, interactive single user
workstations and AI (many other things like VLSI, CAD, too).
Our tendency is for advanced degrees.

The best things to do:  If you are in HS or undergrad.  Learn as much as
possible (and more).  Finish your education and stay on top of what's
happening in space.  Write a resume (hardcopy as well as electronic).
You need to go to an office of the US government and get a form 171.
This is the standard form for US government jobs.

Send this form and resume to a NASA Center which you are interested in.
(Snail mail)  You should have some idea what you are interested in.
You need to be willing to relocate.  This is a brief break down of where
to send your resume. (Alphabetically)

	Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 in Silicon Valley.
	(also has the Dryden Flight Research Center)
	We do aerodynamic research, flight simulation, wind tunnels,
	we developed the infamous shuttle tiles (not the glue!),
	the 35 degree swept wing characteristic of most modern jets
	was developed here.  The Rogallo hang glider was developed
	by one of our people in his spare time.  The shuttle
	lands at our site of EAFB (Dryden).  They just got a new
	Elxsi 6400.  We run numerous UNIX systems as well as a Cray-XMP
	And we will be getting a Cray-2.  There are tons of other work,
	(such as manned vehicle system research), but I should be brief.

	Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD just outside
	Washington DC.  Oversees unmanned, near Earth missions such
	as weather, Landsats, etc.  Oversees means the day to day mission
	operations, not what is done with the data.  They have a Cyber 205
	and a thing called the Massively Parallel Processor. (16,384 processors
	for image processing (8 per chip).  I have a contact if you are
	willing to work on Amdahls and IBMs (A few VAXen runing VMS).
	They are considering UTS at this time.  Mail me if you want his
	name and address.

	NASA HQ, Washington DC.  Located right across the street from the
	Air and Space Museum.  Coordinates more than researches.  Not
	much to see if you should visit.  If you send a resume here,
	what happens to it is up to question, but you can send a copy at
	least.

	The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
	Pasadena, CA 91106.  JPL has resisted a name dedication and is
	known by some as the Just Plain Laboratory.
	They are in charge of the Deep Space Network and most deep space
	missions: Voyager, Galileo, etc.  They do some local earth stuff.
	They have probably one of the best computer graphics and
	image processing facilties in the world.
	JPL is a contact lab to NASA from Caltech.  This has advantages:
	in CA, associated with one of the finest schools in the world
	(Caltech) which can give advanced ideas.  It has problems, too.
	Smog, facilities problems.  They recently came on the net.
	To apply here, don't send a 171.  Send resume to the employment
	office or connections.

	Johnson Manned Space Center, Houston TX
	This the mission control for the Shuttle missions after liftoff.
	There are simulators, lots of training facilities.  They have
	the Lunar Receiving Lab from the Apollo missions.  They should
	on the net shortly via HP9000s.

	Kennedy Space Flight Center, FL
	This is where the shuttle takes off and lands.  A large physical
	site, mostly for the preparation of launches, and very little to
	do after they get up into space (like Goddard, JPL).

	Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville AL.
	This is where testing of materials, and systems for manned space
	goes on.  I have not visited, but you might note that many of these
	NASA sites are located in the Deep South (cheap land and other
	reasons).

	Wallops Island, VA  Another smaller launch site like Kennedy.

	No center name.  A facility in the area near Santa Barbara, CA
	to be associated with Vandenberg AFB for polar launches. Not clear
	if it will be an office, or what.

	Manned space station.  It is planned that a permanently manned
	space station will be the next major NASA Center.

Each of these of fair too brief.  I am willing to relay (for net inhabitants)
those resumes to the appropriate area of interest, or establish a
dialog, if interested.  I did this once before, and I got three or four
responses from the entire net (including ARPA).  [Is that a lot of
interest in space?]

Alternative:  You can work for a NASA contractor.  They are many:
Rockwell, McDon-Doug, even AT&T.  Apply to them, ask around.
Technicolor Graphics (EROS data center), Informatics, Intermetrics, SDC,
lots of companies.  Be careful!  You might not be working with space.
The problem is you will not be able to work into policy making areas
easily.  (Second man on the totem pole. Last hired, first laid-off).
There are also smaller specialized contractors such as our newly formed
Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS, ames-lm!riacs!rac
<Roberta A. Cummings>) or ICASE.  You should have an advanced degree.
Director is Peter Denning.  ICASE's path is uvacs!icase!%s.
There are other things like the Goddard Space Institute.

Special regard for summer hires: it too late for this year!  I will post
something on the net in Nov/Dec time frame.  You should apply around Jan1/15
Anybody who's been to a University knows that anything can be done with
a signatures, so, if you are still looking  Something might still be
possible.

--eugene miya		(Better than working on bombs)
  NASA Ames Reseach Center
  {hplabs,hao,research,dual}!ames-lm!statvax!eugene (UUCP)
  emiya@ames-vmsb (ARPA)
	
	Smail:	MS 233-14
		NASA Ames Research Center
		Moffett Field, CA 94035
	Phone: (hard to reach me) (415)-965-6453
		(Messages) 	(415)-965-5197

	If you are getting a CS/EE PhD,  stop by!
	I will give you a personal tour of the facility.
	We frequently post our computer science seminar to the local
	Bay Area net.  Watch for us.

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 84 21:31:43-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: ssc-vax.139: Call for Scientists

I hate to use news for this but mail seems to bounce back.
To: Dale Amon c/o Marla S. Baer
Consider me a member of Scientists for a Maned Space Station
From: Jose Torre-Bueno
      American Innovation inc.
      Box 151108
      San Diego CA 92115
      (619) 583-8009
      Ph. D. Rockefeller U. 1975
      (above adress valid as of June 6)

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1984 05:23-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Up on the farm
To: cu-arpa.dietz @ CORNELL
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Using laser light to grow crops means you have to first convert
sunlight to electricity then run lasers, with loss of efficiency and
cost of all that equipment. Your idea of diffraction grating to
selectively reflect desired wavelengths of sunlight sounds like a
better idea but why not just use multi-layer thin-film mirrors? The
principle of enhancement of wavefronts is the same as diffraction
grating, but you can reflect just the wavelengths you want whereas a
diffraction grating reflects all wavelengths in different directions.
This would reduce the light pressure (a la solar sailing) on the
mirror, and thus reduce the need for support for the mirror. It would
also avoid other wavelengths focusing in other places near or in the
greenhouse where they might do harm. It would also allow a second
mirror behind the selctive mirror to collect the rest of the sunlight
for other less wavelength-selective purposes such as heating something
to generate electricity by turbine or thermocouple etc.

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 84 9:24:48-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: is the American Space Foundation worthwhile?

[non-violent bug-catcher]
21 May 1984

     I received a similar mailing about a year ago, when they were just
getting started.  Since I have been involved with space activism for years
and had never heard of the ASF, I gave them a call and talked to someone
in thier office for a while.
     They started in November of 1982.  Their membership has been gotten
almost entirely from mass mailings such as you and I recieved.  Astronauts
have lent their names to the mailings but are not directly involved in the
operation.  The organization says they intend to be lobbyists for space in
Washington, D.C.
     Other space organizations have different aims.  The L-5 Society promotes
space development of all kinds, is non-profit, and works by educating the
public.  The Planetary Society supports research and exploration of the
Solar System, and uses soe of its money directly for funding research.

Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-May-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #202    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
			American Space Foundation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1984 21:48:22-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-VLSI
Subject: American Space Foundation

I've been a member since 1982.  They are strictly a Space PAC and spend
their time lobbying Congressmen, giving them money, holding receptions, etc.
Various Congressmen such as Newt Gringrich are associated with it.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-May-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #203    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 203

Today's Topics:
	       Russian probes "failed to reach Earth orbit"
		    Presidential candidates and space
	       Could the Galileo probe contaminate Jupiter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 25 May 84 11:50 EDT
From:  Chris Jones <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  Russian probes "failed to reach Earth orbit"
To:  Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840525155033.819224@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

These all refer to failures to achieve earth orbit after launch from
earth.  If you think about it, it's pretty pointless carry the fuel
necessary to decelarate the probe from ~ 25000 mph to 18000 mph from the
earth to the moon, then back to earth orbit (especially since you'd need
still more fuel to kick it out of earth orbit for recovery).

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 25 May 1984 13:11:28 EDT
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Presidential candidates and space
Message-ID: <1984.5.25.16.47.25.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

[The following is excerpted from "What presidential election could mean for
aerospace," an article in the May 1984 Aerospace America.  I have omitted
the introductory paragraph and the military positions.]

Mondale could claim to have been the Space Shuttle's number-one enemy in the
Senate, having led the fight to kill the program not once but three times
from his post on the space subcommittee.  Along with other liberal senators
such as William Proxmire, he routinely voted against space budgets.  In the
spring of 1970 it was Mondale who led the Senate opposition to the Shuttle,
coming within four votes of killing its authorization on the Senate floor.
Intense efforts by other space-subcommittee members defeated his effort, but
Mondale did not give up.  The program still faced two appropriations votes,
and Mondale again offered his Shuttle-killing amendments, but with less
success.  He dropped the fight only after the program was well underway, in
part, some believed, because of the growing support for the Shuttle by
organized labor, one of his major constituencies.

Although all this occurred over a decade ago, Mondale's critics remember
that in opposing the Shuttle he was opposing "The Space Shuttle/Space
Station" program, as it was called then, and his feelings toward the space
station have not mellowed.  Campaign staffers say he feels that NASA "has
not done its homework" with respect to what a space station would actually
do and how much it would cost, and he could not favor it until the proposal
has been "well thought out."  He also fears that such a program would, like
the Shuttle, draw funds away from space science programs, which he strongly
supports.

Gary Hart represents a largely unknown quantity for aerospace, even to his
Senate staff, who say that his position is only now being formulated.  In
1980 Hart led a move in the Armed Services Committee to zero funding for the
Vandenburg Space Shuttle facility.  As chairman of the subcommittee on
military construction, Hart had obtained enough proxy votes from absent
members to pass his amendment in the subcommittee's "mark-up," with the full
committee scheduled to vote the next day.  Last-minute scrambling behind the
scenes by committee staffers led the late Senator Howard Cannon to oppose
Hart and defeat his amendment.  Hart was denied even a face-saving token cut.

Then, in FY81, in a battle on the Senate floor to slice 2% across the board
in the HUD-Independent Agencies' budget, which includes NASA's funding, Hart
supported the cut and an amendment paring NASA's R&D funding in the same
year.

On the plus side, aerospace manufacturers in Hart's home state recall strong
expressions of support from the Senator for programs such as Skylab and
Viking.

Reagan's space-station initiative has become the biggest star on the space
horizon, and it is not the only bright one.  This year's proposed NASA
budget includes funding for a Mars Geoscience Climatology Orbiter, an Upper
Atmosphere Research Satellite, a Naval Remote Sensing Satellite, and a 13%
real growth in aeronautics.  The decline in NASA manpower will be halted for
the first time in many years.  Perhaps even more important, NASA
Administrator James Beggs recently announced an agreement with the White
House that grants NASA 1% real funding growth for the next five years.  This
demonstrates what Beggs calls Reagan's accptance of "the importance of NASA
R&D to our national economic well-being."

Total basic research has also fared well under Reagan, having risen 55%
(before inflation) since he took office.  "In the same period," Science
Advisor George Keyworth announced recently, "we've drastically reduced funds
for the kinds of demonstration projects that industry can pursue better as
well as for other non-defense development, at the same time ... bringing
basic research from the smallest to the largest component of non-military
R&D funding."  Non-defense R&D has actually declined in real terms under
Reagan, but defense R&D has ballooned by 107% over four years (before
inflation).

Reagan's strong support for defense spending is a surprise to no one, but
his interest in space has been almost continually underestimated, despite
statements to the contrary by Keyworth since the first days of his
appointment.  As a case in point, Reagan's space-station decision took much
of the aerospace community by surprise (a statement by the National
Coordinating Committee for Space praising the decision had to be drafted and
endorsed in one day in order to be released in time for Reagan's speech).
Perhaps most significant, Reagan is reported to have made his decision in
the face of opposition from most of his top advisors.

------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 25 May 84 10:00:25 PDT
From:           Rich Wales <oly.wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
Reply-to:       wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
To:             SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject:        Could the Galileo probe contaminate Jupiter?

An article in the June 1984 issue of Astronomy magazine ("The Star Tar
in the Jupiter Jars" by Linda Joan Strand) discusses the possibility
that the "probe" portion of the upcoming Galileo mission to Jupiter
might contaminate the Jovian atmosphere with terrestrial anaerobic bac-
teria.

According to the author, no appreciable steps have been taken during the
construction of the probe to insure its sterility.  Although it is a
virtual certainty that the probe will burn up in the atmosphere during
its descent, we cannot be 100% certain that some microorganisms might
not escape, find the Jovian environment to their liking, and possibly
mutate beyond recognition in a relatively short period of time.  Such a
happening would severely complicate -- and perhaps ruin entirely -- any
subsequent attempts to search for indigenous Jovian microbes.

Ms. Strand goes so far as to advocate outright cancellation of the Gali-
leo probe (leaving only the orbiter part of the mission) unless adequate
steps can be taken to sterilize it -- and, at this late stage, she sug-
gests that a thorough sterilization of the probe is probably impossible.

Comments?

-- Rich <wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-May-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #204    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 204

Today's Topics:
	A Space Station Construction Set (NASA bigshots take note)
		      Re: Russian soil sample return
			      Jupiter probe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 May 84 18:49:53-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!ames-lm!jaw @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: A Space Station Construction Set (NASA bigshots take note)

#  I'm the Urban Spaceman, baby, I can fly.  I'm a supersonic guy.
   I'm the urban spaceman, baby, I've got speed.  And everything you need.
   I'm the   "      " , baby, a lover second to none.  It's a lot of fun.
   I don't need pleasure, I don't need pain.
   If you knock me down, I'll just get up again.
   I'm the urban spaceman, baby, here comes the twist--
   I don't exist.
	-- Bonzo Dog Band, from 2nd LP "The Doughnut in Granny's Greenhouse"
_____________

     Well, space station designers, the little elves have already done
your work for you!  The company Hesware (HES) of Brisbane, California
is announcing:

     Project Space Station:  A Space Station Construction Set

As reported in Infoworld of April 16, 1984 (p. 38), it is one of the more
spectacular microcomputer "construction kits" (ala Pinball Construction Set)
on the market.  "The product is more a simulation than an arcade game ...
in this case, an orbital space station that uses representations of available
parts that NASA will be using in building its own space station."

     It runs on the Commodore 64 and the IBM PC, and is actually
many construction sets in one.  Continuing, Infoworld says:  "Players
have to create a budget and schedule for launching the station, then
choose the equipment for the station from a catalog and add or move
parts as necessary.  They will also pick a use for the space station, select a
crew, launch space shuttles into orbit and maneuver parts with the shuttle's
remote manipulator arm or rocket pods and deal with such real-life problems
as weather or unfavorable media coverage." (!)

     The developer for HES is Stan Kent of AstroSpace, a former Lockeed
aerospace engineer. 

     "Project Space Station also takes the player one step closer to the
reality of working for the space agency.  Players have to make a simulated
trip to Washington, D.C., to resign as project director in order to quit
the game.  'You can always turn it off, but that's the coward's way out,'
Kent says. .... The [simulated] equipment is so accurate that it includes
the PAM-D, the orbital transfer vehicle that failed to deliver its
satellite payloads to the high orbits necessary for them to function
during the last NASA shuttle flight."

    Sounds like NASA ought to hire this man.

	-- James A. Woods  {dual,hplabs,hao,research}!ames-lm!jaw

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1984 1244-PDT
From: LEE at SU-STAR
Subject: Re: Russian soil sample return
To: SPACE%MIT-MC at SCORE
Reply-To: LEE at SU-STAR


	The comment "failed to reach Earth orbit" in the chronology of Soviet
lunar sample return missions I posted to the net a few days ago means that some-
thing went wrong with the launch vehicle, e.g. the mission "crashed on takeoff"

						Emilio P. Calius
						Stanford U.
------

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 26 May 1984 14:17:32 EDT
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Jupiter probe
Message-ID: <1984.5.26.17.45.45.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

	...the possibility
	that the "probe" portion of the upcoming Galileo mission to Jupiter
	might contaminate the Jovian atmosphere with terrestrial anaerobic
	bacteria.

	According to the author, no appreciable steps have been taken during
	the construction of the probe to insure its sterility.

The early Ranger Moon probes were sterilized, and they kept failing.  The
later probes were not sterilized, and succeeded.  The Apollo 12 astronauts
walked over to one of the Surveyors and retrieved a biological sample.
All microorganisms had perished since launch four years before.

	Although it is a virtual certainty that the probe will burn up
	in the atmosphere during its descent ...

It's designed not to burn up, despite hitting the atmosphere at 58,000 mph
and experiencing deceleration of hundreds of G's.  The thing is mostly heat
shield.  It will deploy a parachute, which it will jettison when the
atmosphere gets too thick to make a 'chute worthwhile.  It will finally fail
under the high pressure.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-May-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #205    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 205

Today's Topics:
			      Made in Space
		       Re: Congressman Green; text
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sunday, 27 May 1984 17:10:57 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Made in Space
Message-ID: <1984.5.27.21.9.8.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>

n068  1533  26 May 84
BC-SPACEGOODS
First Space-Made Goods to Go on Sale This Year
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - The first commercial products to be made in space are to
go on sale later this year.
    They are perfect plastic spheres, each exactly one
one-hundred-thousandth of an inch in diameter, that were produced in
weightlessness on a recent space shuttle flight and will be sold to
laboratories for use in calibrating microscopes and other instruments.
    An engineer for a private company, McDonnell Douglas Corp., is set
to fly on the next shuttle mission in late June to operate a machine
that could lead to moneymaking drug-processing ventures in space.
    These are among the first tentative steps being taken by the
government and American businesses to see if there is money to be
made in space. More than 350 companies are exploring the prospects
for manufacturing products that can be made only in weightlessness
and for running private transportation services into space.
    In a broad-ranging discussion of the status of industry in space,
experts Saturday described the opportunities in a spirit of long-term
optimism tempered by short-term caution.
    The present could be a turning point because the space shuttle has
provided the capability for doing business in space and the Reagan
administration has begun to establish some of the regulations to
govern commerce in space.
    At the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, engineers, financial experts and space agency
officials advised would-be space entrepreneurs not to expect any
immediate bonanza.
    Many of the 350 enterprises and others to follow would be destined
to fail, it was agreed, because they would be unable to reap enough
income to sustain them until some golden age of space industry
finally does arrive.
    Philip E. Culbertson, an official of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, said the agency had ''high hopes'' for
widespread orbital commerce in the next decade or so. But he noted,
''We cannot expect high benefits too rapidly.''
    Culbertson, associate deputy administrator of NASA, said the agency
plans to announce in a month or six weeks policy guidelines on what
the government intends to do to facilitate private investment in
space. Many companies have deferred major commitments on space
ventures until NASA establishes clearer guidelines. President Reagan
has instructed the agency to enhance commercial opportunities.
    In the guidelines, the space agency is expected to address the
questions of tax incentives, research grants, legal protection of a
private company's commercial secrets, the use of government radio
frequencies for private purposes, deferral of some shuttle
transportation costs and other inducements. Another issue to be
resolved is whether to treat products of space industry as imports.
    Gerry Simonoff, a vice president of Citicorp Industrial Credit Co.
in New York, said the challenge in financing private space ventures
was to ''shrink the size of the initial investment'' so there would
be less pressure to produce immediate revenues. Two ways to
accomplish this, he said, were to design more modest equipment and to
be prepared to go into debt for many years.
    Simonoff advised that small companies created as joint ventures by
larger companies seemed to promise one of the safest routes for space
entrepreneurs. Because of their connections with established
companies they are more likely to attract outside investors or be
better able to borrow.
    The most promising of the new businesses that are not joint
ventures, he noted, tended to have some backing from major
corporations that have signed contracts to buy services or to provide
equipment.
    Although several small investor-owned companies or partnerships have
been founded in recent years, Simonoff said space commerce remained
too new and uncertain to spawn new enterprises on the scale of the
electronics industry.
    -
    One such company, however, Astrotech International Corp., has
asserted itself. The company's vice president for space operations,
Willard F. Rockwell 3d, described plans to enter the space
transportation business.
    The company, based in Pittsburgh, announced last week that it was
forming a subsidiary to buy and operate a space shuttle. It would
begin with borrowed money and might later raise capital with a stock
offering. The subsidiary would be called Space Shuttle of America
Corp.
    At the science association meeting yesterday Mr. Rockwell said
Astrotech and NASA were ''working on terms and conditions which will
lead to a purchase agreement'' for a space shuttle. NASA plans to
build and operate four shuttles, though it has cited the eventual
need for a larger fleet.
    So far the only profit-making operations in space are in
telecommunications, now estimated to be a $10-billion-a-year
business. Satellite communications demand is still growing by between
20 percent and 30 percent annually.
    As for other space commerce, participants at the meeting said, the
prospects are more distant but nonetheless enticing.
    Peter E. Glaser, a vice president of Arthur D. Little Inc., the
industrial consulting company, expressed the enthusiasts' viewpoint:
''No one today can accurately predict the global impact of the
benefits of space commerce, except that we have a basic feeling that
something important is happening in shaping the political and
economic future of the world.''
    
nyt-05-26-84 1832edt
***************

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 84 14:04:15-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Congressman Green; text


     Such blinding logic!!  I suppose that since most people don't need
airplanes for their work, funding for air traffic control should be changed!
I wonder just who he asked about the space station??  Certainly noone who
wants to do REAL space science!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                |
    "Things always look         |  A message from the mental maze that 
    darkest just before         |      calls itself:
    they go totally black!!"    |                                          
                                |
       -- Col. Hannibal Smith   |      ERIC STROBEL
                                |
--------------------------------|

UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET:       els @ pur-phy.UUCP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-May-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #206    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 206

Today's Topics:
		       Sterilization of space craft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 May 84 15:00:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Sterilization of space craft

The Viking Landers which went to Mars were adequately sterilized. The
Galileo probe will probably also be adequately sterilized, too.  The
environmental chambers where is this are located at JPL.  The probes
to Venus (pioneer) were also probably cleaned, too.  This has to be
done because like the case of Viking, instrumentation could be affected
by non sterile equipment.  Carl Sagan and others (in the early days of
the lunar program) pointed out the need to avoid contamination of the
worlds we visit in a series of papers which I don't have the references
to.  There are limits to the (and tests of these limits) procedures
used, however, and probably some sci fi writer would make some interesting
fiction based on a Star Trek II Genesis idea (modern bacteria is pretty
sophisticated compared to early life forms).

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

[Disclaimer: The above views do not state official policy or opinion of NASA
and are those of the author.]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-May-84  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #207    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 207

Today's Topics:
			Galileo and Sterilization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 May 84 08:21 PDT (Tuesday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Galileo and Sterilization
Re: SPACE Digest V4 #204
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA

"The early Ranger Moon probes were sterilized, and they kept failing.  The
later probes were not sterilized, and succeeded.	The Apollo 12 astronauts walked
over to one of the Surveyors and retrieved a biological sample. All
microorganisms had perished since launch four years before...."

	So what about the Viking landers, both were sterilized and were more
than just sucessful, they performed beyond expectations.  What are you  trying
to imply in comparing sterilized and non-sterilized craft? Hmmmmm??

	Also I am positive that I read back in '69 or '70 and in a NASA report
that dormant, but living organisms were found on parts taken from the 
Surveyor 3 lander.

	It is very hard to tell from the exerpt of the Astonomy article whether
or not project Galileo should be held to the same guidelines as the Viking
project, where the landers were required to be sterilized and the orbiters
placed in a 50 year lifetime orbital lifetime, to avoid contamination of 
Mars. I am sure that those same considerations must have gone into project
Galileo.
						Hmmmmmmmmm.........

							David 
							Braunstein
							Xorex, El Segundo.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-May-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #208    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 208

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Russian space program - (nf)
			Galileo and sterlilzation
			     Drugs in space?
			Re: Shuttle Tiles Question
		      re: candidates' views on space
		       Soviet space accomplishments
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 May 84 11:29:12-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Russian space program - (nf)

In reply to "The Russians Have *NEVER* returned soil samples from the
moon...whoever (said they did) was either misinformed or simply ignorant."

Well, I was the one that said they did. I'm not sure if I'm misinformed;
if so, then I was misinformed by a usually reliable source: to wit,
"Jane's Pocket Book of Space Exploration", by T.M. Wilding-White, which I
have open on the desk in front of me. The entry for the "USSR Luna Sample
Collector" definitely claims that Luna 16 obtained a 3.5 oz.  sample, and
strongly indicates that this sample was returned to earth.  I could type
in the text for the entry, if you wish. Let me know.  Now, why do you say
the soviets definitely have not returned soil samples from the moon? I
agree that the lunar surface isn't made up of soil, but of crushed lunar
rock, with an admixture of micro-meteorites, solar particles, cosmic-ray
particles, etc. Is this what you meant?

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 30 May 1984 15:22:55 EDT
From: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Galileo and sterlilzation
Message-ID: <1984.5.30.18.39.43.David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa>

	What are you  trying to imply in comparing sterilized
	and non-sterilized craft? Hmmmmm??

Just two points.
    1. That sterilization has been known to contribute to failure.
    2. Microorganisms die in the space environment anyway.

	Also I am positive that I read back in '69 or '70 and in a NASA report
	that dormant, but living organisms were found on parts taken from the 
	Surveyor 3 lander.

Sorry, I must have gotten my information from such unreliable sources as
National Geographic.

Look, I'm not against sterilization, I'm playing devil's advocate.  What
are the tradeoffs in time, money, reliability, weight, and utility?  If an
absolutely sterile spacecraft malfunctions on the pad, what will it take
to fix it and resterilize it?  What does that do to the Shuttle backlog?
Is it worth it?

				David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 84 2212 EDT (Wednesday)
From: Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-A.ARPA (C410VS90)
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Drugs in space?
Message-Id: <30May84.221259.VS90@CMU-CS-A.ARPA>


What kinds of drugs are going to be manufactured in space?  Or is that a trade
secret?  

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 84 10:15:18-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!pertec!bytebug @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle Tiles Question

> I got the sample at the first launch.

Were they handing them out, or did you get one of the ones that fell off?

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1984 0004-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MC
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: re: candidates' views on space
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 12019609022.12.583.6362 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Re: the discussion of the various Presidential candidates' views on space:

Be careful of Reagan's committment to space research.  As the article mentioned
but did not stress, all of this Administration's growth in research spending
has been in defense.  Spending on non-defense research has stayed flat (in real
dollars).   Money is being heaped on impractical ideas like laser ABMs and
being cut from obviously valuable programs like photovoltaic research.   The
government is trying sell off its remote-sensing satellites.  The Navstar
global navigation system is being modified so that only the military can
make good use of it.
    Since Reagan does not seem all that interested in non-defense work for its
own sake, one has to wonder why he wants to spend so much money on the space
station. I can think of two reasons.  The first is as a propaganda vehicle. 
The Russians have had a station up there for years now.  Until the Shuttle
started working, America was seen as being behind in manned spaceflight.  A
space station would be another chance to wave the flag.  This has been a reason
for almost all of America's space efforts up to now, and it is probably still
one. 
   The other is to gain experience in large space construction projects. That
will be needed for space-based missile defense.  I think that space ABMs are a
lot closer to Reagan's heart than better ball bearings. They would be to mine
too, if I thought they would work. Space projects that were completely run by
the military would probably run into heavy political opposition.  This gives
them a back door.  Their people can live and work in a civilian station
without cries in the UN about orbiting army bases.
    The best reason I see for a space station is to give people a 
chance to experiment for extended periods in the space environment.
I'm sure that Reagan would hate to see some other nation take over the
lead in space industrialization.  So would all of us, including the
Democrats.  His fanaticism about his military build-up, though, leads
me to wonder how much peaceful development of space he is willing to
pay for.

John Redford
DEC-Hudson
   --------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 May 84 19:44:32 cdt
From: Duncan A. Buell <buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: Space-Enthusiasts%mit-mc.arpa@csnet-relay.csnet

Contrary to some predictions, the weather in south Louisiana was
excellent for Eclipse Day, with cool temps and beautiful blue skies.
The eclipse (I had a hard time convincing the local newspeople that
"eclipse," unlike "police," "cement," "insurance," "July," and
"Tulane," does not have the accent on the first syllable.) was the 
big story of the day at LSU.  The Physics & Astr. department had a good
tv setup in a packed lecture hall.  Most of us simply wandered outside
during the time in which someone substituted an energy-conserving
lightbulb for the sun and watched the trees diffract the sunlight
into little crescents.  Eventually, of course, we did find a virgin
and sacrifice her so the sun would come back--and it did.  Yet another
victory for modern science.

A good eclipse was had by all.

Duncan Buell
Computer Science Department
Louisiana State University

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 84 10:15:28-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Soviet space accomplishments

I had to cancel a seminar by Richard Hamming for this, but I thought that
it might be relavent to this net discussion.  Next Tuesday, June 5, we are
having a closed seminar analysing Soviet space technology and accomplishments.
The seminar is closed to the public not for security reasons, but because
of limited seating space (400 max).  I will post a summary to the net before I l
leave
for Utah.  The seminar is being given by a private consultant to the Agency
as part of our Director's Speaker series.

Other news:  the pilots for the next Shuttle mission were seen here today
practicing landings in our flight simulators and probably flying South
to Dryden to practice landings on the lakebed.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,dual,hao,research}!ames-lm!statvax!eugene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Jun-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #209    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 209

Today's Topics:
			      Fish in Space
	   Russian space program / picky definition of "soil"?
			   "Astronomy" magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 31 May 84 13:44:38-EDT
From: Andrew Braunstein <OA.ASB@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Fish in Space
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

I am interested in learning if there have been any experiments with
fish in space. I am particularly interested to know by what mechanism
fish choose a "bottom". Also do we know what happens to embryonic
fish.

Joel Sohn
National Marine Fisheries Service
Woods Hole, Mass.

reply via OA.ASB@MIT-XX.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1984 21:32-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Russian space program / picky definition of "soil"?
To: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Hmm, "soil" according to the Doubleday Dictionary (1974) means "finely
divided rock mixed with decayed vegetable or animal matter ..."
I guess that means the Moon doesn't have "soil", technically.
But then what would one call the moon's loose surface material? I
think adjusting the meaning of "soil" to include material with no
biologic content would be better than making up a new name for it.

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1984 21:41-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: "Astronomy" magazine
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Current issue has (1) article on space station with lots of
high-quality drawings of various propoed designs of station, (2)
article/opinion about sterilization of Galileo probe an possible
cancellation of the part that descends into the atmosphere.
(I forgot to check which month, probably June, but might be May. Cover
has a color photo of a rather pretty but disorganized spiral galaxy.
Not as pretty as NGC2997 in Antlia, Sky&Telescope 1981.Sept p217, but
similar and more <actively/excitedly> colored.)

While I'm on this silly subject of pretty galaxies, what is your
favorite? NGC1232 is one of my runner-ups (cover Sky&Telescope 1983.Apr).

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1984 21:58-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
To: buell%lsu.csnet @ CSNET-RELAY
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

I was rather dissappointed in TV coverage of the eclipse. None of the
regular networks had live coverage (except of the partial eclipse from Los
Angeles). I had heard CNN was going to have live coverage, but I don't
have cable. In desperation I scanned the whole UHF range, finally at the
very end I noticed the Spanish-language station on channel 14 had live
coverage from some place in Mexico ("Desoe Tunada, Jal" or somesuch). I
watched intently, only to notice the very thin crescent had grown thicker;
I had just missed the annular phase by a couple minutes, and they didn't
replay the annular phase later, sigh.

Oh well, at least I got to see it hours later on network news. (Note, some
of the artwork beforehand, showing what causes an eclipse, was really bad,
with the moon brighter than the sun in one simulation of what the eclipse
would look like, and shadow of moon a cylinder about 5000 miles in
diameter as it strikes the Earth in another simultion of what causes an
annular eclipse.)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 May 84 13:06:43 cdt
From: Duncan A. Buell <buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc.arpa

Contrary to some predictions, the weather in south Louisiana was
excellent for Eclipse Day, with cool temps and beautiful blue skies.
The eclipse (I had a hard time convincing the local newspeople that
"eclipse," unlike "police," "cement," "insurance," "July," and
"Tulane," does not have the accent on the first syllable.) was the 
big story of the day at LSU.  The Physics & Astr. department had a good
tv setup in a packed lecture hall.  Most of us simply wandered outside
during the time in which someone substituted an energy-conserving
lightbulb for the sun and watched the trees turn the sunlight
into little crescents.  Eventually, of course, we did find a virgin
and sacrifice her so the sun would come back--and it did.  Yet another
victory for modern science.

A good eclipse was had by all.

Duncan Buell
Computer Science Department
Louisiana State University

P. S.  My earlier message mentioned "diffraction" in regard to the
images formed through the trees.  This was the term used by the
physicist next to me.  I believed him.  I am now told that the trees
simply act like pinholes to produce the patterns.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Jun-84  0407	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #210    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 210

Today's Topics:
			 Putting it all together
			    Re:  Fish in Space
	      Re: Duncan Buell and Modern Ancient Practices
		       Reversing of Magnetic Poles
		       Re: SPACE Digest V4 #209    
			     Eclipse report.
			AMSAT article in L-5 News
		   Lets hear it for Private Enterprise
			  Test Firing on Friday
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Jun 84 07:25 EDT
From: dmrussell.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Putting it all together
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: dmrussell.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Reply-To: DMRussell.PA@XEROX.ARPA

Can someone point me to a reference(s) that describes how the Apollo
program (or the space shuttle program) was managed?  I've always been
really curious about how such a truly massive, heavily interlocking
system was designed, modeled, built, and debugged.  It sounds like a
truly hard problem that must have a clever answer.  (Esp. considering
the nature of NASA specs for every-little-piece in the system!)  I'd
like to know how they did it!

-- Daniel M. Russell -- 

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1984 10:00-CDT
Sender: SLONG@USC-ISIE
Subject: Re:  Fish in Space
From: SAC.Long@USC-ISIE
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIE] 1-Jun-84 10:00:19.SLONG>


Indeed an interesting idea, to study fish orientation.  However,
I foresee a problem to which, perhaps, someone may have a solution.

In order for fish to survive, the water in which they reside
must have a certain amount of oxygen, just as humans need a
minimal amount of oxygen in our environment, be it the
atmosphere, a space suit, or what have you.  Bodies of water
absorb a sufficient amount of oxygen from the atmosphere.
Due to the small surface area of water exposed to the amosphere
in aquariums, bubblers are required to supplement the diffusion
of oxygen into the water.

With a bubbler, the bubbles rise to the top due to differing
densities.  However, the direction in which the bubbles rise, and
the fact that they rise, is also due to gravity -- the more dense
substance rapidly displaces the less dense substance in a
specific direction due to gravitation pull.  In space, one could
not use a bubbler effect to oxygenate the water.  Where would
bubbles go in a closed container with no gravity to cause
displacement in a particular direction?  They would merely move
about within the water.

I am sure some sort of pressure-controlled device could be
designed providing a pressure differential so that the bubbles of
oxygen would be displaced in the direction of the low pressure
area.  But this may introduce another variable into the
experiment: what if fish are sensitive to pressure and use this
as a means of orientation?  

(Is this worth pursuing further on this interest group?  I am not
the one to say.  Comments please, if wothwhile.)

  --  Steve   (SAC.Long@USC-ISIE)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1984 10:17-CDT
Sender: SLONG@USC-ISIE
Subject: Re: Duncan Buell and Modern Ancient Practices
From: SLONG@USC-ISIE
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIE] 1-Jun-84 10:17:42.SLONG>


A sad statement of our social condition,
but where did you find a VIRGIN?

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1984 10:35-CDT
Sender: SLONG@USC-ISIE
Subject: Reversing of Magnetic Poles
From:   Steve  <SAC.Long>@USC-ISIE
To: Physics@SRI-UNIX
Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIE] 1-Jun-84 10:35:27.SLONG>


I have heard rumor that in the year 2000 (+ or - a few years)
the magnetic poles of the earth are going to do a flip-flop.
Is this only a rumor or is there some truth to it?  If it is
true, is it going to be a gradual change of polarity or rapid? 
What impact might it have on our magnetic shielding from
solar radiation?  Any other impacts one may consider that I
haven't would be interesting to hear about, also.


  --  Steve

------------------------------

Date:     Fri,  1 Jun 84 15:37:18 CDT
From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.ARPA>
Subject:  Re: SPACE Digest V4 #209    
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-Id: <20.animal.Dione@Rice>


Concerning the name of moon stuff (soil). It already has a name separate
from "soil", "regolith".

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 1 Jun 84 13:10 EST
From:     Charles Weems <weems%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject:  Eclipse report.

   What an experience!  Four of us from UMass went down to N. Carolina for
the eclipse and met 7 other people from New England/New York (part of a
plan formed at Stellafane last year).  It poured all the way down except
for 70 miles of fog in Penn.!  Crossing the N.C. border we got a severe
storm warning for the county we were camping in!  Once we got there it
rained for about another hour and then let up enough for us to pitch camp.
By morning there were large breaks in the clouds that kept getting bigger.
About 10 minutes before first contact, the last line of clouds passed off
to the east and we had 100 percent clear, haze free sky!  Only a chorus of
angels could have made it more of a miracle -- but then we were singing and
whooping ourselves...  We had perfect skies right up until about 10 minutes
after last contact when another line of clouds started to come in from the
west.

    The Sun itself had several small groups of spots and one especially large
one.  It was particularly interesting to watch the moon pass in front of this
spot because the speed became much more apparent then.  Mountains on the limb
were clearly visible.  As it approached annular phase, little bits broke off
to form beads at the tips of the crescent.  Annularity only lasted about 5
seconds.  The most impressive thing was that there was continuous action --
no pause at all when you could just sit back and take it all in, like in a
total eclipse.  The beading effects continuously shifted around and then,
of course, the mountains on the opposite edge of the moon became visible quite
suddenly.  The whole thing was quite spectacular!  A quick glance with the
naked eye showed that the little bit that was still visible was so bright
that it was barely possible to tell that it was only an annulus that was
shining.  Such is the power of fusion!  There was no diamond ring effect at
all, and the beads were very elongated -- looking more like dashed lines.
One of the people swore that he saw corona just before annularity, opposite
the nearly vanished crescent.

    For the remainder of the event it was interesting to watch the reappearance
of the sunspot groups, and then last contact.  Other impressions:  The light
was very strange:  sharp noontime type shadows, but very dim.  One horizon
was much brighter than the other.  There was a definite rise in wind and drop
in temperature near annularity, with a sudden calm afterward.  It was neet to
watch the crescent shaped spots of  light under trees change direction.  All in
all, quite an experience.

    As a postscript, as we drove back into Amherst last night we saw a very
thin 33 hour old crescent moon set in the west, through the first break in the
clouds that they've had here in days (in fact we had to drive through 5 inces
of water at the foot of the bridge crossing the Connecticut river, because it
was flooding -- we had missed something like 8 inches of rain here -- and got
sunburns to boot!)

chip weems
Turtle Tip Observers Group

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 84 10:44:16-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: AMSAT article in L-5 News

Be sure to see the article "Low Cost Space Projects: Part 1" in the April
1984 issue of the L-5 News on page 3. This is an excellent discussion of
AMSAT's activities in satellite construction.  Is the author (Bill Ganoe,
N7EAB) out there somewhere? I'd like to personally thank him.

73, Phil Karn, KA9Q
Asst VP Engineering, AMSAT

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 84 11:57:14-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Lets hear it for Private Enterprise

I read an AP article last night saying that TCI (Transpace Carriers, Inc,
the company that just bought the Delta marketing rights from NASA) has
written President Reagan asking him to prohibit ESA from marketing the
Ariane launcher in the USA because of its "unfair competition" due to
government subsidies.

Funny they didn't make this a condition of their buying the Delta.
If this crybaby attitude is to be the standard way that "private enterprise"
promotes its interests in space, then we're in a lot of trouble.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 84 12:30:11-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Test Firing on Friday

The main engines of the Discovery will be test fired together
Friday for the first time.  The trial is scheduled to begin
at 1100 EST and last for 20 seconds, plenty of time to build
up to a full 1.1 million pounds of thrust.  After the test,
NASA will set a firm date for the launch of 41-D.  Target
date is 19 June.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Jun-84  0407	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #211    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 211

Today's Topics:
		   "soil" vs. "regolith" and "regosol"
			      High Frontier
			    Space station game
				   soil
				   fish
			    Re:  Fish in Space
			  L5 Regional Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 June 1984 09:45-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
To: buell%lsu.csnet @ CSNET-RELAY
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

If what you see through a pinhole camera looking at an annular eclipse
of the Sun is merely a thin ring, it's a simple pinhole image. Through
a tree with lots of funny-shaped pinholes you'll see lots of these
overlapped, with some images incomplete because the pinhole is
directional and blocks out light from part of the Sun.

If what you see through a pinhole camera also includes ridges parallel
to the ring inside and outside of it, you're seeing diffraction. With
irregular ring, Bailey's beads, diffraction ridges may wave in&out and
cross each other. Through a tree it's hard to distinguish diffraction
of irregular annulus from overlapping independent images.

(Above explanation originated in my head; correct me if my physics is wrong.)

------------------------------

Date: 2 June 1984 10:02-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  "soil" vs. "regolith" and "regosol"
To: animal @ RICE
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Sigh, "regolith" isn't in my Doubleday dictionary, however Roget's
International Thesaurus seems to win:
 (1) 385.13 (types of soils) includes "regosol".
 (2) 385.1 (synonyms to "land") includes "regolith".

Here are the complete entries:

385. LAND
.1 NOUNS land, ground, earth, ge(o)-, soil, agro-, ped(o)-, glebe
[archaic], sod, clod, dirt, dust, clay, marl, mold [Brit dial];
terra [L], terra firma; terrain; dry land; arable land; marginal land;
grassland, woodland; crust, earth's crust, lithosphere; regolith;
                                                        ********
topsoil, subsoil; aluvium, aluvion; eolian or subaerial deposit; real
estate, real property, landholdings, acres, territory, freehold;
region; the country.

.13 soils
adobe, aluvial soil, argil, bog soil, bole, boulder clay, chernozemic
soil, china clay, clay, clunch, desertic soil, dust, fuller's earth,
gilgai soil, gumbo, gumbo soil, humus, indurated clay, kaolin,
kaolinite, laterite, latosolic soil, leaf mold, lithosol, loam, loess,
marl, mold, podosolic soil, porcelain clay, potter's clay, red clay,
regosol, regur soil, residual clay, snd, sedimentary clay, silt, till,
*******
tundra soil, wiesenboden.

I get the impression that "regolith" refers to the terrain rather than
the material, wheras "regosol" refers to some kind of material. Can
somebody confirm my guess that "regosol" is the material that the
lunar "regolith" terrain is made out of, or not?

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 84 13:58:53-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!alex @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: High Frontier

Why are those people opposed to High Frontier so adamantly against any
form of space defense?  Don't know about you, but I'd rather be able to
defend against some nut like the one that runs Libya than not defend at
all.

The American people might well agree with me, if they knew we had no
defense at all.  Most still think that SPRINT and SPARTAN still are up &
running.

How does it feel to live in a country that, with six months' notice,
still couldn't shoot down an incoming warhead?

Alex

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 1984 18:06:40-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Space station game

I might note that Stan Kent was also one of the originals involved with the
Percheron 1 project, was (and maybe still is) the founder and president of
Delta Vee, the organization that raised and donated money to NASA to keep
the Viking data analysis going. (Feed a starving robot) He also attempted a
Helley fund, but that venture wasn't terribly successful.

The first time I met him he was trying to get the networks to fund a TV
camera probe to Halley as a media event, since it wouldn't cost anymore than
"they pay for the olympics".

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 1984 18:19:14-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: soil

The 'soil' of the moon and other bodies is usually referred to as regolith.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 1984 18:25:27-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: fish

I don't remember where I read it, but it has been suggested that fish could
survive in zero gravity as long as there was sufficient mist to keep the
gills wet. In microgravity the water itself is unnecessary for support and
locomotion, although admittedly swimming motions will be less efficient in a
fluid as thin as air...

Gives one the vision of a pet fish floating by the control panel...

------------------------------

Date:     Sat,  2 Jun 84 18:48:08 CDT
From: Ben Chase <bbc@rice.ARPA>
Subject:  Re:  Fish in Space
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-Id: <6.bbc.Tethys@Rice>

I believe that Dupont, 3M, or some similar corporation has developed a
membrane which would solve the aeration problem, passing oxygen and
other important gases.  Still, stray bubbles in the tank from other
sources (algae, decomposition, imperfectly filling the tank, etc.) could
be quite a problem, as fish might accumulate them in the slime around
their gills.

At any rate, bubbles could probably be removed by piping the water through
a centrifuge, and removing the foam from the center.


			Benjamin B. Chase	<bbc@rice.arpa>
			Department of Computer Science
			Rice University

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 1984 00:47:12-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: L5 Regional Conference






                                  1984

            Northeast Regional Space Developement Conference



The  Pittsburgh  Hilton will be the site of an L5 regional conference on
October 26 through  28  of  this  year.    We  have  negotiated  a  very
reasonable  conference  rate of $45/night for single rooms and $55/night
for doubles. The speakers list is not yet ready for release, but  expect
a  good  one.  If  you  are  from the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic or Midwest
regions, join us for the festivities!



                          Conference Schedule


Friday, Oct 26
        5:00pm:         Registration
        Evening:        Reception (cash bar)
                        Dr. Sheffield opening address
                        Filk (Fiction Folk) songs by Julia Ecklar

Saturday, Oct 27
        Morning:        Chapter Workshops
        Afternoon:      Public sessions
        Evening:        Banquet
                        Diane Ackerman poetry reading
                        SOFEX music/multimedia experience

Sunday, Oct 28
        Morning:        L5 chapter reports
        Afternoon:      Public sessions
        3:00pm:         Closing



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference preregistration form: detach and return with check to Pgh L5


                          Banquet    Registration    Registration
                                     Before Oct 1    After Oct 1

          L-5 Members     $18.24          $25             $30
          Non-members     $18.24          $35             $45



Name____________________________________________________________________


Address_________________________________________________________________


City__________________________State____________________Zip______________


Amount Enclosed_______________L5 Id number______________________________



Make check payable to:   L5 Regional Space Developement Conference
                         2609 Larkins Way
                         Pittsburgh, PA 15203

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Jun-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #212    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 212

Today's Topics:
				 eclipse
			   Test Firing Delayed
		  Re: Space Shuttle Magazine (COUNTDOWN)
		 Definitions of "regolith" and "regosol"
		       Re: Putting it all together
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 84 0:04:38-EDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxd!cwc @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: eclipse

-
Out of ignorance of the pertinent factors, I wonder why, if total
eclipses are such a big astronomical deal (I assume they are), wasn't
the shuttle scheduled to be in orbit during the recent one?  If the
scientific community gets added value from flying airplanes at high
altitudes to take pictures, wouldn't the 70mm on the shuttle have
been that much better?
					Chip

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 84 21:41:39-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Test Firing Delayed

NASA today delayed Friday's test firing of the Discovery's
SSME's until Saturday.  The delay was to give technicians
an extra day to fix two problem:  Trouble with some heat
shielding over one engine and a dent in a hydrogen line.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 84 18:09:00-EDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!kenner @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Magazine (COUNTDOWN)

I recently subscribed to it.  It seems reasonably informative but a bit
cutesy.  The last issue I got had some air-to-ground transcripts of the SMM
repair activities along with an analysis of the failure to grapple, etc.
I would rate it "good" but not better.

A similar newsletter which I would recommend more is World Spaceflight News.
It had lots more dialog and was much more professional.  It has lots of
interesting data.  The current issue says a 1 year subscription is $30 but
the ad in Space Digest said $25 and that's what I paid.  It's

	World Spaceflight News
	Box 98
	Sewell, NJ  08080

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 84 14:32:24 EDT
From: Dave <Steiner@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Definitions of "regolith" and "regosol"
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: steiner@RUTGERS.ARPA


According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary the definitions of
regolith and regosol are:

rego-lith  n. [Gk rhegos blanket + E -lith; akin to Skt raga color] :
	MANTLEROCK.  (Ie. Regolith is a synonym of Mantlerock.)

rego-sol  n. [@i<rego-> (as in @i<regolith>) + L @i<solum> soil --
	more at SOLE] : an azonal soil consisting chiefly of
	imperfectly consolidated material and having no clear-cut and
	specific morphology.

man-tle-rock  n. : unconsolidated residual or transported material
	that overlies the earth's solid rock.


ds
-------

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 84 10:36:51-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!ks @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Putting it all together

     I think I've got the book for you.  It's called "Managing NASA in the
Apollo Era", by Arnold S. Levine.  It is available as NASA SP-4102 from the
U.S. Government Printing office; the book was written in 1981.
     It is a very management-oriented volume.  It discusses how NASA was 
organized, how it dealt with the President, Congress, contractors, and the
military; how NASA headquarters dealt with the individual centers; how the
budget process worked; and describes the planning for post-Apollo space
programs.  My only regret is that the book confined its account to the 
Apollo years, when NASA was most active (but also when it had the fewest 
problems.)  A volume like this needs to be writted about the 1970's and the
Space Shuttle Program (this was the topic of my research paper which lead me to
the book.)
     The book was surprisingly readable; it delivers many informative facts and
a reasoned commentary.  It will not (by itself) explain all of the various NASA
programs underway in the 1960's, so it is a good idea to have some familiarity
with these in order to not get lost.  The portions of it that I read were very
good.  I borrowed my copy from the Princeton library.
     

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Jun-84  0407	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #213    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 213

Today's Topics:
		      total eclipses are a big deal
		  Re: Fish in Space -- water oxygenation
			    Re: High Frontier
			    Re: Fish in space
			      High Frontier
		 eclipse arranged instead of accidented?
		  Engine Test's Early Results Successful
		      cmsg cancel <2820@alice.UUCP>
			ST III Article -- Whoops!
	      High frontier and planetary science (separate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

	id AA16743; Mon, 4 Jun 84 07:28:18 pdt
Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 04:30:25 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: total eclipses are a big deal
Message-Id: <8406040430.887.0.VT3.0@vortex.UUCP>
To: SPACE@MC

Indeed, total eclipses ARE a big deal.  Unfortunately, the recent
eclipse was not total, it was annular, and thusly of much less
scientific interest (mainly because the corona is not visible).

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 04 Jun 84 09:11:21 PDT (Mon)
To: SAC.Long@Usc-Isie
cc: SPACE@Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: Fish in Space -- water oxygenation
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>

While it is true that bubbling air through water relies on gravity, there are
several other ways which have been used to mix fluids.  A few years back
there was a push to develop a liquid breathing medium for humans in space
(it was intended to increase the level of acceleration which the astronauts
could sustain).  I believe that the method of choice for oxygenation at that
time was to pass the medium (a silicone oil) through a micropore exchanger.
The exchanger was just a set of long tubes of a membrane in a oxygen
chamber.  The membrane had holes small enough to permit the oxygen and
carbon dioxide through, but not the silicone oil.

For water (which is a very small molecule) it might be hard to find a
suitable membrane material.  An alternative might be a forced mixing chamber
followed by a filter to separate out the gas phase.  In this system, the
filtered water and oxygen would be pumped into an agitated mixing chamber,
and the out through a tube.  The tube's inner walls would be porous to
encourage the creation of bubbles of the gas phase.  The end of the tube
would be a small diameter nozzle which directs the stream into a porous
packing, and then back into the water tank.  The gasses escape from the
stream just after it escapes the nozzle, and are filtered (to remove carbon
dioxide and water) and recycled.  This design is based on a modification of
the carrier filtration used in some chemical laboratory equipment (combined
gas chromatograph - mass spectrometer).

The problem of preventing pressure gradients still remains because the water
must be pumped to oxygenate it.  If the level of diffusion is large enough,
the section which is being pumped can be separated from the main tank by a
porous partition.

------------------------------

Date: 04 Jun 84 09:38:33 PDT (Mon)
To: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!alex@Ucb-Vax
cc: space@Mit-Mc, arms-d@Mit-Mc
Subject: Re: High Frontier
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>

   Why are those people opposed to High Frontier so adamantly against any
   form of space defense?  Don't know about you, but I'd rather be able to
   defend against some nut like the one that runs Libya than not defend at
   all.

If I thought that space defense would create a net improvement in civilian
safety in the U.S. then I might go for it.  I believe that the terrorist
types would be more likely to smuggle weapons in than to try to create a
sub-orbital rocket system which could target a city in the U.S.  Given the
simplicity of a fission weapon compared to even a missile which could
deliver the weapon from 100 killometers away, I can't belive that a small
country or small group would take that as the best way to deliver the
weapon.  Given a supply of fissionable material, preformed components could
be smuggled in as part of machinery (e.g. inside automobile gas tanks) in
only a few pieces.

Fussion weapons are, of course, much more complicated, but fission weapons
are sufficient for most of the needs of a small country.  It is only large
countries opposing large countries which need fussion weapons and ICBMs to
satisfy their purposes.

------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 4 Jun 84 14:06 EDT
From:  Chris Jones <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  Re: Fish in space
To:  Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840604180644.951703@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

One of the Skylab flights took along some fish (I believe they were
minnows or guppies).  I don't have any references available, but I
remember that the fish that were launched seemed to have a lot of
orientation problems, while those that hatched in weightlessness did a
lot better.  I don't recall hearing anything special about oxygenating
the water.

What I'd really like to see is a bird in space (how about an owl--I read
an anectdote about one in Clarke's "Islands in the Sky").

------------------------------

Date: 4 June 1984 22:12-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: High Frontier
To: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!alex @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Space-based missile defense has been discussed a lot in ARMS-DISCUSSION.
To avoid duplication, discussion on this topic probably should remain there.

------------------------------

Date: 5 June 1984 01:07-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: eclipse arranged instead of accidented?
To: ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxd!cwc @ UCB-VAX
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

More to the point - an eclipse is a local event, due to your point of
view rather than to the Universe out there. It's not that the Moon is
eclipsing the Sun, it's that you here on Earth happen to be passng
through the Moon's shadow, it is you not the Sun that is being
eclipsed. (By comparison, in a lunar eclipse the Moon really is
getting eclipsed, it really is dark on the Moon during a lunar
eclipse.)  So why not send a spacecraft with camera out to a looping
(elliptical) polar orbit where it passes through the Moon's shadow
every month instead of just every few years? With several such craft,
you could get hours of coverage, just a few minutes from each camera
but by combining the info from them all you get hours. Or have one
camera on a craft that dynamically tracks the moon's shadow
(specifically, the tip of the Umbra where the disk of the Sun is
exactly blocked out showing the lower corona best) during the times
when it's nowhere near Earth (all year except for a few days in
May/June and November/December around new moon when the tip of the
umbra passes near Earth). Or for a really close look at the Sun's
corona, without having to avoid any obstacles, station a camera in the
tip of Mercury's umbra!

(When we get large space manufacturing, we'll be able to manufacture
our own disk to blot out the Sun, instead of having to use natural
planetary bodies.)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 84 9:11:20-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Engine Test's Early Results Successful

Preliminary examination of the engine test yesterday led
to very successful results, and NASA is expected to announce
a launch date sometime this week.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 84 20:17:52-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: cmsg cancel <2820@alice.UUCP>

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 84 20:20:30-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: ST III Article -- Whoops!

My apologies if you saw my ST III article in net.columbia.
I posted it here out of reflex.  I cancelled it, but knowing
the net, some people might still get it.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 84 18:48:29-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: High frontier and planetary science (separate)

<Flame on>
Thing 1:  I guess that many people don't call "Deterrance(sic)" a form
of defense.  Funny that as time goes on, we see that the umbrella has
holes in it.  You cannot say that we don't have 'defense.'  I don't want
to defend the DOD, but there is a problem of scale in your argument.
Phil Karn points out that this is not a technological problem (I agree).
Libya isn't going to lob an ICBM at us.  Analysis shows they could do
more harm by sneaking it in (more accurate, less technology [ICBM]).  So it
become more a matter of combat against a large foe like the USSR.  Here the
problem is one of easily overwhelming a defensive system [very easily done].

On the other hand, we have never really had a good defensive system.
[Pardons to those Bell Labs/Sandia people who worked on Ballistic Missile
Defense (BMD)].  
The Nike program of air defense and the Safeguard/Sentinel systems
always had holes.  The question evolves, how much defense are you to pay
for, and how much are you willing to absorb?  Everybody in this country
in this country [like Ronald R.] say "The Soviets believe they can
win a nuclear war..."  As scientists, we have to learn to ask the right
questions.  I think the right question is " not whether the Soviets
believe they could win (or survive), DO WE BELIEVE WE CAN WIN OR SURVIVE?"

I understand the psychology of war fighting, troop moral, and so on.
Nuclear war (even so called limited nuclear war) is beyond a scale
of imagination that strategic planners and generals cannot conceive, but
believe they can conceive:  it's very fast and very destructive.
[Remember: Herman Kahn had an opinion, not facts.  Jacob Bonowski contrasted
"knowledge" and "certainty."]
You cannot fight a nuclear war with a WWII or earlier mentality.
The Generals in the past said that they fight today's war with yesterday's
weapons [due to budgetary considerations].  This is only partly true:
many Generals also plan by yesterday's methods (tried and ture).  You obviously
could argue that High Frontier is a 'tomorrow' method. But it won't
work.  It's too easily overwhelmed and complex.

If we could only spend as much on arm control as we do on arm development,
perhaps we could come up with better solutions [over-naive sounding].
Again, I believe this discussion belongs in net.politcs and not net.space.
<Flame off>

Thing 2 on planetary science:  I worked with Apollo 17 SAR data.  It is 
called "regolith."  I confirm with others have said.  I think I could shed
some light at the its relation to mantle rock.  When the Apollo astronauts
{Armstrong and Aldrin} came to California before the moon landing,
they met with a number of Caltech and other Planetary scientists in the
mountains above LA.  There is a significant batholith (large rock body)
of a mineral called anorthosite (sp?) in the Angeles mountains about LA
and it turns out that it was theorized that the moon was largely composed
of this igneous rock.  The astronauts were given a geology lesson based
on this material was (like granite) was slowly cooled mantle material.
This body is also significant because it's sister body sits on the opposite
side of the San Andreas fault 200 or so miles away and if you date the rocks,
you can determine the rate the fault has moved!  I know the Caltech planetary
science department is not on the net [They have a Prime without UNIX.],
but the USGS (!menlo70 or !seismo) might know more.  Final aside: a friend
who was Neil Armstrong's geology teacher said that he thought Neil was
the craziest person he ever knew (shortly after Neil ejected from the
LEM training craft).

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,hao,menlo70,dual,research}!ames-lm!statvax!eugene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Jun-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #214    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 214

Today's Topics:
		      re: candidates' views on space
			  Re: artificial eclipse
	Re: High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things
	       Re: eclipse arranged instead of accidented?
			 eclipses and astronomers
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #213
			  Volunteering for AMSAT
		  Re: Fish in Space -- water oxygenation
     Seminar at Ames Res. Ctr. on Soviet Space (long mesg,short summ)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 84 15:09:03-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!brahms @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: re: candidates' views on space

I grant you the fact that Reagan may be more pro-defense than pro-space
but he is doing more than any of the democrats would.  However,
what ever his motives for doing a space station are, he won't be
in office when it goes up.

			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@USC-ECLC

------------------------------

Date:  5 Jun 1984 06:29:47 PDT
From: CARROLL@USC-ISIB
Subject: Re: artificial eclipse
To:   space@MIT-MC

As I recall, Skylab had a solar observatory called the Apollo Telescope
Mount or some such, and they conducted a plethora of experiments, learning
more about the sun during the 3 missions than had previously been learned
in all of history.  One of the things they did was create artificial
eclipses by using a device that placed a small disk out in front of the
telescope.  In space, that small disk just inches or feet away effectively
simulated a natural eclipse whenever they wanted.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 84 14:22:33-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!alex @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things

Even if HF is only 80% effective against a massive attack, I would much
rather have it than not.  Come on: wouldn't you rather (in the even of a
nuke attack of 1000 warheads) have 20% land than 100%?  The attitude of
the UCS, Carl Sagan, et al, seems to be that one bomb will kill us all
(Hiroshima/Nagasaki notwithstanding).  {This discussion presupposes that
I don't want ANY bombs landing, in case you were wondering.}

In re "hostage cities" (smuggled bombs): this is an ooooold argument.
Assuming that some terrorist group (say, Libya) really wanted to take
out a city, they'd likely do it in a cost-effective manner.  Dams are
much easier to blow than bombs are to buy.  LP gas tanks are even
easier, and as kill-effective.

OK, let's assume they have a bomb anyway.  The US gov. has ways to
detect bombs, once it knows they're around--even from space.

Back to HF.  Having some form of defence moves the U.S. away from a
strict launch-on-anything policy, which is almost necessary with 9
minute flight times.  It makes our forces more likely to survive, gives
the president more breathing room, and gives us a defence against small
numbers of incoming RVs.

Sure, the arms race may go into space; why not?  Better there than on
Earth.  Any country that starts using nukes in space is going to (a)
show the whole world he means war and (b) take out all of his own sats.
This means a higher "tripwire" level--and more warning.

And let's remember that all of HF's plans are non-nuclear.  No nukes in
space, no new nukes (three times fast, now) other than MX.  And much
cheaper than "mobile missiles" a la Midgetman.

Those who think HF is destabilizing are invited to tell me why.  Please
address the question of how the U.S. is likely to run a first strike.

Alex

P.S.  The original nickname of MX (Peacekeeper) was Hallmark.  Anyone
know why?

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 84 14:28:03 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: eclipse arranged instead of accidented?
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA

Once you get out of the atmosphere, a disk an inch across and a few feet
away is just as good as the moon in causing an eclipse.  So there is no
need to follow the moon's shadow for continuous corona watching.  I
believe Skylab had such an occulting disk in its solar equipment.  In
fact occulting disks are used in earth based coronagraphs, but most of
the corona is washed out by sky light.
/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1984 18:13:15-EDT
From: Bruce.Lucas@CMU-CS-IUS
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: eclipses and astronomers

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an eclipse is only such a big deal to an
earthbound solar astronomer.  An astronomer in space can create his own
eclipse (of the sun) with an opaque disk.  The only reason this doesn't work
on the earth is because of the earth's atmosphere: the disk successfully
blocks out the direct light from the sun, but not the light diffused by the
atmosphere.

Bruce Lucas

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 84 17:17 EDT
From: Kyle.wbst@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #213
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Kyle.wbst@XEROX.ARPA

Why all this traffic on fish in space. Is it to find ways to raise them
for food for L-5 type colonies, or what. If for food, then perhaps a
simple solution would be to send up carp. They thrive in any hostile
environment. Just give them some wet mud to root around in. 

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 84 10:52:33-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!burl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Volunteering for AMSAT

We in AMSAT have recently been revamping the way we handle offers of
volunteer help. Up 'till now, it has been a very informal thing, but
we are coming to realize that a lot of excellent talent has slipped
through the cracks because we haven't provided a central point of
contact for initial inquiries.

Dick Jansson, WD4FAB, has taken on the job of coordinating volunteer
services. He and I have drafted a form letter which he will send to
anyone who expresses interest. This letter contains a list of the
various project areas and the AMSAT people who are active in them.
If you are interested in possibly helping out, please drop Dick a
line. His address is:

Dick Jansson, WD4FAB
1130 Willowbrook Trail
Maitland, FL  32751

You can also reach him through the Washington PO Box address, but it takes
longer since the mail has to be forwarded.

Thanks & 73,
Phil Karn, KA9Q
Asst VP Engineering, AMSAT

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 84 12:57:04-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!intelca!cem @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Fish in Space -- water oxygenation

I believe there was a "Mr. Wizard" type movie I saw in High School 
science class that included a Oxygen Porus membrane. The movie had a
Gerbil happily walking around under water without apparent ill effects.
Seems we could save a lot on scuba gear if we could hook one of these to
a person. Apparently the lungs/trachia were left intact and functioning.
Anyone remember the title to this classic? Was the membrane ever followed
up? 


-- 
                             --Chuck McManis


        ihnp4!               Disclaimer : All opinions expressed herein are my
             \                            own and not those of my employer, my
              dual!    proper!            friends, or my avacado plant.
             /    \   /
      fortune!     \ /                    
                    X--------> intelca!cem
     ucbvax!       / \                    
           \      /   \
            hplabs!    rocks34!      ARPAnet : "hplabs!intelca!cem"@Berkeley
           /
        hao!

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 84 17:43:59-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Seminar at Ames Res. Ctr. on Soviet Space (long mesg,short summ)

Today, we had a Director's Colloquia on the Soviet Space Program.
I am sorry, but I should have taken a note pad.  I asked the speaker
for a copy of slides, and will repost a summary if there is enough
interest.  The speaker was Marcia Smith of the Library of Congress
who gives Congressional briefings.  Don't call her, she doesn't assist the
public, you will be refused.

Ms. Smith covered ths history of the program from 1957 to the future.
The program is divided in civilian and military (30/70%) programs like
the US program.  These are further broken into five "US classification"
missions: unmanned applications, manned (and unmanned) uses [military and non-
military].

At this point, slides would better help.  There was a Cyrllic breakdown
of mission names with Kosmos being used as generic satellite names and
numbers, military missions, and failures.  There was a discussion of the Soviet
use of near Earth missions [they use satellites for communications,
earth resources, navigation, etc.., interesting analysis: older space
technology->using film instead of electronics for imaging in civilian and
military applications], missions to Mars [few successes], Moon, and Venus
[lots of success: 16 missions with two inflight and two more planned including
the Halley Flyby with Venus lander], an analysis of the manned program
[failures with cosmonaut losses] and military uses [ocean survillance
program, FOBS, and ASAT programs].

A map illustrated their three launch Centers which by coincidence
correspond to NASA's three launch sites as far as functions go.
The USSR has several problems with their geographic location.  The furthest
Southern launch site is at lat. 46 deg. N.  Their first communications
satellites used a highly elliptic orbit because of the fuel costs in
launching a geosynchronous satellite (not done till 1974).  Instead their
communications satellites are useful for 8 hours before switching.
They have an Eastern-Bloc equivalent to our international satellite agreements.
They are just now discovering natural resource sensing like our Landsat
program.  Their data is publically available from their natural resource
agency.  Again, they typically use film rather than digital media.

Their biological satellite program has launched plants and fish into orbit.
It is somewhat behind the US space program, they only in 1982 reproduced
seed-to-seed experiments.

An analysis of the manned program shows various phases of development
from "moon program" to the current space station developments and future
"shuttle and space plane [two separate]" programs.  Marcia (the speaker)
detailed accidents such as the recent pad fire which resulted in the
escape tower being used.  On moon missions there have been three successful
sample returns and it is important to point out they had two rovers,
one of which worked for a year.

Their agreement with other nations on communications satellites has
allowed them to send people from 9 other nations into space.
Notable was the French man who was a "spatia-naut" rather than either
of the other designations.  This might be a trend for future countries.

The Soviets have EXTENSIVE experience because of their space station with
problems such as inflight refueling, repair and construction including
installing new solar panels on their station.  One new set of
panels are GaAs technology rather than Si!  This is an area where we
(the US) lag considerably.

The Soviets have two manned reusable reentry programs: a scaled down
space shuttle and what the Pentagon terms "space plane" which has appeared
in AW&ST courtesy of the Aust. DOD.  It was first learned [by the way]
in 1978 because a California listener to Radio Moscow called into the show
and asked if the USSR had a Shuttle program.  They not only confirmed
they had such a program but gave complete specifications regarding
size, shape, etc..

Military space: talk centered on ocean monitoring capabilities (for sea ice,
too), FOBS (which apparently was included in the SALT II treaty), and ASAT.
A slide was also shown depicting a Soviet laser/directed energy beam
site for tests.

Russian space technology as a whole: if you count the numbers, it appears
the Soviets are launching 7x's as much as the US is.  This is only because
their technology is in some way behind and in other ways, a different
approach.  They certainly have experience (more man-hours longed in space).
There are possibilities for manned missions to Mars, the moon (although
the USSR in US News and Report denies this).  They also need to get a
large booster technology to work.  Part of this is predicated on the
use of relatively lower power engines.  It was surprising to note that
the Chinese have demostrated an Oxygen-Hydrogen engine whereas the USSR
has not.

I have left a lot out.  I could post satellite designations after I get slides.
If specific questions are posted to the net, I will try an answer them
as best I can.  Please don't send individual questions on this, as I would
prefer to answer each question a small number of times (Remember Emily
Post of the net?).  All sources are from the open literature.  Several
audience members have visited Soviet space sites and confirmed an openness
to talk.  (Again this is the Civilian space program.)
The only questions I asked (of the speaker) were greeted by "cannot comment
[military reasons]."  I will be leaving for SLC from Friday for Usenix so give
me a week and a half to get back and respond to questions.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  emiya@ames-vmsb
  {hplabs,hao,research,dual}!ames-lm!statvax!eugene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jun-84  0407	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #215    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 215

Today's Topics:
	  Re: High frontier (reasonably long defense discussion)
		       communications via satellite
	Re: High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things
			      MX as Hallmark
			     Fish in space...
	       Missiles (so why do you put a spike on top?)
	     Re: Missiles (so why do you put a spike on top?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 84 15:55:56-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!alex @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: High frontier (reasonably long defense discussion)

Well, the following is a reply to a message by dmw@cmu-cs-vlsi, but it
applies to the latter half of the latest message, too:

(His:)
The arguments on both sides of this issue have been described in many
other places.  I will confine myself to the main points.

1) Directed energy weapons are a long time and a lot of dollars away.
There are a number of cheap straightforward countermeasures that makes
their task much harder, such as finishing boost phase in the atmosphere.

(my replies follow his arguments:)
I never mentioned DE weapons.  "Shotguns in space" are fine for me.

2) Homing warheads still don't work very well and are subject to the
usual countermeasures.

EH?  Hmm, I guess SAMs, HAWKs, AMRAAMs, and Sparrows should all be
scrapped as useless.  After all, they are nothing but homing warheads.
It's a shame that the Air Force has never hit Kwajalein with any of
their RVs, either.

3) Space defenses must be in space, where they are vulnerable.  even if
you coat them with lots of rock, their sensors are still vulnerable.

Not true.  Pop-ups can be built if space starts getting vulnerable.
Besides, any attack on one of our sats is an act of war; hence, more
warning.

4) More missiles is probably cheaper than more defense satellites, if
that's the way the Russians choose to respond.  Richard DeLauer,
undersecretary of defense for research and engineering has stated that
arms control must be combined with space defenses if they are to work.

5) Bombers and cruise missiles will still exist, and most big US cities
are on the coast.  Tactical weapons will also still exist.

So?  Wouldn't you rather shoot down some missiles than none at all?
Bombers/cruise are recallable until no-return point.  The Russians use
turboprop aircraft which we can see coming from a looooong distance.  If
they switch, we've time to think about appropriate responses.  Only
missiles are game as soon as they are launched; only they have flight
times of minutes, too.
His is a non-argument--HF isn't going to make war impossible, merely less 
likely.  It will raise the level above which we MUST launch, for fear of an
incoming attack.

As far as tac nukes go, we can detect them if we know they're there.
There are more profitable ways for a terrorist organization to kill
millions.  Russia isn't going to blow up US cities one at a time.

(his summary:)
In summary, it is not at all clear that a space defense system will
work very well.  Even if it does work, it might not measurably increase
US security, and may just wind up being a big money sink.  The goal of
a perfect defense seems very far away.  It more likely would just add
an element of uncertainty for any attacker, and there are far cheaper
ways to do this, such as point defense of ICBM silos.  Treaties
reducing the ratio of warheads to launch vehicles would accomplish the
same goal at a much lower price.


(my reply:) 
I wish I had his hope for treaties.  Shame the Russians haven't kept one
they've signed, including SALT II.  
I never claimed for this straw man, "the perfect defense".  That's an
argument that McNamara advanced, and it's patently foolish.  Are tanks a
"perfect defense" against artillery?  Are Nylon vests "perfect" against
bullets?  No, but they're a damn sight better than the alternatives.  Same
for High Frontier.

I don't see how his arguments, even if true, lead inescapably to space
defense "/not working very well/".  My reasons:

HF need NOT, repeat *NOT* be perfect to offer a serious countermeasure.
It need only boggle up the Russian's targeting plans to the point that
they are NOT sure they will blow up all our silos.  The arithmetic is
simple: they may know that only 25% of their attack isn't going to make
it, but they will have no way of knowing _which_ 25%.  If they don't
know for certain whether they will destroy all our missiles & bombers,
their plans are cast with doubt.  _This_ _is_ _all_ _a_ _defense_ _need_ _do_
_to_ _have_ _an_ _effect_.  It must merely have a good chance of
succeeding.  Not even the Russians are crazy enough to test against such
a system by experiment. 

Let's not forget that HF's first step is neither space-based nor very
expensive.  Simple point-defense of our current missile silos would be a
defense bargain, pure and simple.  Does anyone seriously object to defending
our silos?

Alex

P.S.  Please, if you're going to offer anti-defense arguments, answer
the implicit questions above.  Ask yourself if this level of uncertainty
in targeting calculations are worth the money.  If not, why not?  I
weary of getting the same old arguments already answered by HF
literature.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday,  6 Jun 1984 17:10-EDT
From: jhs@Mitre-Bedford
To: space@mit-mc
Cc:
Subject: communications via satellite

(NOTE - I am not currently on this mailing list so please address replies,
if any, to jhs at mitre-bedford.arpa directly.)

Perhaps this is not news to most space fans, but...

Don't just TALK about it, DO something about it!  The amateur radio community
is gearing up in a big way for satellite packet radio worldwide.  (The ham
radio community has had its own radio satellites for many years, but digital
packet radio via satellites is the newest gleam in the eye.)

The mailing list INFO-HAMS @ SIMTEL20 includes some news items about this
exciting new hobby opportunity.

					-John Sangster
					jhs at mitre-bedford.arpa

P. S.: Learning the code is NOT that big a deal, especially at 5 WPM.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 84 14:50:44 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Beeley.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Beeley.ES@XEROX.ARPA

Re: Even if HF is only 80% effective against a massive attack, I would
much
rather have it than not.

I am sorry if this message is inappropriate for this distribution list,
but the attitude expressed by this type of thinking both confounds and
depresses me. Its sort of the John Wayne approach to Nuclear warfare --
they may get me and my buddies, but by God and country, we will prevail!

I noticed a change in myself in the last 6 years. I used to fly in
airplanes without a thought to my personal safety -- what the hell, if
it went down, it went down. But 6 years ago I had a son, and 3 years
later I had a daughter and all of a sudden my attitude towards flying
with them along changed to one of caution and concern. I want them to
survive! I want my kids and all the other kids on this planet to live to
make it a better world for all, or at least have their shot at it.

Nuclear war will not allow my children nor any other children in the
world to grow in freedom and health. Nuclear warfare will end life on
this planet as we know it!

It must be comforting to write words like "Come on: wouldn't you rather
(in the even of a nuke attack of 1000 warheads) have 20% land than
100%?"

NO! 1000, 200, 100, 10 or even ONE warhead would destroy the fabric of
our society. This world would never again be the same and it is truely
doubtful that it would even be inhabitable. The world has not been the
same since the compariviely miniscule atomic bombs were dropped on
Japan, and that is primarily a psycological effect.

It is also comforting to have an all abidding faith in our technology. I
develop computer systems and take pride in the thoroughness of our
procedures in implementing and testing our products. But despite our
best efforts, bugs still occur, and usually turn up in the most
inopportune situations (as predicted by Murphy's law). And here we are
spending vast amounts of human and non-renewable resources, bought at
our children's expense (via deficit spending), to develop a "defense"
system which, ultimately, can never be tested! I wonder what kinds of
bugs will show up when the first warhead's distructive force and EMI are
felt?

I am not a historian, so I ask:

  has an effective weapon ever been developed that has not been used?

I think not, and that is yet another reason to be depressed. Having
developed and deployed the MX ("Peacekeeper", aka "Worldender"), the
SS-20 and all the other nuclear weapons that are a button's push away
from our door steps, it seems inevitable to me that someone will find a
reason to use them.

I AM depressed. I am depressed that my children MAY NOT LIVE TO SEE NEXT
YEAR. I AM depressed that I, as an individual, am powerless to affect an
immediate change.

I believe that the only hope for my children, the only hope for America,
the only hope for the world, is nuclear disarmament. I also believe that
this will not happen, but I pray that I am wrong.

I hope that the one common demoninator that the people on this planet
have -- the love for and concern for the survival of our children --
will overcome the political and nationalistic irrationality that is
keeping all of us on the brink of oblivion.

"When you've seen one nuclear war, you've seen them all."

	//John

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 1984 21:07:03-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-VLSI
Subject: MX as Hallmark

I don't know for sure, but I would guess that calling the MX Hallmark refers
to "Hallmark - when you care enough to send the very best."

------------------------------

Date: 6 June 1984  14:02-PDT (Wednesday)
Sender: TLI @ USC-ECLB
From: Tony Li <Tli @ Usc-Eclb>
To:   Space @ mit-mc
Subject: Fish in space...
Reply-to: Tli@Usc-Eclb
Home: 2632 Ellendale Pl. Apt. 314, Los Angeles, Ca. 90007  (213) 737-8168


The membrane that you're looking for is called Gore-Tex(tm).  It's
commonly used in camping equipment, and has the admirable property of
letting you sweat while keeping you out of the rain.

Using two layers of Gore-Tex, you could make a fish sandwich, and
create a small pressure differential to let oxygen pass into the
water.

Cheers,
TLi@Eclb ;-)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 84 7:02:02-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!laura @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Missiles (so why do you put a spike on top?)

I have been reading about the Trident Missiles. I don't understand
very much of it very well. The bottom line, as far as I can tell,
is that if you want to build a missile you build one that has
a metal spike on the end and a disk on the top of the spike. 
Then they fly faster and a lot more efficiently. Also, if you can
get something to burn out by the nose then you are doing a good thing
as well.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, though, (I said I didn't understand
this very well!) I have no idea why this works, but I would like to.
What books do you read first so that you can understand such things?

Laura Creighton
decvax!utzoo!laura@BERKELEY
-- 
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 84 17:07:31-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Missiles (so why do you put a spike on top?)

The spike is a devious aerodynamic trick to make up for having a
relatively blunt nose.  It's a specialized adaptation to the limits
imposed by launching from submarines.

The reason for the blunt nose is that the missile must meet certain
performance specs while being constrained to fit into rather cramped
missile tubes aboard submarines.  Other things being equal, the blunter
the nose's taper is, the shorter it is.  For a fixed-length missile
tube, this means more of the tube's length is available for the full-
diameter part of the body.  And this in turn means more propellant,
giving longer range and heavier payload.

The trouble with a blunt nose is that it creates a lot of drag, most
especially so at supersonic speed.  Hence the previous generations of
sub-launched missiles all had relatively long noses, despite the space
penalty involved.  (Mid-life refits to some of the Polaris subs included
missile-tube caps with concave undersides, to give just a little bit
more room for the noses of newer missiles.)

For the Trident, some devious person at Lockheed came up with the idea
of sticking a little cone on a pole up ahead of the blunt nose, with
the whole assembly being retracted into the nose until the missile
leaves the tube.  It turns out that having, essentially, the point plus
the base of a longer nose is almost as good as having the whole longer
nose, when supersonic drag is the issue.

Laura also notes:

   ................................................ Also, if you can
   get something to burn out by the nose then you are doing a good thing
   as well.

First I'd heard of this, but I think I know what it's about.  You still
have a good bit of empty space between the point of the "invisible nose"
and the base formed by the real nose.  There will be less of a tendency
for the slipstream to flow into this space if there is a modest stream
of gas emerging from it constantly.  The gas helps "fill in" the nose;
you need a constant supply of it (e.g., burning propellant) because the
slipstream keeps carrying it away.  (This basic method is known to help
in other situations, and the extrapolation to the Trident's nose seems
plausible.)

I don't know exactly what books I'd recommend for this.  What I know
about the Trident's nose comes from places like Aviation Week and
Flight International; the fill-in-the-gap-with-combustion-gas is a
phenomenon known from model rocketry.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jun-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #216    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 216

Today's Topics:
	       Re: eclipse arranged instead of accidented?
			 June 22 Launch Date Set
	Re: High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things
			    Artificial Eclipse
			      High Frontier
			Equation for Spiral Galaxy
	     Infra-red emmision from circumstellar particles
	       Re: eclipse arranged instead of accidented?
	    Impact at Cretaceous Boundary: Conclusive Evidence
       A further response to Alex (posting to say see net.politics)
			       Hallmark/MX
		   Space Weapons and the Kzinti Lesson
			    Re: High Frontier
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 June 1984 07:11-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: eclipse arranged instead of accidented?
To: Lynn.es @ XEROX
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

    Date: 5 Jun 84 14:28:03 PDT (Tuesday)
    From: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA
    Once you get out of the atmosphere, a disk an inch across and a few feet
    away is just as good as the moon in causing an eclipse.
No it isn't. The parallax of the telescope (or simple camera) lens or
primary mirror blurs the edge of the disk. You need something very far
away so the parallax across a decent-sized (not pinhole) objective
lens/mirror is miniscule compared to the boundary between what you
want to see (inner corona) and what you want to blot out (outer
photosphere).

You can get a crude image with a pinhole camera and inch disk, but
that's not as good as you get with a decent telescope&camera and large
distant occluding object such as the Moon.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 84 15:54:32-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: June 22 Launch Date Set

NASA today announced that Saturday's test of the Discovery's
SSME proved that the ship is ''sound'' and set a launch date
of 22 June at 0843 EDT.  Mission 41-D will land 7 days later
at EAFB.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 84 23:18:32-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!ech @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: High Frontier, nuclear terrorism, and other fun things

HF anti-ICBM defenses are destabilizing only if they are effective!

How's that again?

Take an extreme example.  Stipulate that The Bad Guys have developed an
anti-missile defense that is 100% effective.  They are now in the process
of deploying, and will have sufficient capacity to take out The Good Guys
entire missile force in, say, two years.

Meantime, the Good Guys have the technology too...but the deployment is a
year behind the Bad Guys (it took a little while to steal it).

OK, Mr. Chief Good Guy.  In two years the Bad Guys are going to have, for one
glorious year, a first strike.  The best you can hope for is that they will
offer you generous terms of surrender.  The Cold War is over, and the only
choice you have is to surrender later or push the big red one while you still
can.  And the longer you wait the worse the imbalance...

The above is, of course, a fantasy.  By contrast, any anti-ICBM of high
effectiveness BUT LOW CAPACITY is a highly stabilizing device: an accidental
launch, or the isolated act of a madman, can be dealt with without "city
swapping" and similar lesser-of-the-two-insanities methods.

A true defender-of-man would give the damn thing, and a $10 Billion a year
budget, to the Swiss to build as many as they want, with the proviso that
they only use 'em on the guy who shoots first.  (I mention the Swiss
because they only make money when EVERYBODY survives, and they know it.
Give me enlightened greed any day, it is something I trust.)

Giving an anti-ICBM to a true neutral is a nice idea, since you can build
down offensive weapons unilaterally as the umbrella opens.  Hah, another
fantasy.

The bottom line on all this is that the worst thing you can do is overplay
your hand; if the other side THINKS you are about to have a first strike,
they may just take you with them.

In the meantime, an attempt to build the needed technology is good news for
we who make our living building neat widgets, and the end result is likely to
be more stabilizing than not (enough senior scientists have pronounced the
project infeasible to suggest, as a fine-tuning on Clarke's dictum, that
it is at least going to be HARD, which falls under scenario 2, not 1).

=Ned=

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 84 08:00 PDT (Thursday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Artificial Eclipse
Re: SPACE Digest V4 #214
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

	"  .....a device that placed a small disk out in front of the
	telescope"

That device is called a coronagraph.  

Ya learn somethin' new every day.		

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 84 08:11 PDT (Thursday)
From: DBraunstein.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject:	High Frontier
Re: SPACE Digest V4 #214
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

    "The attitude of the UCS, Carl Sagan, et al, seems to be that one bomb
    will kill us all(Hiroshima/Nagasaki notwithstanding)."

Um, Alex, what the UCS ( Carl Sagan et al) is the possibility of a nuclear
winter resulting from even a limited exchange i.e. 1/3 of the worlds
nuclear arsenal. A nuclear winter refers not just to the killing off of
the human race, but probably life as we know it, except for maybe bacteria
and cockroaches.  I think if you read more about the position of the UCS,
you might modify be able to express your views more clearly. Try looking
back at old issues of SCIENCE magazine.

	David Braunstein

------------------------------

Date:  6 Jun 1984 15:49:02 EDT (Wednesday)
From: Tom Reid <treid at mitre-gateway>
Subject: Equation for Spiral Galaxy

Does anyone have the equation for the density (illuminance) of a spiral
galaxy suitable for graphically printing on an Epson MX-100 with
Graftrax?  A long time ago, I saw a two-dimensional model but lost it
and have never seen a three-dimensional one (but it might be a little
computationally excessive for a Z-80).  Thank you in advance.  I will
make the equations I get and the program from it available to all who
request.

            Tom Reid
            1105 Criton St.
            Herndon, Va. 22070
            (703) 689-0091 or ARPANET  treid at mitre

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 1984 8:29-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Infra-red emmision from circumstellar particles

Physics Today (May 1984, pages 17-20) has a report that infra-red
emmision has been detected from dust rings around 7 nearby stars.
The stars are:

(1) Vega.  The first dust was detected here, by IRAS, and has been
confirmed by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory (KAO).  The dust has a
temp of around 85 K, radiating at 60 microns.  The dust is about 85 AU
from Vega, is composed of particles with a diameter of at least 1
millimeter (anything smaller would have been removed from orbit by
radiation drag).  Total mass is at least 300 times the mass of the
earth, comparable to the mass of our solar system.

(2) Formalhaut.  Again, IRAS detected dust here.  Temp: 65 K, radius:
"slightly larger than Vega".  No mass figures available.

(3) Beta Pictoris.  (4) Epsilon Eridani(!).  IRAS has detected dust
rings around both these stars.  Epsilon Eridani is only about 3 parsecs
away, the 11th nearest star to us.  Data analysis is incomplete.  The
Beta Pic disk looks 400 AU wide, and was no width in the orthogonal
direction (as seen from earth).

The IRAS sattelite used fairly long wavelengths, and so could not
resolve these dust rings out beyond 25 parsecs.

(5) HL Tauri.
(6) R Monocerotis.  Rayleigh scattered starlight has been detected from
dust particles surrounding these young stars.  The HL Tau disk has
about 1 Me of mass, the R Mon disk 5 Me.  These observations were made
from Kitt Peak and Mauna Kea using speckle interferometry techniques.
These stars are 150 and 600 parsecs from us, respectively.

(7) Lynds 1551/IRS 5.  This very young star is still in the molecular
cloud that birthed it, and is invisible at visible wavelengths.  The IR
scattering disk around it is about 500 AU wide.  It is near HL Tau.


The issue also has a report on the Gravity Probe B sattelite, a
sattelite to be placed in polar orbit to detected "gravitomagnetic"
effects predicted by general relativity.  Some theorists believe this
is where GR will have to be amended, in order to make it compatible
with quantum mechanics.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 84 10:55:59 PDT (Thursday)
From: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: eclipse arranged instead of accidented?
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC.ARPA>
cc: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA, SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS@MIT-MC.ARPA

Well, you caught me oversimplifying the principle of the occulting disk
to produce your own eclipse.  Sorry.  However, the parallax objection
you bring up was long ago solved.  The disk is placed not in front of
the telescope, but between lenses or mirrors inside the telescope, at a
point where infinitely distant objects come to a focus.  Then the disk
appears infinitely distant.

I have to admit that there are some other practical problems with
occulting disk solar telescopes, such as reflections off parts inside
the telescope, overheating of the telescope, etc. that do not occur
during a real eclipse; but these problems have been solved by good
engineering of such instruments.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 1984 12:22-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Impact at Cretaceous Boundary: Conclusive Evidence

An article in Science reports conclusive evidence one or more large
extraterrestrial object hit the earth about 65 million years ago, at
the end of the Cretaceous period.  Scientists have discovered fragments
of quartz in the clay layer at the boundary.  These fragments show
clear signs of being subjected to shock pressures of over 150,000
atmospheres, pressures normally encountered on a large scale only in
meteoritic impacts and nuclear explosions.  Volcanic events fail to
reach these pressures by 2 orders of magnitude.

Because there is very little quartz on the ocean floor, this also tends
to suggest that an impact occured on land.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 84 9:33:23-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: A further response to Alex (posting to say see net.politics)

In an effort to move the discussion to net.politics, my response is
posted there.

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 84 14:49:07-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!ths @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Hallmark/MX

Why was the MX origonally named Hallmark....."when you care enough
to send the very best"!

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 84 9:50:55-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Space Weapons and the Kzinti Lesson

6 June 1984

     There is no way to avoid having weapons in space if you are
in space at all.  Whenever you have lots of energy available, and
space travel requires energy, you have the makings of a weapon. 
     For a simple example, imagine the Space Shuttle approaching
a Soviet spacecraft, perhaps a reconnaisance bird.  The Shuttle
turns its aft end to face the spacecraft and proceeds to blast
the spacecraft with 6000 lbs of thrust from an OMS engine.  This
will destroy almost any spacecraft built by either side.
     In the future, mass-driver reaction engines can be used for
machine guns, solar power satellites can fry electronics, asteroid
miners can throw rocks, and fusion drives are unhealthy to merely
turn on in the vicinity of unshielded poeple.
     For some references, I recommend reading "The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress" by Robert Heinlein, and the 'Known Space' books by Larry
Niven.

Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vx!eder
 

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 84 14:30:32-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!barry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: High Frontier

[<+>]
	I've been following the High Frontier discussion, and decided
to throw in a couple of points I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere.
	One point mentioned frequently by the anti-HF people is that
high energy beam weapons won't work as a space defense. If I understand
Reagan's "Star Wars" proposal correctly, he is asking for $$$ to pursue
research into this very question. The long-term goal may be a space-
based defense, but the immediate expenditures are just to get the ball
rolling. So, rather than just saying, "it won't work", can't we at least
do the research needed to find out if it *does* work? Remember, we're
talking about a long-term goal here. Maybe no one will be able to build
giant x-ray lasers for decades; so what? The need for such a system will
not have disappeared even then, will it? Even if you believe that a political
solution to the problem of nuclear weapons is possible (I doubt it),
can you be certain it will have been achieved in 20, 30, 40, or even
100 years? If not, consider that spending a little $$ now might mean
having an effective defense against nuclear missiles in, say, 20 years
instead of 30.
	Two other arguments frequently used against HF are that it would
be too vulnerable, and too expensive to build. Both of these arguments
contain the same error. They picture space weapons as developing in
isolation. All development from the defense budget, with no other purpose;
all building materials shipped up from earth on a space shuttle; etc.
	We're talking long term. Space based defenses, in the original
High Frontier concept, are part of a total space development program.
Heavy industry, mining, science, colonization, the whole bit. Large-
scale space defenses may well be economical when they're built mostly
from non-terrestrial resources; when what is needed from earth can be
sent up far more cheaply than Shuttle can do it; and when the economy
of this planet is once again booming due to the import of energy and
materials from space. Such defenses will also be far less vulnerable
than they are pictured to be, when they're part of a wholesale space
effort. It'll be harder to know what's a weapon and what's an industrial
facility. 
	One final point - let's suppose the HF concept is indeed a bust.
What about the spinoffs? Since this country was already spending big
bucks on high-energy lasers before the "Star Wars" speech, I would presume
that the additional $$ for HF would (for now) be mostly to build up our
space capabilities generally; the lasers themselves seem to have a separate
budget. Since the government is willing to spend on space weapons, but
not on other large-scale space projects (heavy industry, solar power
satellites, colonies), maybe us space buffs should take what we can get.
The fact is, we are certain in the long run (assuming we survive) to
have both heavy civilian and military space development. We might prefer
to have peaceful use first and foremost, but the two are interdependent
- whichever we start with, we get both in the long run, and development
in either area helps along development in the other.
	I've confined myself to general and long-term arguments here,
because I don't know what the immediate proposals are. Does anyone out
there know what specific spending proposals for the next 5 years or so,
are contained in Reagan's "Star Wars" plan? I think such information
would be of general interest.
        [The opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters.]

                                                Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Electric Avenue:              {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jun-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #217    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 217

Today's Topics:
			    Re: High Frontier
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 84 10:37:28-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: High Frontier

Ken Barry made the point that we should get spin-offs from High Frontier.
In general, military work is an inefficient means of generating
spin offs.  The reasons are fundimental.  First, the military is an
organization that uses death and destruction to achieve its goals
(literally).  This is frequently incompatable with living and building.
Second, the military must maintain secrecy, thereby inhibiting the
transfer of technology to useful ends.  As an example, a number of
technical conferences in recent months have had papers pulled at the
last minute by DOD for 'security' reasons.  Many of these papers 
were not classified!

This is not to say that you don't get spinoffs from the military, you do.
It is just inordinately expensive in dollars, lives, and property.  You'll
get far more spinoff per dollar from NASA.


Second point.  When opponents say Star Wars 'won't work' they mean that
it cannot protect the population of the US from a determined Soviet
attack.  This is true as any knowledgable proponent of star wars will
tell you.  When Star Wars proponents say is 'can work' they mean that
US land based ballistic missles can be protected.  This is also true.
Do you want to spend $26 billion to RESEARCH protection for missles and
then up to $1 trillion to build a system that irrevocably weaponizes space
to protect the land based leg of the triad?  When I run into a solution
with these properties in my work, I know that there is something seriously
wrong and look for a better approach.  Perhaps we should devote 1% of the
DOD budget to non-weapontry means to enhance our security.  You never know,
we might find something.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Jun-84  0407	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #218    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 218

Today's Topics:
		    Discovery launch delayed 3 days   
	     Opinion clarification on private space ventures
		   American Society of Aerospace Pilots
		   American Society of Aerospace Pilots
	       Re: Reagan's Star Wars plan (simple comment)
			 Re: Magnetic Pole Drift
	   Re: Infra-red emmision from circumstellar particles
			      Soviet Shuttle
			  Re: circumstellar dust
			   41-D Launch Delayed
      eclipse arranged instead of accidented? / disk at prime focus
			   Soviet shuttle?    
			   Here we go again   
			      Nuclear Flames
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 08 Jun 84  1741 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Discovery launch delayed 3 days   
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a086  0813  08 Jun 84
PM-Space Shuttle, 1st Ld - Writethru, a049,300
Eds: New throughout with launch postponed three days.
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The maiden flight of space shuttle
Discovery was delayed three days today, until June 25, so engineers
can replace one of its main engines.
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration decided to replace
the engine after technicians on Thursday discovered a slight
separation of a thin metal thermal shield from the lining of a fuel
preburner pump in engine No. 1. The shield helps protect the wall of
the pump from engine heat during firing.
    The shield apparently came loose during a 19-second test-firing of
Discovery's engines on Saturday.
    NASA spokesman Hugh Harris said officials had considered four
options, with impacts ranging from no delay to a delay of several
days.
    The decision was made today to change the entire engine, replacing
it with one from the shuttle Challenger, which is in a hangar here, he
said. The change will be made on the launch pad, where Discovery has
been for two weeks.
    The launch had been scheduled for June 22 and the replacement delays
the flight until at least June 25, Harris said.
    Other than replacing the engine, engineers had considered three
options:
    -To use the engine as is, with no impact on the schedule.
    -To replace the fuel pump, which would take about five days.
    -To remove the pump and repair it, which would take more than five
days, but officials were not able to predict how long.
    Replacing the engine takes four days but that doesn't mean the
launch date would slip by the same number of days because other work
could continue during the replacement.
    Discovery, the third shuttle, will carry a crew of six on a
seven-day mission.
    
ap-ny-06-08 1113EDT
**********

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 84 17:24:39-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Opinion clarification on private space ventures

I have received one letter from a person who believed I had negative
opinions on private space ventures.  This was in response to my long
(misspelled in some cases) description of NASA.

I have high regard for private space ventures: good luck to them all.
However, many people who get involved in such ventures do not realize
the sheer difficulty of getting into space.  Space technology,
unlike electronic or nuclear technology, has not scaled.  Gravity
is a difficult problem and makes for many assumptions:  You cannot
turn tight screws and bolts in zero G, you have to seek alternate ways
of doing things.

Example: from my earlier reporting of Soviet space, a big concern,
now taken for granted: it was believed early in space missions that
human would not be able to swallow in zero G.  Suppose this had been
true-> imagine the consequences->a whole technology would have to
develop to support the intake of food, mucus and saliva while in space.
Fortunately, this was not the case, but other problems have been encountered.
Very simple things are no longer possible.  These assumptions will make
private space ventures difficult (as well as more advanced excursions).

Big business is too conservative (what has GM done for space while not
on contact?  IBM and AT&T have only done what suits them.  Would any of
these companies develop an ion drive?).  The problem with NASA is that
the information is there, but it is not publicized well.  In an
agency run by scientists (and scientifically oriented managers), a different
set of things are cut back in budgets: PR in this case [also, we know
that scientists are not the best PR people].

So, good luck to all those concern private space ventures.  I will
wing it in the NASA bureaucracy for a while longer.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 84 15:38:57-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!tekigm!douglasg @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: American Society of Aerospace Pilots

[Bug Bait.]

	American Society of Aerospace Pilots(ASAP)


	For those of you familiar with ASAP, it has recently
	relocated from Schaumburg, Illinois to Grants Pass, Oregon.
	The new address is as follows:

		ASAP Headquarters
		946 SE 8th ST
		Grants Pass, Oregon 97526     Phone: (503)476-8210

	And here is some background information about ASAP from their
	brochure for anyone who is interested.

	----------------------------------------------------------

	   ASAP is a not-for-profit organization with membership
	open to anyone with a desire to be part of the most unique
	space organization in the world.

	   ASAP was founded in 1981 by a group of professional pilots
	whose research indicated widespread interest in the utili-
	zation of space by private enterprise, the professional pilot
	community, the general public, and decision makers who could
	influence the future of spaceflight.

	   ASAP was formed as a vehicle to accelerate the evolution
	of routine space operations, and to keep the American public
	informed of developments in this area.

	   Membership in ASAP is open to everyone. As a member, you
	are invited to participate in the worlds only Spaceflight
	Ground School. The curriculum is based on NASA's Astronaut
	Candidate Training Program.

	   Membership is divided into five divisions; Pilot Division,
	Spacecraft Crewmember, Space Station Operations, Spaceline
	Operations and Youth.
	-------------------------------------------------------------

	So much for the advertisement.

	   The dues for Full members in any division are $50 per year
	and for Associate members it is $25 per year.  The catch is
	that full members MUST take the ground school.  Since the
	organization is non-profit and receives no government funding,
	all member services are paid for by the members and the ground
	school is paid for by those members attending the ground school.
	I have personally taken the Space Navigation course and have
	started the Orbital Mechanics Course.  So far they are well
	thought out and very informative.

	For more information write ASAP or me.

		The Space Cadet            Douglas Gould
					   Rt #2, Box 111
					   Yamhill, Oregon 97128

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 84 15:38:19-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!tekigm!douglasg @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: American Society of Aerospace Pilots

[Bug Bait.]

	American Society of Aerospace Pilots(ASAP)


	For those of you familiar with ASAP, it has recently
	relocated from Schaumburg, Illinois to Grants Pass, Oregon.
	The new address is as follows:

		ASAP Headquarters
		946 SE 8th ST
		Grants Pass, Oregon 97526     Phone: (503)476-8210

	And here is some background information about ASAP from their
	brochure for anyone who is interested.

	----------------------------------------------------------

	   ASAP is a not-for-profit organization with membership
	open to anyone with a desire to be part of the most unique
	space organization in the world.

	   ASAP was founded in 1981 by a group of professional pilots
	whose research indicated widespread interest in the utili-
	zation of space by private enterprise, the professional pilot
	community, the general public, and decision makers who could
	influence the future of spaceflight.

	   ASAP was formed as a vehicle to accelerate the evolution
	of routine space operations, and to keep the American public
	informed of developments in this area.

	   Membership in ASAP is open to everyone. As a member, you
	are invited to participate in the worlds only Spaceflight
	Ground School. The curriculum is based on NASA's Astronaut
	Candidate Training Program.

	   Membership is divided into five divisions; Pilot Division,
	Spacecraft Crewmember, Space Station Operations, Spaceline
	Operations and Youth.
	-------------------------------------------------------------

	So much for the advertisement.

	   The dues for Full members in any division are $50 per year
	and for Associate members it is $25 per year.  The catch is
	that full members MUST take the ground school.  Since the
	organization is non-profit and receives no government funding,
	all member services are paid for by the members and the ground
	school is paid for by those members attending the ground school.
	I have personally taken the Space Navigation course and have
	started the Orbital Mechanics Course.  So far they are well
	thought out and very informative.

	For more information write ASAP or me.

		The Space Cadet            Douglas Gould
					   Rt #2, Box 111
					   Yamhill, Oregon 97128

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 84 6:30:58-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!myers @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Reagan's Star Wars plan (simple comment)

>Man's fist was replaced by a club, the club was then
>replaced by a spear, a spear by bow and arrow, arrows
>by guns. . . .eventually man discovered Nukes were the
>"ultimate" weapon to use against others.
>
>History shows it takes a BETTER weapon to make another
>weapon absolete!

*None* of the weapons mentioned are "absolete".  Just watch TV for a few
hours and you'll see them all.

Possessing a superior weapon does not make other weapons obsolete, merely
reduces their effectiveness in relative terms.

There's a moral about SW systems here somewhere...

P.S.  Do *you* have enough faith in the programming ability of DOD programmers
(or any programmers for that matter) to trust strategic decision making to
an automated system?

-- 
Jeff Myers
ARPA: myers@wisc-rsch.arpa
uucp: ..{seismo, ihnp4}!wisc-rsch!myers

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 84 19:26:12-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxt!marcus @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Magnetic Pole Drift

It is, in fact, most unusual for the the magnetic and rotational
poles to coincide precisely. The poles don't actually 'flip' but
meander their way to the oposite end of the earth so to speak in
over a number of years (hundreds-thousands),  and yes, the dipole
strength does vary to some extent, though i can't remember by
how much. (At present the magnetic axis is varying access is
drifting by a few minutes of arc per year - its called the
magnetic deviation and on the british mainland is around 8 degrees
west at the moment and diminishing)

		marcus hand  (pyuxt!marcus)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 1984 15:16-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Infra-red emmision from circumstellar particles

The latest issue of Science has a paper about the material in orbit
around Vega.  The author argues the total mass of the 85 K material is
much less than 300 times the mass of the earth.  The problem is this:
although primordial particles less than a millimeter across would have
decayed into Vega by now, small particles may continually be generated
in the ring by collisions of larger bodies.  These small particles will
dominate IR emission due to their high surface area.  The paper
estimated the mass of the ring to be around 15 - 45 earths, with
the matter there mainly cometary in nature.  There may also be 12
micron IR evidence of material much closer to Vega, perhaps consisting
of asteroidal debris.  The fact that the emmission from comets cuts off
closer than 85 AU from Vega argues the comets there have been
destroyed, probably accreted onto or ejected by planets.

------------------------------

Date: 09 Jun 84  1155 PDT
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Soviet Shuttle
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a030  0234  09 Jun 84
PM-Space Conference,540
Official: Soviets Copied U.S. Space Shuttle
By SCOTT McCARTNEY
Associated Press Writer
    DALLAS (AP) - The Soviet Union has developed its own space shuttle
the easy way: by copying the American orbiter, a former high-ranking
Defense Intelligence Agency official says.
    Retired Lt. Col. Thomas H. Krebs, former chief of the DIA's space
systems branch, said Friday that the Soviets will launch their space
shuttle within a year or two.
    ''We've seen the (Soviet) orbiter and it's identical to ours,''
Krebs said in his first public speech since leaving the military in
January.
    Krebs said military experts believe the Soviets simply bought a copy
of space shuttle blueprints, then improved on the designs by adding
engines to the external fuel tank, boosting the vehicle's lifting
power.
    It was a faster, cheaper way of developing an orbiter, he said.
    ''The space shuttle was totally unclassified. Anyone could buy a set
of plans. However, no one has been able to find the requisition,'' he
said.
    Krebs, now research director for a Washington-based space education
and lobbying group called High Frontier Inc., said his remarks were
based on recently declassified information about Soviet space
capabilities and contained no classified secrets.
    In Washington, DIA sources who spoke only on the condition that they
not be identified said they knew nothing specifically about the
Soviets getting shuttle blueprints.
    Krebs addressed a conference on space sponsored by the National
Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative Dallas-based think tank.
    He said the Soviet Union is far ahead of the United States in
development of space-based weapons capable of destroying satellites
and ballistic missiles, having already developed two land-based laser
beam weapons that can destroy satellites in low orbits.
    The weapons are in the testing stage, he said, and are not fully
operational.
    ''The Soviets are trying to dominate space and, in fact, have
already done so at low-altitude orbits and are working on the
high-altitude orbits,'' Krebs said.
    The conference included a debate on President Reagan's ''Star Wars''
initiative to develop high-technology space defenses.
    John Pike, associate director for space activities for the
federation, argued that high-technology defense systems involving
orbiting ''killer satellites'' are too vulnerable to provide a
reliable defense.
    ''If we proceed with the president's program, we will junk arms
control and lead ourselves down what I and my associates think is a
dangerous and uncertain road,'' Pike said. ''Strategic defense (in
space) is a mirage.''
    Reagan in March proposed a $50 billion program to develop space
systems in the next decade.
    ''We're not out to find a niftier way to fight a war in space. We
can prevent nuclear war by using space for defensive purposes,''
argued former Army Gen. Daniel Graham, president of High Frontier.
    Graham, saying no defense system would be perfect, estimated that a
''Star Wars'' defense could destroy 95 percent of Soviet missiles
launched in a massive nuclear attack.
    ''We would go from mutually assured destruction to mutually assured
survival,'' he said.
    
ap-ny-06-09 0534EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 1984 2249-PDT
From: LEE at SU-STAR
Subject: Re: circumstellar dust
To: SPACE%MIT-MC at SCORE
Reply-To: LEE at SU-STAR


	Could you explain the radiation drag mechanism?. I don't quite
see how it causes orbital decay, although it is clear that such an
effect depends on the surface area/mass ratio of theorbiting particle.
				Emilio P. Calius
				Stanford U.
------

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 84 12:33:37-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: 41-D Launch Delayed

A loose engine pump shield has caused a three day delay,
until 25 June, of the launch of 41-D.  NASA will replace
the Number 1 engine on the Discovery.  Replacing only
the pump or the shield would have taken longer.

------------------------------

Date: 10 June 1984 20:03-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  eclipse arranged instead of accidented? / disk at prime focus
To: Lynn.es @ XEROX
cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

Aha, indeed putting the occluding disk at the prime focus of the solar
telescope instead of "in front" solves the parallax problem, and if
everything in the light path up to the occluding disk, except the
primary mirror, is painted flat black and if all dust is carefully
removed from the mirror and everything else along that path, the
internal reflection problem should be minimized. (I presume it'd be
impossible to eliminate internal reflections in a lens, thus I say
mirror instead of lens, but I may be mistaken.) With a
long-focal-length primary mirror, so the primary image will be
relatively large, diffraction around the edges of the occluding disk
should also be minimized.

Thanks for the info/correction. (But if the technique is so workable,
why are natural eclipses so important even now? Why don't we see
wonderful artificially-occluded solar images from space every flight
of STS, making natural eclipses moot? My guess, funding is short, STS
flights are all booked, ...)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 84  1826 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Soviet shuttle?    
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a030  0234  09 Jun 84
PM-Space Conference,540
Official: Soviets Copied U.S. Space Shuttle
By SCOTT McCARTNEY
Associated Press Writer
    DALLAS (AP) - The Soviet Union has developed its own space shuttle
the easy way: by copying the American orbiter, a former high-ranking
Defense Intelligence Agency official says.
    Retired Lt. Col. Thomas H. Krebs, former chief of the DIA's space
systems branch, said Friday that the Soviets will launch their space
shuttle within a year or two.
    ''We've seen the (Soviet) orbiter and it's identical to ours,''
Krebs said in his first public speech since leaving the military in
January.
    Krebs said military experts believe the Soviets simply bought a copy
of space shuttle blueprints, then improved on the designs by adding
engines to the external fuel tank, boosting the vehicle's lifting
power.
    It was a faster, cheaper way of developing an orbiter, he said.
    ''The space shuttle was totally unclassified. Anyone could buy a set
of plans. However, no one has been able to find the requisition,'' he
said.
    Krebs, now research director for a Washington-based space education
and lobbying group called High Frontier Inc., said his remarks were
based on recently declassified information about Soviet space
capabilities and contained no classified secrets.
    In Washington, DIA sources who spoke only on the condition that they
not be identified said they knew nothing specifically about the
Soviets getting shuttle blueprints.
    Krebs addressed a conference on space sponsored by the National
Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative Dallas-based think tank.
    He said the Soviet Union is far ahead of the United States in
development of space-based weapons capable of destroying satellites
and ballistic missiles, having already developed two land-based laser
beam weapons that can destroy satellites in low orbits.
    The weapons are in the testing stage, he said, and are not fully
operational.
    ''The Soviets are trying to dominate space and, in fact, have
already done so at low-altitude orbits and are working on the
high-altitude orbits,'' Krebs said.
    The conference included a debate on President Reagan's ''Star Wars''
initiative to develop high-technology space defenses.
    John Pike, associate director for space activities for the
federation, argued that high-technology defense systems involving
orbiting ''killer satellites'' are too vulnerable to provide a
reliable defense.
    ''If we proceed with the president's program, we will junk arms
control and lead ourselves down what I and my associates think is a
dangerous and uncertain road,'' Pike said. ''Strategic defense (in
space) is a mirage.''
    Reagan in March proposed a $50 billion program to develop space
systems in the next decade.
    ''We're not out to find a niftier way to fight a war in space. We
can prevent nuclear war by using space for defensive purposes,''
argued former Army Gen. Daniel Graham, president of High Frontier.
    Graham, saying no defense system would be perfect, estimated that a
''Star Wars'' defense could destroy 95 percent of Soviet missiles
launched in a massive nuclear attack.
    ''We would go from mutually assured destruction to mutually assured
survival,'' he said.
    
ap-ny-06-09 0534EDT
**********

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 84  1826 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Here we go again   
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a274  1821  09 Jun 84
AM-Satellite Launch, 1st Ld - Writethru, a266,540
URGENT
Eds: Rewrites throughout to note that NASA not attempting to salvage
satellite, adds comments from NASA and ITSO, background on other
failed satellites. No pickup.
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A $30 million international
communications satellite tumbled out of control after it was launched
over the Atlantic Ocean Saturday and NASA officials said there was no
way to save it.
    The rocket, which was launched by a new ''stretched'' model of the
Atlas-Centaur rocket, lifted on schedule at 7:03 p.m. EDT and
everything went well for 23 minutes when suddenly the Centaur upper
stage went out of control. The launch control center reported the
Centaur and the attached satellite were tumbling.
    John Gibbs, Atlas-Centaur project manager, told a news conference an
hour after the failure that officials don't know what went wrong.
    ''If we have this wrapped up in six weeks to two months we'll be
doing well,'' Gibbs said, adding that the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration would have to analyze data relayed from the
rocket.
    The two attached vehicles were in an orbit ranging from 93 miles to
759 miles above the Earth, NASA officials reported. The intent was to
place the satellite in a stationary orbit 22,300 miles high.
    Officials said the rocket and satellite eventually would burn up
from friction because of the low orbit, but NASA could not estimate
when.
    The failure occurred when the rocket was in contact with a tracking
station on Ascension Island in the South Atlantic. It would take
several days to fly the data tapes back from the island, NASA said. A
review board has been set up to study the failure.
    The International Telecommunications Satellite Organization paid
NASA $60 million to launch the satellite. With 12,000 voice channels
and two color television channels, it was to have joined 15 other
satellites currently serving the 108-nation organization.
    ''Obviously, we're disappointed about the failure,'' said Allan
McCaskill, a representative of the international organization.
    He said the organization had insured the launch for $102 million
with a consortium of insurance companies. The organization paid a $10
million premium for the insurance.
    It was the 62nd launch of an Atlas-Centaur rocket, but the first for
the new lengthened model. The body of the first-stage Atlas had been
extended 81 inches, allowing the booster to carry an additional 15
tons of fuel and to place an extra 500 pounds in orbit.
    The Atlas performed flawlessly during the 4 1/2 minutes it operated
Saturday night.
    The Centaur separated successfully from the Atlas and the upper
stage fired as planned for 10 minutes, then shut down and coasted for
seven minutes.
    During this coast period that something went wrong and when it came
time for the seven-minute refire of the Centaur rocket, the engine
ignited but burned for only about four seconds before shutting down.
    At that point, NASA's launch control center reported the rocket and
satellite were tumbling and there was no way to save them.
    It was the first satellite launch failure at Cape Canaveral since
August 1977 when another Atlas-Centaur malfunctioned. Two
communication satellites carried on the 10th shuttle flight in
February were placed in wrong orbits when their rocket motors
misfired. NASA is studying plans to retrieve and repair them in space.
    
ap-ny-06-09 2121EDT
**********

------------------------------

Date: Fri 8 Jun 84 09:25:04-PDT
From: mark thompson <THOMPSON@USC-ECLC.ARPA>
Subject: Nuclear Flames
To: space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Phone: (213) 743-4800

I hate people who send messages complaining about the contents of 
various mailing lists, so i hate myself for doing this but...

I would really appreciate it if the High Frontier people would 
BLT themselves over to ARMS-D (ARMS-D@MIT-MC). This would have 
two benefits: First, they would have enjoyed the bit about
giving the nuclear arsenals fo the world to the Swiss, and 
second, i would save myself from having to follow it on two
lists.

Think of it as keeping nuclear weapons out of SPACE.

-mark

ps. DO people still know what a BLT is? Shame on DEC!
-------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jun-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #219    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 219

Today's Topics:
       Re: eclipse arranged instead of accidented? / disk at prime
			    Re: radiation drag
				 weapons
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 84 10:33:37 PDT (Monday)
From: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: eclipse arranged instead of accidented? / disk at prime
 focus
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM@MIT-MC.ARPA>
cc: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA, SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS@MIT-MC.ARPA

  "But if the technique is so workable, why are natural eclipses so
important even now? Why don't we see wonderful artificially-occluded
solar images from space every flight of STS, making natural eclipses
moot?"

In fact, earth-based observations of eclipses are getting less important
for corona work.  Especially since Solar Max satellite was repaired (it
has a coronagraph with occulting disk on board).  Why don't we see
"wonderful artificially-occluded solar images from space"?  I guess the
press doesn't consider them wonderful enough to publish any more.  There
were some pictures in the Skylab days.  And a few shots made it into
print the times that comets were accidentally picked up in an orbiting
coronagraph.

There are several other reasons to observe eclipses though.  One is
timing the eclipse to check on the accuracy of our lunar orbit
predictions, though this is becoming less important because of lunar
laser ranging.  Another result of timing is too determine the exact size
of the sun, which some scientists think is changing.  Another is
checking general relativity by bending of light near the sun, though
this can now be measured more accurately at radio wavelengths in broad
daylight whenever a spacecraft goes behind the sun.  There are yet more
reasons to scientifically observe eclipses, but that's all I can think
of at the moment.  

Perhaps the best reason to observe a total eclipse is to experience the
sheer awe that comes over all life.  That will remain even if all
scientific experiments can be done elsetimes.

/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 1984 18:44-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: LEE@SU-STAR.ARPA
Cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: radiation drag

The radiation drag I was referring to is known as the
Poynting-Robertson effect.  A particle moving through the radiation
emitted by a star will reflect (or re-emit) more energy in the
direction of motion (due to doppler shift), producing a VERY small
retarding force.  Over millions of years the particle will spiral into
the star, at a rate proportional to the particle's cross-sectional area
divided by its mass.

dietz@usc-ecla

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1984 03:37:03-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: weapons

As I was reading a recent Scientific American article noting the benefits of
halting ASAT testing before the high tech weapons have been tested, thus
insuring that no one can feel certain about their abilities, I couldn't help
but laugh at the lack of imagination the poor earthworm showed. I can
imagine a quite simple, cheap and effective ASAT system requiring no testing
that a treaty could cover.

Imagine if you will, 1995. A troop of astronauts salute sharply as they
deploy on their one man OTV's, military issue 45's gleaming in their
shoulder holsters...

I posit that a 45 caliber bullet from 50 yards is a 100% effective ASAT.

(I say 50 yards so that the astronaut will be relatively safe from the
explosive booby traps that are already present on some russian satellites)

And if the satellites are hardened, then upgrade to an old fashioned
bazooka...

But if you really must be high tech, then a TOW ought to do a nifty job...

One must keep in mind that the cheapest, deadliest weapon in the world is
man.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jun-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #220    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 220

Today's Topics:
			L-5 a communist front?????
			  Re: circumstellar dust
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 June 1984 08:01-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: L-5 a communist front?????
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

According to LeRouche (candidate for President), the L-5 society in
cohorts with Graham's "High Frontier" is a communist front controlled
by the KGB. (And according to Joe McCarthy ...)

------------------------------

Date: 12 June 1984 08:25-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: circumstellar dust
To: LEE @ SU-STAR
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

    Date: 8 Jun 1984 2249-PDT
    From: LEE at SU-STAR
    	Could you explain the radiation drag mechanism?.
Here's my quick attempt: Radiation is doppler-shifted depending on
direction of motion of particle. The difference of energy&momentum
between the front and back of the particle causes it to slow down in
its orbit, causing it to fall into the object it is orbiting (Vega in
this case). For average particles area is proportioal to diameter
squared whereas mass to diameter cubed, and both lightpressure and
gravity are proportional to distance-from-star to the minus 2 power,
so very tiny particles have more area*lightpressure than mass*gravity,
thus are thrown out to deep space by lightpressure even if not
orbiting, but slightly-larger particles have more mass*gravity than
area*lightpressure, so they eventually fall inward after they stop
orbiting. Very large particles take a very long time before they
significantly slow down orbiting, so in their case lightpressure vs
gravity is moot. But tiny and medium-small particles are removed from
orbit, to deep space and into the star respectively, after just a
short time in the life of a star.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jun-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #221    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 221

Today's Topics:
			re: space marines as ASATs
		       l-5 a communist front?!?!?!
			   IRAS Dyson spheres?
			Rocket propulsion question
				 LaDouche
			      High Frontier
			  Atlas/Centaur Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1984 1043-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MC
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: re: space marines as ASATs
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 12022871028.30.583.6487 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Dale.Amon is not impressed by anti-ASAT advocates:
     
  "As I was reading a recent Scientific American article noting the benefits of
   halting ASAT testing before the high tech weapons have been tested, thus
   insuring that no one can feel certain about their abilities, I couldn't help
   but laugh at the lack of imagination the poor earthworm showed."

He suggests that space marines could just go out and shoot satellites if we
wanted to destroy them.  The article was co-written by Richard Garwin, an IBM
Fellow at the Watson Research Center.  He has been a key part of the debate
over the ABM, the cruise missile, and the Trident deployments.  He is not
someone I would describe as an unimaginative earthworm.

Destroying a satellite is an act of war.  If you are to derive any benefit
from it at all you have to destroy most of them at once.  The Russians are
not going to sit on their hands while you fly from one satellite to another
plugging them with your revolver.  They will move their satellites, destroy
your manned orbital base, or maybe just get down to the business of World
War III.  Destroying several hundred satellites within the course of a few
minutes is not something marines are likely to be able to do.  They won't 
have the time to get more than one apiece, and they won't have the manpower
to get them all at once.

This whole ASAT thing seems crazed to me.  We rely on satellites for a lot
of things, and yet by threatening the Russians we make certain that our own
will be threatened.  It's disastrous, of course, from an arms control point
of view, but it's bad even from a straight military point of view as well.
Someone at Space Command is out of control.

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1984 08:19:06-EDT
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
To: Space@mit-mc
Subject: l-5 a communist front?!?!?!
Cc: sde@Mitre-Bedford

Actually, the KGB definitely made attempts at penetrating L-5 &/or
compromising members. This is not a surmise; I can name names.
That is in addition to the amusing fact that the KGB chief of station
quietly joined a couple of years ago (according to the FBI); anyone
can join by paying $20. But the idea that L-5, whose honchos include(d)
Sen. Goldwater, be a communist front is, of course, the sort of marvelously
preposterous stuff to paste on one's office door.

   Ad Astra,
   sde@mitre-bedford

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 13 June 1984 18:30:40 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: IRAS Dyson spheres?
Message-ID: <1984.6.13.22.29.20.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>

n085  1719  12 Jun 84
BC-PLANETS
By WALTER SULLIVAN
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    BALTIMORE - Newly analyzed infrared emissions indicate that as many
as 40 relatively close stars are enveloped in clouds that it is
thought will ultimately condense and form planets.
    The findings were reported Tuesday by Dr. Hartmut H. Aumann of the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., at a meeting of the
American Astronomical Society.
    Using a catalogue of 2,000 stars within 80 light-years of Earth, he
studied the data recorded last year by the Infrared Astronomical
Satellite, or IRAS, in search of more stars that, like Vega and
Fomalhaut, might show evidence of such clouds glowing at infrared
wavelengths.
    The 40 stars he so identified constitute an estimated 10 to 20
percent of the 2,000 cataloged stars that are relatively similar to
the sun in terms of luminosity, mass and lifetime.
    Last year, IRAS found Vega and Fomalhaut to be surrounded by
material similar to that from which it is assumed planets are formed.
However, those two stars are relatively hot, luminous, large and
young, with a projected lifetime of only a few million years.
    The 40 stars that Aumann said ''are being orbited by solid
material'' are smaller but with lifetimes of billions of years, which
is long enough for higher forms of life to evolve.
    The observations call to mind the infrared emissions predicted for
the so-called Dyson civilizations according to a theory that proposed
a completely different source for such emissions.
    In 1960, Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at
Princeton, N.J., suggested that a highly advanced civilization,
driven by population pressure, would intentionally dismantle planets
in orbit around its parent star and re-assemble them into a cloud of
artificial, eventually inhabitable planets.
    These planets would then capture all, or most, of the star's
radiated energy. The star would be largely hidden from distant
observers, but such a cloud of planets would glow at the infrared
wavelengths typical of low-temperature material. It was the infrared
glow that prompted discussion of the Dyson theory.
    No one at Tuesday's meeting was arguing that the nearby stars were,
in fact, such civilizations, but Frank D. Drake, of Cornell
University, said such a possibility could not be ruled out. It was
Drake who in 1959 first turned a radio telescope toward two nearby
stars in search of artificial signals from space. One of the two
stars, Epsilon Eridani, is among the 40 now identified as strong
emitters of infrared radiation.
    Aumann said the infrared emissions were too strong to have emanated
from Dyson-type planets, but Drake disagreed. He said a ''smart''
civilization would build its planets farther from the parent star
than Earth's orbit is from the Sun but would keep one side
continuously facing the star, allowing for a mild climate on that
side. The cold backside, he said, would emit radiation much like that
recorded by IRAS.
    The optimistic mood of a decade ago among searchers for life on
other worlds has given way, however, to a suspicion that if
technological civilizations exist, they are more distant than the
nearest stars.
    Among other IRAS observations reported on Tuesday was the finding
that some galaxies scattered throughout the universe are being
powered by an enormous and baffling energy source. The galaxies are
so dim optically that the existence of many of them was unknown until
powerful telescopes were turned to those directions where IRAS had
detected pointlike sources of emission.
    When photographed optically, many of these galaxies are seen to be
greatly distorted or to be in such close contact with another galaxy
as to suggest that they are, or have been, in collisions. One
suggestion is that such collisions of galactic clouds produce bursts
of star formation perhaps at rates higher than one per day, producing
the enormous infrared emissions.
    The ''star burst'' hypothesis and other explanations, however, have
been challenged on some ground. As Dr. Frank J. Low of the University
of Arizona, put it: ''We are on the trail of something very
fundamental, but we don't know what it is.''
    

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1984 14:37-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Rocket propulsion question
To: Space@mc
Message-Id: <455999826/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

Can someone answer the following question, which has bothered me for
a long time:

	Why does a rocket engine produce more thrust in space than in
	the atmosphere?

The stock answer is that thrust is proportional to exhaust velocity,
and air drag reduces exhaust velocity.  But it seems to me that this
drag (back pressure) should cause a rise in chamber pressure, thus
increasing thrust.  Thrust is produced by chamber pressure, which works
over a larger surface area at the front of the chamber than at the back
(due to the exhaust hole).  The rearwards pressure at the exhaust hole
is occupied by accelerating the exhaust gas out through the hole,
rather than by pushing on engine structure.  If some of this rearward
force is countered by backpressure from air not attached to the rocket,
it shouldn't drag on the rocket.  But in inhibiting escape of gases,
the backpressure should increase chamber pressure, and hence, thrust.

Suppose we replace the forward chamber wall by the base of a rifle
bullet, and the air by a closed breech.  This combination results in a
higher bullet velocity than if the breech were open to allow maximum
exhaust velocity of the burnt powder with respect to the bullet.

Where is the flaw in this reasoning?

				David Smith @ cmu-cs-ius.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1984 21:46:00-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: LaDouche

If anybody got the latest Larouche show on tape, quite a number of us in L5
would be interested in getting copies of it. I mean what better publicity
can you get than to be panned by LaDouchebag? To be classed right up there
with Henry Kissenger?

The sad part is, this must mean we're establishment now!

				Dale Amon
				Pres Pgh L5 &
				Spacepac Chapters Coordinator

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 84 10:34:08-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: High Frontier

I received a query as to what papers have been pulled from conferences
by DOD recently.  The information comes from Aviation Week within the
last few months.  Unfortunately I don't have time to go dig the details
out, but I believe they were mostly information technology papers.  Note
that cryptologists submit their papers to pre-censorship even when they
are not DOD funded.  This is suposedly voluntary.

I have an excercise for those who think Star Wars can protect us.

	1.  Estimate the number of atomic explosions the U.S. can absorb.

	2.  Divide by 8,000 (approximate number of Soviet warheads that can
	    reach the U.S.) to get the percentage success required.

	3.  Realize that ICBM's take about a half hour and submarine missles
	    as little as 10 seconds to reach U.S. cities.

	4.  Figure out how to test star wars sufficiently to have confidence
	    in success.

If, after going through the above, you still believe that star wars can
protect the U.S. population against a determined attack by the Soviet Union
I have several bridges near here I'd like to sell you.  A good deal, only
$1 trillion in OEM quantities.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 84 6:28:17-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Atlas/Centaur Failure

Since the failure was apparently in the Centaur, and not the newly stretched
Atlas, I wonder how, if at all, the Shuttle-based version of the Centaur
will be affected.  I hope that Galileo won't delayed again!

Are there any other civilian projects depending on the Shuttle Centaur?  The
Venus orbiter?

Burns

	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jun-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #222    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 222

Today's Topics:
			      Rocket thrust
			      high.frontier
		 Re: Infra-red emmision from circumstella
			  Finding smuggled nukes
			       Stellar info
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 14 Jun 84 13:37:41-EDT
From: JHEIMANN@BBNA.ARPA
Subject: Rocket thrust
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: jheimann@BBNA.ARPA

	The easiest way to think about rocket thrust is not in terms of 
pressure against the exhaust cavity, but rather in terms of conservation 
of momentum in the system consisting of rocket and expelled propellant.  
One can always find a reference frame in which the center of mass of a 
system of moving objects is stationary.  So suppose we have a rocket 
floating in front of us somewhere out in space, its engine dormant.  The 
momentum of the system, with respect to our frame of reference, is zero.
If the engine is ignited, propellent is ejected rearward at high velocity, 
carrying with it some of the mass of the original system.  For momentum to 
be conserved, the remaining mass of system - namely the rocket and unexpelled 
propellant - must move in the opposite direction with a velocity such that 
the magnitude of the momentum of the remaining mass equals that of the 
ejected propellant.   The thrust produced by an engine thus depends on the 
amount of momentum per second it can transfer to the exhaust gasses (recall 
the equation for force: F=dp/dt), and hence on both the amount of mass per
second that is ejected in the exhaust gas and the velocity of that gas.  
So if the velocity of exhaust gasses is slowed by air friction, then 
the amount of momentum transfered to this gas is reduced, and thrust is 
decreased.

						John

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 84 3:28:55-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.piner @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: high.frontier

Well, time to enter the debate. First let me summarize the debate.
It seems to go back and forth something like this;

Pro: "Look at this neat defense system. Let's build it."
Con: "It won't work. Forget it."
Pro: "Well, it will be expensive, and it has some bugs.
      But we can make it work."
Con: "Well, you're right, it can be made to work in theory.
      But there are too many counter measures".
Pro: "Ok, so it isn't perfect, but isn't it better to take out
      some of the warheads than to let them all land."
Con: "It is an escalation of the arms race. It will cost a lot
      of money and will just make things worse."
Pro: "But I would rather have a defensive arms race than an
      offensive arms race."
Con: "It's worse"
Pro: "Better!"
Con: "WORSE!"

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 84 20:44:42-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!cca!ima!haddock!stevel @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Infra-red emmision from circumstella

Does anybody have a figure on how much matter, number of eath equivlants
seems to be the measurment, is circling our sun?

Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ihnp4!cbosgd}!ima!stevel

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 84 21:20:12-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!cca!ima!ism780!chris @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Finding smuggled nukes

< here they come, over the pole! Launch ALL our stuff >

I have seen two references in this news group that have puzzled me.
They both claimed that finding nuclear weapons was child's play
once the city they were in was located. Assuming we don't have
Doc Smith spy rays, how is this done? I can think of two or
three ways, but none of them work from space, as one mention suggested.

The methods are:

	(1) "Sniffer" equipment picks up the organic molecules
	    exuded by the conventional explosives. Since the charges
	    used to compress/accelerate the critical mass are nitrated
	    compounds (dynamite or nitro starch) they will have lots
	    volatiles floating around.

	    This is how terrorist stuff is often found. However this is
	    very short range, and will find every cache of explosives in
	    the city. They would need lots of devices to cover a big
	    area like LA or NY in anything under weeks.

	(2) Radiation detectors.

	    These would pick up the characteristic emissions of
	    fissionable materials. This would drop the number of
	    false alarms (can you imagine searching every smoke detector
	    and hospital cobalt source?) but would again be short range.

	(3) Top Psychics?

	    The Irrational Inquirer uses these all the time to predict
	    future events.  I can just see Karnac (Johnny Carson) putting
	    the envelope to his head and saying something like:
	    "Grand central station, locker 314159, friday noon", and the
	    question is, "Where is the device, and when will it go off?".

Levity aside, can someone drop me a hint as to how this is actually done?
I'd like to build one for myself :-)

			chris
			decvax!vortex!ism780!chris
			decvax!cca!ima!ism780!chris

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 84 13:55:39-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ucbcad!tektronix!orca!iddic!rickc @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Stellar info

Netters:

A recent request for an equation for the spiral galaxy renewed my
interest in stars.  Does anyone know of databases (position, name, etc.)
available of stars?  Obviously, I mean in machine readable form, hopefully
in net available form.


						Thanks,

						Rick Coates
						tektronix!iddic!rickc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Jun-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #223    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 223

Today's Topics:
			 thrust in the atmosphere
			    Larouche and Space
			      Rocket thrust
			    Re: Rocket thrust
			     Re: stellar info
			       New Address
			    Re: Rocket thrust
			      SHUTTLE VIDEO
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 84 10:28:03 EDT
From: Louis Steinberg <STEINBERG@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: thrust in the atmosphere
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

From: JHEIMANN@BBNA.ARPA

	So if the velocity of exhaust gasses is slowed by air friction, then
	the amount of momentum transfered to this gas is reduced, and thrust
	is decreased.

But if you are considering the momentum transfered to the air by the exhaust
gasses (presumably after they leave the nozzle), then you must include
the momentum of the air in your conservation-of-momentum calculations.

I think the simplest way to think about it is to consider the momentum
of the exhaust gas as it leaves the nozzle.  This depends on the velocity
and mass of the gas, as was explained.  Assume in both cases that the
same amount of fuel is pumped into the reaction chamber and that essentially
all the fuel reacts.  Then you have the same mass of exhaust gass to get
rid of through the nozzle in either case.

So, what about the velocity?  As the original question points out, the pressure
in the reaction chamber will be higher in the atmosphere.  Thus the exhaust
gas will be more dense.  (I assume density in the nozzle depends at least
partly on density at either end of the nozzle.)  Since we are dumping the
same amount of mass out the nozzle per unit time, and the mass is more dense,
it doesn't have to move as fast.  (Imagine you want 5 cars per minute to go
past some point on the highway.  If the cars are closer together (more dense)
they have to be going slower to achieve this rate.)

Thus, mass is constant and velocity is lower so momentum is lower.

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 14 Jun 84 21:51 MST
From:  Kevin Kenny <Kenny@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  Larouche and Space
To:  Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840615045142.051752@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>

I have some LaRouche campaign literature that states that the entire
High Frontier proposal stems directly from the ``psychosexual impotance
(sic) of General Danny Graham''.  Not only are the Commies behind it,
the perverts ar for it too!

There was a half-hour Larouche political announcement on the tube a
couple of nights ago here in Phoenix.  Many of the statements he made
had milder languale dubbed over... totally out of sync.  The program
ended with a full minute and a half of dead air after the credits; there
wasn't enough tape for the full half-hour shot.  The video quality was
about that of a mediocre home recorder.

Well, it's a free country; anyone can announce candidacy, even if he is
totally bonkers.  I don't know anyone who's for him, and very few who
even take him seriously.  Which is a problem... we've voted kooks into
office before.

(the opinions voiced in this message are not necessarily those of
anyone, including its author.)

        /k**2 (Kenny%PCO @ CISL)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1984 12:29-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Rocket thrust
To: space@mc
Cc: JHEIMANN@BBNA.ARPA
Message-Id: <456164969/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

	The easiest way to think about rocket thrust is not in terms of 
	pressure against the exhaust cavity, but rather in terms of
	conservation of momentum in the system consisting of rocket and
	expelled propellant.  

It may be easier to think about it that way, but I still would like to
know the flaw in my reasoning.  But OK, let's look at it in terms of
conservation of momentum.  In the atmosphere, the reaction mass is not
just the products of combustion, but also the air entrained by the
exhaust plume.  The backpressure seen by the engine is due to the
exhaust pushing on the air and accelerating it backwards.  So the
decreased exhaust velocity should be compensated by increased reaction
mass.  In the rifle analogy, the reaction mass comprises not just
the combustion products, but also the rifle and the person holding the rifle.

There is a limit to the rate of expansion of combustion products, even
if uncontained in space.  A rifle ensures that most of that rate gets
transferred to the bullet.  A rocket lets most of it get away, since
the exhaust is only confined by its own inertia.  A rocket in the
atmosphere gets a little bit of assistance in confining the exhaust.

				David Smith

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 84 15:08:42 EDT
From: John Heimann <jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Rocket thrust
To: David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
Cc: space@mit-mc.arpa, jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA

	The bullet/rocket analogy is specious because in fact the bullet is
part of the material which is being ejected from the rifle; i.e. is analoous 
to the exhaust gasses, not the rocket. It is the rifle that is analogous
to the rocket.  If one were to have a rocket engine with a combustion chamber 
that was open at the front, analogous to an open breech rifle, then we would
expect the rocket engine to have far less thrust (if any at all) than a closed 
chamber engine.  Alternatively, as we would expect a bullet fired from a gun
in space to have a higher velocity than one fired in the atmosphere since there 
would be no viscous drag on the bullet, and hence to impart a greater impulse to 
the rifle, so we would expect a rocket in space to eject its exhaust gasses at
a higher rate than in the atmosphere and hence have greater thrust.
	Another way to look at it:  the exhaust gasses  escape rearward at a 
rate which is dependant on the difference in pressure between the engine 
throat and the end of the exhaust nozzle.  The atmospheric "backpressure" that 
you refer to is just atmospheric pressure on the rear of the rocket, which 
is cancelled out by atmospheric pressure on the front of the rocket.  At every
moment I experience something like 5000 pounds of force on my back due to 
atmospheric pressure, yet I don't accelerate forward since there also happens 
to be the same force on my chest.

				John

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 15 Jun 84 14:15:49 CDT
From: Mike Caplinger <mike@rice.ARPA>
Subject:  Re: stellar info
To: space@mit-mc.ARPA
Message-Id:  <mike.618@Dione.rice>

When I asked this question a while back I got two pieces of info;

SKYMAP 4.0 from

       Wayne H. Warren Jr.
       Code 601             < this code is very important or they will lose
                              your letter>
       Goddard Space Flight Center
       Greenbelt, Maryland
       20771
       (301) 344-6695

and

"I believe one can get a copy of the SAO (a revised version at that) on a
9-track tape from: Dr. Wayne Warren, Astronomical Data Center,
National Space Science Data Center, Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 601, Greenbelt, MD 20771, 301-344-8310."

Don't know whether either or both phone numbers are right.  SKYMAP is
newer and larger, I think.

		- Mike

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1984 16:40:01-EDT (Friday)
From: R. Bhaskar <BHASKAR.YKTVMX%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: New Address
CC: bhaskar.yktvmx%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

I have a new address, herewith:
BHASKAR.YKTVMX@IBM
 
My old address was:
 
BHASKAR@CMU_CS_A
 
Thank you for changing it on your books.
 
R. Bhaskar
 

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1984 16:05-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Re: Rocket thrust
To: John Heimann <jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA>
Cc: Space@mc
Message-Id: <456177948/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

	The bullet/rocket analogy is specious because in fact the bullet is
	part of the material which is being ejected from the rifle; i.e. is
	analogous to the exhaust gasses, not the rocket. It is the rifle
	that is analogous to the rocket.

I am not yet convinced that the analogy is specious.  The gases
push laterally on the sides of the barrel, as on the sides of the
rocket.  To a first approximation, it doesn't matter whether the barrel
is fixed to the breech or travels with the bullet (or it wouldn't if
the barrel had zero weight but retained it strength).  The gases push
equally on both bullet and breech, and it doesn't matter which one you
consider to be engine and which exhaust.

But suppose we go ahead and consider the rifle to correspond to the engine.
Which way will you get a bigger kick in the shoulder?
    1. Fire the charge without a bullet, producing maximal exhaust velocity.
    2. Obstruct exit of the exhaust by forcing it to drive a bullet out.


	Alternatively, as we would expect a bullet fired from a gun
	in space to have a higher velocity than one fired in the
	atmosphere since there would be no viscous drag on the bullet,
	and hence to impart a greater impulse to the rifle, ...

To the extent that the air being accelerated ahead of the bullet drags
on the barrel, OK.  But besides that (and it's not applicable to the
rocket anyway), I'll still argue that it does not impart greater impulse
in space, even though the bullet velocity is higher.

	At every moment I experience something like 5000 pounds of
	force on my back due to atmospheric pressure, yet I don't
	accelerate forward since there also happens to be the same
	force on my chest.

You would if you applied pressure to the air on one side which was not
matched on the other.  The rocket exhaust does this.

				David Smith

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 84 20:50 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: SHUTTLE VIDEO
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA, XeroxSpace^.PA@XEROX.ARPA
cc: Anderson.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Reply-To: Anderson.ES@XEROX.ARPA

I have some further information for anyone who is interested in
receiving the Space Shuttle video.  You should also pass this
information on to your local cable company if you would like them to
rebroadcast the video to their customers.  I think many cable operators
would be interested if they knew there was an interest and if they knew
how to do it.  Many of the cable company lab engineers are surely space
enthusiasts - it goes with the territory.  So please send them letters
or phone them.  I know of at least 5 cable companies accross the U.S.
that are now planning to rebroadcast the next shuttle video to their
customers.  Mission 41-D liftoff is currently scheduled for June 25,
1984 at 0843 EDT.

To receive the shuttle video, take a regular or portable SVR (Sattelite
Video Receiver) and point it at SATCOM1R.  Monitor Transponder #13 and
tune to the upper half of the bandpass for the video (the lower half of
the bandpass is data).  That's all there is to it.

I've been told you can also call the Kennedy Space Center for
information, as they may change the sattelite frequency.

Still waiting for SBN (Space Broadcasting Network).

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Jun-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #224    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 224

Today's Topics:
	  Can I buy a space suit (not necessarily pressurized)?
		     Re: l-5 a communist front?!?!?!
			       Re: LaDouche
			      Rocket thrust
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 84 23:01:08-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Can I buy a space suit (not necessarily pressurized)?

About 10 years ago, I read an article in Popular Science about some "long
underwear" (both vest and pants) with tubing woven into the fabric.  In
cold climates, one pumps hot water through the tubing;  in hot climates,
you keep ice in the reservoir, letting it melt to provide chilled water
to pump through the tubing.  A small battery operated pump does the pumping.
It was claimed that this was an offshoot of space-suit technology.

Also in the dim recesses of my memory is seeing an Omni cover that mentioned
"environmental clothing" that would, among other things, help to regulate
one's temperature.

As I suffer quite a lot in the current Toronto heat and humidity, I'm
interested in commercially available clothing of this short.  I wouldn't
even mind carrying around a reservoir of ice that much!  So, if you know
of such clothing, please let me know.  I'll summarize if there are any
responses.

Thanks in advance,
peter rowley,  University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4
UUCP  {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr
CSNet peterr@toronto

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 84 11:27:04-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: l-5 a communist front?!?!?!

Anyone who attended the recent L5 conference in San Francisco knows
that L5 is virulently anti-communist and has a strong dislike for Russia,
in spite of Russia's impressive space achievements.  I'm no fan of the
Russian government myself but I found the anti-Soviet malarky excessive.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 84 15:10:47-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!myers @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: LaDouche

>If anybody got the latest Larouche show on tape, quite a number of us in L5
>would be interested in getting copies of it. I mean what better publicity
>can you get than to be panned by LaDouchebag? To be classed right up there
>with Henry Kissenger?
>
>The sad part is, this must mean we're establishment now!
>
>				Dale Amon
>				Pres Pgh L5 &
>				Spacepac Chapters Coordinator

The sad part is that LaRouche is a very contradictory phenomenon.  Many of
his facts are right, but he draws the wrong conclusions (problems with the
international banking system); much of what he attacks deserves attack
(Kissenger (sic) and L5), but he employs the Big Lie to achieve his own ends.
Much of what he supports is certain suicide for the world (massive arms
build-up and Beam-the-Bomb proposals), yet many of his stated goals are
noble and accurate (his contention that the world has the potential to
eliminate hunger).

Since this is net.space, and Dale Amon is an L5 type, let me get to the point.
Dale (the pot (only a metaphor, no implications about body shape or drug
consumption intended)) is calling LaDouche (an excellent name! (the kettle))
black, when they both support escalating an arms race in space.

As Freeman Dyson has pointed out, a space-based defense system is not
a priori a bad thing -- only in certain historical circumstances.  He
correctly argues that offensive weapons must be controlled first, followed
by building a defensive system (if it's determined to be worth the investment
of scarce natural and human resources).  Going ahead full-steam with the
development of Beam-the-Bomb schemes now will only fuel both an offensive
and defensive arms race -- but it *will* keep gadgety scientists searching
for a form of immortality happy.

-- 
Jeff Myers
ARPA: myers@wisc-rsch.arpa
uucp: ..{seismo, ihnp4}!wisc-rsch!myers

P.S. For those of you interested in Freeman Dyson's argument, consult his
four-part article which appeared in *The New Yorker* earlier this year.  JDM

------------------------------

Date: 16 June 1984 17:50-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Rocket thrust
To: JHEIMANN @ BBNA
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Your argument has a serious flaw. If exhaust gas is slowed by frictin
with air, it's transferring momentum to the air it slides against,
thus total momentum isn't decreased by this friction. In fact if the
chemical reaction in the engine resists this backpressure by pushing
harder on the exhaust gas to try to foce them to keep their original
velocity, the total momentum of the exhaust&FrictionnedAir will be greater.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jun-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #225    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 225

Today's Topics:
			      Nuke detectors
		      machine readable star catalogs
			    Re: Rocket thrust
			 You gotta be kidding...
			Countdown Test Successful
		       Re: SPACE Digest V4 #224    
			Can you trust L5 members?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 1984 01:43:40-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Nuke detectors

I'm not sure of the exact answer, but I would refer people to an article in
Science some months back disussing the release of radioactive pellets in a
Mexican junk yard. It was clearly stated stated that the US had offered
Mexico (and been refused) the service of finding the remaining pellets, and
I believe they stated that it could be done from the air. If they can do
this for the tiny (albiet VERY hot) pellets, I'm quite sure they can do it
for the case of several kilo's of fissionables in a bomb.

ASATS REVISITED:

I am not necessarily advocating 'space marines': I'm simply pointing out
that the concept of an ASAT treaty is utterly worthless when we have some
odd thousands of people living in space.  Satellites have had a temporary
respite, but space is now becoming a part of the human sphere. Satellites in
10 or 20 years will have no more security than a spy plane/ship or ground
installation. Believing otherwise is dangerously fanciful.

One must learn to differentiate between what one wishes to be true, and what
is true; any other path is folly.

I might add that the Soviets tried to claim that the shuttle was a weapon
because it had the potential to interfere with their satellites.

Sure we can ban the cute little air launched ASAT. But it DOESN'T DO A DAMN
BIT OF GOOD. The electronics and computer revolutions, not to mention the
inevitable inhabitation of space will make an ASAT trivial, just as the
newly tested anti-missile worked flawlessly on its first test. It all gets
easier and easier, and does so at an ACCELERATING pace.

My hope is for our grandchildren, that in exploring the solar system, they
will come to find the dangers of our era difficult to comprehend.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 84 16:16:57 EDT
From: Dick Koolish <koolish@bbn-vax>
Subject: machine readable star catalogs
To: space@mit-mc

Machine readable star catalogs can be gotten from the Naval Observatory
in Washington.  You can write to them and ask for a circular that
describes all of the available catalogs.

Dick Koolish@bbn

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 1984 12:13-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Re: Rocket thrust
To: space@mc
Message-Id: <456423190/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

Let's look at the impulse (momentum transfer) derived from burning a small
parcel of fuel/oxidizer.  The parcel has mass m and chemical energy E
(which we assume is used with perfect efficiency).  Equate the chemical
energy to the kinetic energy of the parcel as it exits the engine (in
the frame of the rocket).  This gives us the exhaust velocity,

	v = sqrt( 2E/m ).

The impulse to the engine is the same as the momentum imparted to the
exhaust:

	I = mv = sqrt( 2mE )

>From these equations, it is clear that throwing extra inert mass into
the engine (raising m without raising E) will lower the exhaust
velocity, while increasing impulse (and thrust with it).  This is the
reason that turbofans (and turboprops) are more fuel-efficient than
turbojets, at least up to the speed at which shock waves form on the
blades.  Suppose that m is raised not by dumping mass into the
chamber, but by putting the rocket into the atmosphere and letting
the exhaust entrain the air.  More thrust, no?

Of course, if the vehicle has to carry the extra mass to the point of
use, it would be better to have it in the form of propellant, so that E
is also raised.  Carrying dead mass is pretty expensive.  And in space,
you have to carry your dead mass with you.

				David Smith

P.S.  As I stated in my original message, rockets really do generate
more thrust in space than in the atmosphere.  Nasa has stated this, and
they ought to know, having operated engines in both places.  I am still
hoping that someone  can either show the flaw in my reasoning or tell
what other effects are operating.  Perhaps energy is lost to sideways
turbulence?

				DRS

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 1984 21:06:45-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: You gotta be kidding...

Mr. Myers:

 I found your remarks insulting to both myself and the L5 Society, and
indicative of zero knowledge of the society.

	1) The L5 Society has no stand whatsover on BMD of any kind. It is
	   strictly a one issue organization, and that issue is building a
	   space based civilization. BMD is too divisive an issue for an
	   organization as diverse as L5.
	2) I PERSONALLY support BMD.
	3) I find it highly insulting to be in any way shape or form classed
	   with a neo-nazi like LaRouche. (ie pot calling kettle)
	4) The best description of the 'average' L5 member's political stand
	   is probably anarchy. This comfortably allows people of any
	   persuasion, left, right or none-of-the-above to coexist with the
	   organization. By political party affiliation, I would guess that
	   the percentages of Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians are roughly
	   equal.

I can't possibly imagine how you could class our organization with Larouche.
And by the way, Freeman Dyson has served on our board of directors...

I might also add that John Glenn, Don Fuqua, Newt Gingritch, Barry
Goldwater, and many others of good reputation have associated their name
with us.

We of the L5 have worked our tails off to get the space station, and we have
won, although it is just the first of many battles. Next comes the lunar
mining base. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Myers, what have YOU done?

					Dale M. Amon

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 84 20:13:24-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Countdown Test Successful

The Discovery and her crew today sailed through a mock
countdown today.  The only problem was a minor software
glitch that will have no bearing on the launch.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 84 20:48:11 EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #224    
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

I think the easiest way to understand why a rocket works better in
space is the following simple description of how a rocket works.
Consider a box one cubic inch in size.  It is in a vacuum but contains
air at 100 psi.  Thus there is a force of 100 lbs on the inside of
each face of the box.

		+------------+
		|     ^      |
		|    100#    |
		|<100#  100#>|		(actual size)
		|    100#    |
		|     V      |
		+------------+

Since the forces are equal and opposite, there is no net force on 
the box.  Now remove the bottom of the box.  The upward force on
the top is now unbalanced (as long as you can keep the pressure 
at 100 psi...), and the box experiences a net upward 100 lbs force:

		+------------+
		|     ^      |
		|    100#    |
		|<100#  100#>|		(actual size)
		|     0#     |
		|     V      |

Now assume the box is in an atmosphere of 15 psi.  The internal pressure
is the same but now the unbalanced force on the top is only 85 lbs:

		   15# V
		+------------+
		|     ^      |
	15# >	|    100#    |    < 15#
		|<100#  100#>|		(actual size)
		|     0#     |
		|     V      |

Notice that you can't write 15# up at the bottom *because there is 
no bottom*.  

You can burn more fuel (or whatever) to raise the chamber pressure
to 115 psi, but that's equivalent to the same thing: it's less efficient
in an atmosphere.

--JoSH
-------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 84 14:15:22-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Can you trust L5 members?

In response to Al Globius (also where I work):

Ah, yes, but Al:

	Just think a second, suppose you were a Rooskie spy, how vould
you inflitrate the USA?  As a loyal Cummunist?  NO! Pose as von of them!
Take the position they least expect!  Perhaps we of the USGovt. should
refrain from writing on this net.  Who knows who reads this?  We have
to be careful (Preserve that bodily essence)......

Think about it.......

--eugene miya
  retneC hcraeseR semA ASAN

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Jun-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #226    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 226

Today's Topics:
			     L-5 orientation
			    Re: ASAT treaties
			Poynting Robertson Effect
			      Rocket engines
		  Scientists for a Manned Space Station
			     thanks for help
			   LaRouche is bad news
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 1984 08:55:33-EDT
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
To: Dale.Amon@cmu-ri-fas
Subject: L-5 orientation
Cc: space@mit-mc

Kudos to u for ur response to Jeff Myers' remarks.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 1984 1115-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space-enthusiasts at MC
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: Re: ASAT treaties
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 12024711861.15.583.7659 at DEC-MARLBORO>

As Dale.Amon points out, ASAT weapons are becoming easier and easier to
build.  As guidance technology improves it will take a very small and cheap
missile to take out a satellite.  Ultimately all you will need is a rock
with a chip and a thruster on it.  However, I can't agree with his conclusion
that ASAT treaties are therefore pointless.  

Whatever one can imagine for future ASAT technology, the fact is that present
American ASATs are unreliable because they are untested, and present Russian
ASATs are unreliable and inadequate.  Even if this situation is completely
different twenty years from now, we can still give ourselves twenty years of
respite by negotiating treaties now.  The treaties may fail in the long run,
but the long run is unpredictable anyhow.  And, as Keynes said, "In the long
run, gentlemen, we are all dead." 

Nor is it inevitable that ASAT weapons will be built.  In the course of the
nuclear arms race we have already seen systems that could have been built
but weren't.  Does anyone out there remember FOBS, the Fractional Orbital
Bombardment System?  This was a project in the sixties to lob bombs over the
South Pole instead of the North.  That way the Russians would have to aim
their early warning systems at every point of the compass.  It would not have
been all that hard to do, and it would have caused them substantial expense
and confusion, but it was ultimately decided that it did not really affect
the balance of terror.  Or how about the silo on the sea floor idea?  The
bottom of the ocean is a great place to put missile silos since they have 
a couple of miles of water shielding them from nuclear attack.  However
it was forbidden by the 1963 Test Ban Treaty and no one has thought it worth
while to pursue since.

Well,  ASATs would cause expense and confusion but like FOBS they would not
give a decisive advantage.  The bottom line is 

WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT, SO LET'S NOT.  

At worst we can keep our satellites safe for another decade or two.  At
best we can keep space an arena of peaceful competition like Antarctica. 

John Redford
DEC-Hudson
   --------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 1984 14:33-EDT
From: cu-arpa.dietz@Cornell.ARPA
Subject: Poynting Robertson Effect
To: space@mit-mc
Reply-To: dietz@usc-ecla
Message-Id: <84/06/17 1433.420@Cornell>

My explanation of the Poynting-Robertson effect was slightly wrong.
The emission of radiation from the particle does not change its
momentum; rather, more starlight hits the front of the particle than
the back due to abberation.

A similar phenomenom limits the maximum energy cosmic ray particles can
have.  If they travel too fast they lose energy by scattering off
3 K background photons (blue shifted to gamma rays).

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 1984 12:16-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Rocket engines
To: JoSH@rutgers
Cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Message-Id: <456509763/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

I think there is a flaw in that argument based on the rocket engine box
diagrams.  I agree that with the box bottom closed, there is no net
thrust.  There is also no flow of propellant into the box, if the
pressure is to remain the same.  The second box, with the bottom
removed, requires a certain propellant flow into the chamber in order
to keep the pressure at 100 psi.  Fine.  Now the third box is in the
15 psi atmosphere, so that the pressure differential is 85 psi.  The
thrust is now 85 pounds instead of 100.  OK, I'll buy that.

		------ BUT ------

The 85 psi pressure differential causes less loss of combustion
products out the bottom.  Therefore, maintenance of the 100 psi chamber
pressure requires less propellant input to the engine.  So all we have
proven is that burning less fuel in the atmosphere produces less thrust
than burning more fuel in space.  Alternatively, if the mass flow is
the same, the chamber pressure will rise above 100 psi.

					David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 1984 15:43:08-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Scientists for a Manned Space Station

		SCIENTISTS FOR A MANNED SPACE STATION

News Release 1:00PM, Monday May 14,1984
						Contact: Robert Jastrow
							 603-646-3361 or
							 603-646-2373

Eight prominent university scientists have come out in strong support of
NASA's manned Space Station. The scientific value of the manned Space
Station has been challenged by physicist James Van Allen of the University
of Iowa, who says it is "inefficient." In anticipation of a House
Appropriation Committee meeting this week, the eight scientists have written
to Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-CA), member of the Appropriations Committee.
The scientists write, "It is our judgement that NASA's manned Space Station
will be of great scientific value in astronomy and lunar and planetary
science." The scientists' statement concludes, "The Space Station's
combination of scientific uses and commercial applications makes it a highly
cost-effective facility with major benefits to the US economy as well as to
basic scientific knowledge."

The full statement follows:

As scientists who have been working in the field of space science for many
years, we have concluded that NASA's manned Space Station will be of great
scientific value in astronomy and lunar and planetary science and in the
scientific observation of the near-earth environment. We want to indicate
our strong support for this project on it's scientific merits.

In astronomy, we are impressed by the capabilities of the Space Station for
orbital repair, refurbishing, and resupply of fuel and cryogenics to costly
research facilities including the Space Telescope, the Gamma Ray Observatory
and the proposed Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility and Space Infrared
Telescope Facility.

The orbiting observatories are among the most important scientific projects
of our time because they may provide answers to some of the greatest cosmic
mysteries. Yet they are extremely expensive; the Space Telescope alone cost
more than one billion dollars. If they stop working, they will not be
replaced in our lifetime. The manned Space Station can make an invaluable
contribution to scientific progress by keeping these great observatories in
continuous service.

The Shuttle also is useful in this connection, as demonstrated by the repair
of Solar Max, but the Space Station will be more cost effective for that
purpose because spare parts for operating satellites will be warehoused in
the Space Station and available for prompt repairs at essentially zero
incremental cost. This is in contrast to special Shuttle launches dedicated
wholly or partly to repairs, which cost 70 to 80 million dollars each. In
addition, prompt satellite repairs from the SHuttle could require scrubbing
of planned missions with disruptive impact on scientific and commercial
launch schedules. (The repair of Solar Max was planned years before the
mission was undertaken.) Finally, major satellite repairs, requiring
extended operations in orbit, are feasible from the Space Station but not
from the Shuttle.

In lunar and planetary science, the manned Space Station can function as a
way station en route to the moon and the planets. It can also function as a
lab for preliminary processing of samples returned from planets, comets and
earth-approaching asteroids.

One of the mmost exciting near-term projhects in planetary exploration is
the return of a sample of Martian soil to the earth for geological and
biological study. If attempted by direct ascent from the earth's surface,
this project would require a Saturn-5-class booster, which is not available
and not in NASA's planning. If the elements of the mission are carried into
orbit in the Shuttle and assembled at the Space Station, the Mars sample
return becomes possible.

In the longer term, the return to the moon and the establishment of a lunar
base for scientific observations holds great promise as a source of major
scientific discoveries. In addition, the lunar base itself, once
extablished, greatly increases our capability for exploration of the solar
system. Again, the lunar base, if attempted by direct ascent from the earth,
is not feasible without a Saturn-class booseter, but becomes a feasible goal
if the Space Station if available as a staging area for orbital assembly of
supplies and equipment.

These scientific uses of the Space Station are in addition to its
bread-and-butter activities as a repair shop for commercial satellites, a
warehouse for stockpiling spare satellites, and a pilot plant and industrial
laboratory for orbital processing of materials. Repairs to satellites in the
Space Station can save the taxpayer and the private sector a staggering
amount of money over the course of a decade, since large satellites cost
about 100 million dollars each and hundreds are planned for launch in the
next decade. A large fraction of the cost of the Space Station can be
written off in savings from satellite repairs alone. This combination of
scientific uses and commercial applications makes the manned Space Station a
highly cost-effective facility with major benefits to the US economy as well
as to basci scientific knowledge.

Signed by:
James R. Arnold
Director, California Space Institute and Harold C. URey Professor of
Chemistry,
University of California an La Jolla

Charles A. Barth
Director, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, Professor
Astrophysics and Professor Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Colorado

Paul Coleman
President, Universities Space Research Association, Professor of Geophysics
and Space Physics, University of California at Los Angeles, and Assistant
Director, Los Alamos National Labortory

Robert Jastrow
Founder and Director (retired), Goddard Institute for Space Studies and
Professor of Earth Sciencese, Dartmouth College

Eugene Shoemaker
Porfessor of Geology and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of
Technolgy, and Research Geologist, US Geological Survey.

Bradford A. Smith
Professor of Astronomy and Professor of Planetary Sciences, University of
Arizona

Harlan Smith
Director of McDonald Observatory, Professor of Astronomy, University of Texas, and former Chairman of the Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics of the Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences.

Laura Wilkening
Vice Provost and professor of Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona

END
=======================================================================

Once again

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 1984 15:45:43-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: thanks for help

Once again, I'd let to extend thanks to all of those who lent their names to
our SUCCESSFUL efforts to give this country a space station.

					Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 1984 19:04:19-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: LaRouche is bad news

I have just done a bit of research on LaRouche, and discovered that he is
much more than a nut.

He has had at least 500 of his followers trained in small arms, garrot and
other guerrilla warfare techiques.

He has been involved with Communist organizations going back to WWII, and is
at this time building a strangely intertwined network of far left and far
right hate groups, including everything KKK, anti semitic organizations and
one of his own main fronts, the USLP (US labor Party).

In the early 70's, after splintering from the SDS, he attempted to force the
CPSA into a merger under his control, and used violent harassment of CPSA
members to attempt beating the organization (literrally) into submission. He
failed in this attempt.

His inner cadre has gone through years of 'self-criticism' and total 'party'
control of their lives. They give blind obedience, and as stated before,
many have received topflight training from mercenaries and Viet-nam vets in
training camps in Georgia and in Pennsylvania.

This is no simple nut. This is a very dangerous maniac with a private army.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jun-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #227    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
				 LaRouche
			more thrust in atmosphere
			 Re: Spectator needs help
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 1984 08:18:11-EDT
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: LaRouche
Cc: sde@Mitre-Bedford

There is even more. His group(s) publish(ed) at least two magazines, "Fusion"
and another whose name I don't recall. Most of you have probably seen "Fusion"
at some time; the other is wilder and wierder. According to the latter, all
the trouubles of the world are due to a conspiracy dating back to classical
Greece & Babylonia, by way of the Jews (of course) and the British Secret
Service. I kid you not. There is much more, but by now everyone on the net
can fill in the gaps pretty easily. As a psych note, if I recall correctly,
several years ago LaRouche et alii tried to hook into L-5 etc. and were
rebuffed. Hell hath no fury like a messiah-type scorned.
   Ad Astra,
   sde@mitre-bedford

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 84 16:11:27 EDT
From: Louis Steinberg <STEINBERG@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: more thrust in atmosphere
To: davis.smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

My previous message on why rockets give less thrust in the atmosphere
neglected two factors.  I argued that atmospheric pressure leads to
higher exhaust gas pressure, and thus to higher density, lower velocity,
and less momentum.  One bug is that you could get the higher pressure
simply by increasing the temperature of the gas, without increasing
density at all.  Furthermore, since the exhaust gas and rocket both have
lower velocity in the air, and hence lower kinetic energy, the extra
energy must be going somewhere and might well be going into hotter gas.

However, while conservation of energy shows the gas will be hotter, it also
shows it will not be hot enough to make up for the full pressure difference.
Assume, to the contrary, that the gas is indeed hot enough so that it
has the same density as it had in space, and thus the same momentum.  Then
the gas has the same kinetic energy as it did in space, and so does the
rocket.  But the gas is hotter, so the total energy of the system is greater.
But we're burning fuel at the same rate, so there is nowhere for that extra
enegy to come from.

The other bug is that we've all been working in the rocket's frame of
reference, but the rocket is accelerating.  Newtonian mechanics does
not apply to an accelerating frame of reference without corrections for
various "pseudo-forces".  In this case, the front of the reaction chamber
is accelerating away from the burning fuel.  The exhaust has to expand
just to keep up with the front wall, so temperature and pressure are lower.
If the rocket is in the air and has to fight friction, the same thrust will
accelerate it less, so the exhaust gas pressure will be higher.  A similar
thing would happen if the rocket were clamped to a large mass (like the Earth).

(Are people out there getting tired of this discussion?)

		Louis Steinberg
-------

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 84 14:08:41-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxd!arlan @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Spectator needs help

I will be down there, near the Cape also, and need similar information
for viewing the launch on the 25th
--arlan (317-845-6197; CORnet 8-338-6197)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jun-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #228    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 228

Today's Topics:
			    Re: more on thrust
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #227
			      Thrust flames
			   Rocket Thrust Thermo
			    Re: Thrust flames
				 LaRouche
			  Re: Re: Thrust flames
		    Re: Land-based vs. Sea-based ICBMs
		  Another machine readable star catalog
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 1984 12:56-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Re: more on thrust
To: space@mc
Message-Id: <456684997/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

[Note: I am remailing this to the net because it transpires that Louis
did post his message after all.]

Your message header does not indicate you sent it to Space-Enthusiasts,
so I am replying privately.  I am not sure whether you are taking a
position, clarifying the issues, or looking for clarification.  But I
will comment on what you said.

	One bug is that you could get the higher pressure simply by
	increasing the temperature of the gas, without increasing
	density at all.
This is true, but I'm not sure what to make of it.  Is there a
mechanism for causing the temperature to rise?

	Furthermore, since the exhaust gas and rocket both have
	lower velocity in the air, and hence lower kinetic energy,
	the extra energy must be going somewhere and might well
	be going into hotter gas.
I disagree with the premise and the reasoning.  One rocket could be
tied to a stand on the Earth, while the other could be tied down on the
Moon.  For understanding the engine operation in space, it doesn't
matter which intertial frame you choose, although the kinetic energy
certainly depends on the velocity relative to the frame.  As far as
k.e. is concerned, the proper frame is traveling with the rocket at the
beginning of the time infinitesimal.  The rocket won't see a higher
chamber temperature just because I observe it from a comet.

	The other bug is that we've all been working in the rocket's
	frame of reference, but the rocket is accelerating.  ...
	The exhaust has to expand just to keep up with the front wall...
True, but I doubt that this is significant.  The IUS stage has an
exhaust velocity of around 5000 fps.  If that velocity is attained over
(guessing) a 5 foot nozzle at constant acceleration, we're looking at
80000 g's.  Against that, the engine's acceleration is zilch.

	(Are people out there getting tired of this discussion?)
Probably some are.  But I find it more stimulating than hearing
which modules have been cannibalized from Challenger today.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 84 13:43:35 EDT (Thursday)
From: Marmion.wbst@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #227
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Marmion.wbst@XEROX.ARPA

Check your Star Mail

Joe

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 84 15:19:49 EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Thrust flames
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA, david.smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA

Ok, I admit to sloppy thinking.  I was assuming "less efficient" = 
"doesn't work as well" = "less thrust" in the case of a rocket.
David's objections turn out to be well founded.  In the simple case
of the rocket-box I described, he points out that the fuel consumption 
will be lower, offsetting the lower thrust.  Of course now you must
do the math to find out which has more effect.  I worked it out two
different ways and it came out exactly equal each time.  

However, that is only true for a rocket that is sitting still.  Forward
motion through the air tends to increase the pressure on the front
(reducing net thrust) and decrease back-pressure on the nozzle (increasing
fuel flow).  You may object that this is nothing but good old drag,
and in some sense you're right.

Another factor to consider is that the efficiency of a rocket in getting
into orbit from the surface depends strongly on the alacrity with which
it does so.  For every second that the rocket dawdles down here in the
one-G field, it accumulates 32 fps of delta-V in the wrong direction
courtesy of Mother Earth.  Since we are agreed that the presence of 
the atmosphere reduces the thrust (and hence the acceleration) of a 
given rocket, this gravity effect reduces the total delta-V available
for a given amount of fuel, near the surface of the earth, when trying
to go upwards, even ignoring atmospheric drag.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: Thu 21 Jun 84 15:57:53-EDT
From: JHEIMANN@BBNA.ARPA
Subject: Rocket Thrust Thermo
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

	David Smith's argument that the air entrained in a rocket's exhaust
adds to the momentum of the exhaust and hence to the impulse of the rocket, if 
momentum is conserved, neglects the fact that the air was not part of the original
system of rocket + fuel, and therefore should be neglected in momentum 
computations.  
	I had to dust off my thermo text to get a good answer on this, but 
I think the real reason that thrust is dependant on outside pressure is
that one must treat rocket exhaust expansion as adiabatic, not isothermal.
This means that the specific heat ratio g=Cp/Cv enters into the formulas.  
For example, in adiabatic expansion P*V is not constant (we wouldn't expect it 
to be if temperature isn't constant); instead the constant is P*V^g. 
In the expression for specific impulse (thrust per unit fuel burned), 
the pressure dependant component is not Pc - Pa, where Pc is combustion 
chamber pressure and Pa is ambient pressure, but rather Pc^k - Pa^k,
where k=(g-1)/g.  Since g>1,  0 < k < 1.  Hence if we add a constant to 
Pc and Pa (increase atmospheric pressure, which increases both ambient and
combustion chamber pressure), Pc^k - Pa^k decreases.
	I'm going to have to double check all this, since my thermo is rusty,
but it seems to agree with a formula I dug up for specific impulse.

							John

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 1984 15:34-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Re: Thrust flames
To: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Cc: Space@mc
Message-Id: <456694481/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

I agree with your message, but I'd like to hear what your two methods
of calculation are.

I am told that an ideal gas behaves as if its molecules never collided.
If that is what happens in the chamber, then the air would be
completely invisible to the exhaust, and in your example the chamber
pressure would be 115 psi:  100 psi from the reaction, and 15 psi from
the air.  But I don't suppose the stuff really is an ideal gas.

Your comment on the efficient use of the rocket (distinguished from its
own efficiency in generating thrust) points to a trade-off that is made
in computing a launch trajectory.  In absence of an atmosphere, it is
best to burn the fuel quickly at high thrust, in a flat trajectory.
This gets the speed up quickly so the earth's gravity mainly curves the
trajectory rather than braking it.  (In circular orbit, it doesn't
brake it at all.) But it also pays to get out of the atmosphere
promptly and at low speed, since drag is proportional to the square of
the velocity.  This argues for a lofted trajectory.  A real trajectory
is a compromise of these factors.

All else being equal, high thrust is also more efficient in plane
changing (keeping the burn near the crossing node) and in escaping from
closed orbit (concentrating it at periapsis).

			David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 1984 19:21:54-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: LaRouche

LaRouche owns the following companies, whose managements are controlled by
LaRouche trusted individuals:

	1) Computron Technologies Inc (Bankrupt 1981)
	2) Computype
	3) Renaissance Printing Co
	4) World Composition Services
	5) PMR Printing Co, Inc
	6) New Benjamin Franklin Publishing Co, Inc
	7) Pepper Fine Arts, Inc

His network of organizations consists of the following:

	1) International Caucus of Labor (ICLC)
	2) National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC)
	3) National Democratic Policy COmmittee (NDPC)
	4) The LaRouche Campaign (TLC)
	5) Club of Life (COL)
	6) Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF)
	7) National Anti-Drug Coalation (NADC)
	8) Lafayette Foundation for the Arts and Sciences (LFAS)
	9) New Solidarity International Press Service (NSIPS)

Among many publications are:

	1) Investigative Leads
	2) Executive Intelligence Review
	3) New Solidarity
	4) Fusion
	5) The International Journal of Fusion Energy
	6) War on Drugs
	7) Campaigner
	8) Young Scientist

The above list(s) are not necessarily complete.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 84 19:30:56 EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Re: Thrust flames
To: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Well, first I tried calculating the velocity of the exhaust based on 
the density of air and the pressure, and using that to estimate rate
of flow (ie in cfm of 100psi air);  I was trying to get a rough estimate
of the relative size of the effects of lessened thrust vs the extra
time.  When they came out equal I looked up the formula for flow through 
a tube:  all else equal, it's proportional to the pressure difference
between the ends.  Thus, same answer.  

If there are any engineers out there on SPACE who would care to give
us formulas more specifically applicable to rockets, or experimental
figures for any actual ones, please do so.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 84 0:43:58-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Land-based vs. Sea-based ICBMs

This may be a dumb question, but what is wrong with going over entirely to
sea-based missile systems?

Before I get a megabyte of mail -- let me explain.

In a war, the prime objective *should* be to prevent the other side from
hurting you anymore.  Therefore, military targets *must* take precedence
over civilian targets during a war.

Now, where are our current *military* targets?  Look at the triad:  ICBM
silos (the mountain states and north prarie), submarines (the open seas and
major seaports), and military airbases (frequently near major cities).

If we switch to sea-based missiles, then there will be no targets in the 
mountains and prarie, and a number of large cities will drop to secondary
target status.  Major seaports will still be primary targets, but it is
far better to lose *only* large coastal cities than large coastal cities
*and* large inland cities *and* large segments of farmland *and* ....

The largest benefit?  It is possible to monitor the position of submarines,
take a guess on their size, etc.  Also, if nuclear weapons are limited to
sea-based launchers only (by treaty ,verified by satellite (Why have those
siloes not been filled with concrete yet, comrade?)) their size will also
diminish.  Not just physical size, but the equivalent tonnage as well.
And that will also be a major benefit as well.  You won't take out the
entire city along with the shipyards.

Granted, there may be a warehouse outside of Moscow filled with 10,000 
nuclear warheads, but *how will they get them to the US or Europe?*

By launcher? --  Too large, satellites would either pick them up directly,
		 sitting around, or their major components.
By cruise missile? -- If a submarine launched c.m., displaces another missile
		 If air-launched, improve air defense system.
By airplane? --  Improve air defense system.
By mail? --	 With our postal service? :-)


Overall, I would rank up a triad/sea-based comparison as shown:

			      triad	    sea-based
			+---------------+---------------+
Warning time		| 10 to 30 min  |    10 min	|
(after launch)		|		|		|
			|		|		|
Number of warheads	|    ~8000	|   1000 (?)	|(50 sub * 20 missiles)
			|		|		|
Ave. Megatonnage	|    5-10 (?)	|     1 (?)	|
			|		|		|
Total Throwweight	|      60 (?)	|     1 (?)	|(NOTE RATIO!!!)
(in bevatonnes)		|		|		|
			|		|		|
Targets 		|   all cities	|    seaports	|
			|   farm belt	|    high seas	|
			|   high seas	|		|
			+---------------+---------------+


So -- Is it insane to switch to submarines *only*?  Yes, they are less
accurate than land-based missiles (using inertial techniques, but now we
have `smart' techniques with radar & optical signal processing nullifying
this point), and there is less warning; but the total throwweight will
drop dramatically, both the number of warheads, and their power will 
decrease, and inland areas will gain a measure of safety.

Finally, this will force a new emphasis on anti-submarine techniques,
but is this any different than (1) the first military use of the airplane,
(2) the first military use of the missile, (3) the first ....


As the wheel turns, at last a chance for it to turn toward safety.
Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 21 Jun 84 23:42 EST
From:     Charles Weems <weems%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject:  Another machine readable star catalog

    I believe that the Space Telescope Institute will also be making their
new catalog available.  This promises to be much more accurate, and to
a much lower magnitude than the Naval Observatory catalog.  Unfortunately,
this also means massive amounts of data -- a large number of 6250 fci Mag
tapes will be required to hold it.  Not exactly the sort of thing you'd
want to keep on 5" floppies.  But for those who'll only settle for the
very best....

chip

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Jun-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #229    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 229

Today's Topics:
			     sea based icbm's
			     sea-based ICBMs
			   Rocket Thrust Thermo
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 84  9:32:31 EDT
From: Dick Koolish <koolish@bbn-vax>
Subject: sea based icbm's
To: space@mit-mc

The primary reason for not relying completely on sea based missiles
is the fear that there will be a breakthrough in submarine detection
that would make that arm of the triad very vunerable.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 84 10:02:04 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8406221702.AA14554@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA, decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles@Berkeley
Subject: sea-based ICBMs

	Three problems with going to a fully sea-based force:

	(1) You lose flexibility.  The Peacekeeper strike force will be able
to hit missile silos in the USSR, and thus is a viable counterforce weapon.
Current sea-based ICBMs are only good for city-busting, and thus are only
useful as a deterrent.  The theory behind Peacekeeper is the following:
if deterrence fails, but the Soviets (a) don't destroy us in a massive first
strike; and (b) still have some strategic offensive capacity left, then
the remaining Peacekeeper force can knock out the remaining Soviet offensive
capability.  This reduces the possibility that an American President will
launch on warning [at least if he believes that the Peacekeeper force can
partially survive a first strike], since America is then strong enough to
survive a strike.  God knows what it does to the Soviet strategic doctrine.
Of course, if you don't believe in counterforce [many people don't] then
this argument fails.

	(2) SLBM's are a lot more vulnerable than we like to believe. New
developments in radar technology permit spy satellites to look beneath the
surface of the ocean.  Of course, this is a good thing, in general, but it
also means that our Trident and Poseidon fleets [as well as the Russian sub
fleet] are vulnerable to attack, possibly before they can launch.

	(3) Exactly how good do you think wartime communications with our
sub fleets would be?

							-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 1984 19:32-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Rocket Thrust Thermo
To: JHEIMANN@BBNA.ARPA
Cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Message-Id: <456795176/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

	David Smith's argument that the air entrained in a rocket's exhaust
	adds to the momentum of the exhaust and hence to the impulse of the
	rocket, if momentum is conserved, neglects the fact that the air
	was not part of the original system of rocket + fuel, and therefore
	should be neglected in momentum computations.
The crux of the argument is whether there is a mechanism for coupling
the atmosphere's effects on the exhaust back to the engine.  If there
is, the air must be taken into the momentum equation;  if not, it need
not be.  I previously presented the arguments I could think of in favor
of coupling, egged on in this by the existence of ejectors for VTOLs.
An ejector has a large number of small exhaust nozzles piped to a
turbine engine.  The exhaust entrains the air which is free to enter
the top of the ejector system, increasing the mass flow.  This is
supposed to increase the lift 40% over Harrier-style thrust vectoring.
More air drag on the jets => more thrust.  The Lockheed XV-4 hovered
with ejectors.  The Rockwell XFV-12 was supposed to, but the thrust
augmentation was below predictions, and it failed.  Currently, General
Dynamics is proposing a VTOL F-16 variant using ejectors, so they must
believe in it.

Well, perhaps an important part of an ejector is vanes to keep the
exhaust/air from wasting its energy in sideways turbulence.  A rocket
would lack them.  (But I don't know that an ejector has them.)

Your thermodynamic explanation is more in the line of what I was
looking for.  But it looks like I will have to learn a fair bit about
thermodynamics to understand it.

			David Smith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Jun-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #230    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 230

Today's Topics:
			     address addition
	       Announcement of Summer Seminars at Stanford
----------------------------------------------------------------------

	id AA01411; Sat, 23 Jun 84 20:45:32 pdt
From: <bang!bblue@Nosc>
	id AA10504; Sat, 23 Jun 84 20:45:27 pdt
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 84 20:45:27 pdt
Message-Id: <8406240345.AA10504@cod.ARPA>
To: space@mc
Subject: address addition

Please add me to your mailing list.  Thanks.

	sdcsvax!bang!bblue@nosc

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 84 16:02:33-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Announcement of Summer Seminars at Stanford

NASA and Stanford University in conjection with the ASEE hold a summer
workshop which among other things has public seminars Thursday evenings
no charge.  The following should be adequate for calendar or .cal files
except they do not explicitly say NASA-ASEE/Stanford nor do they say
the location (except for the header line) on each line:

NASA-ASEE Stanford Seminars
8 PM Skilling Aud., Thursday evenings
6/28 Barton Bernstein THE QUEST FOR THE ARTIFICIAL HEART
7/5 George Spring FROM BAMBOO SHIPS TO GRAPHITE ROCKETS [material science]
7/12 Nicholas Rott ORDERED AND CHAOTIC MOTION (MULTIPLE PENDULUMS)
7/19 C. W. Francies Everitt TESTING EINSTEIN BY ORBITING GYROSCOPES
7/26 Martin Hellman BEYOND WAR: IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPUTER SECURITY AND ENCRYPT.
8/2 Tjeerd van Andel LIFE ON DARK VOLCANOS
8/9 Bill Ballhaus AMES RESEARCH CENTER -- retrospective and prospect

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,hao,research,icase,dual}!ames-lm!statvax!eugene
  p.s. I do not plan to summarize these for the net at this time.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Jun-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #231    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 231

Today's Topics:
			    OMNI ASAT article
			  Re: OMNI ASAT article
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 1984 11:15-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: OMNI ASAT article

The most recent issue of OMNI magazine has an article by Oberg about
a technique the Soviets could use to wipe out all satellites in
geosynchronous orbit.

The idea is to throw small objects into a retrograde GEO orbit.  Direct
launch from the ground would be prohibitively expensive.  Instead, the
russians would use the moon to sling the asat onto a retrograde path,
with a small burn when it achieves geosynchronous altitude to
circularize the orbit.  Upon command, the satellite would expel its
cargo of pebbles/sand grains/etc.  US satellites in geo would encounter
the objects at twice orbital velocity, once every 12 hours.

------------------------------

	id AA09156; Mon, 25 Jun 84 16:03:25 pdt
	id AA18003; Mon, 25 Jun 84 16:05:12 pdt
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 84 16:05:12 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8406252305.AA18003@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: OMNI ASAT article

	Of course, that would get all the Soviet satellites, too.  Don't you
think that killing LEO satellites is more likely?  It's easier to get the
killsat into LEO than GEO, and that's where the more effective spy
satellites are, anyhow.
						-- Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Jun-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #232    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 232

Today's Topics:
		     Shuttle "self-destruct system?"
		   Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"
		  Jessie Moore and the English Language
		       Re: Re: Spectator needs help
		    Re: Land-based vs. Sea-based ICBMs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 84 5:39:49-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihuxi!bruce19 @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"

The Sunday Chicago Tribune (June 25th) carried a short article
about the launch of Discovery.  The article went on to say:

	"One of Discovery's computer memory banks
	was replaced Thursday when it failed a test;
	an explosive cable used by the orbiter's
	self-destruct system also was replaced."

Question - What is the "self-destruct system?"  Is this just
part of the explosive bolt system for shedding the boosters
and tank?  Is it maybe intended to destroy military payloads
if the shuttle is forced to land in unfriendly territory?
Or is the entire shuttle considered "military" and really
designed to blow-up on command?

Reply by mail to nwuxc!bruce or to ihuxi!bruce19.

Bruce Whiteside
AT&T-NS 11NW561240
(312)510-6744

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 84 15:20:26-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"

If someone knows the anwer to this, posting it to the net would be
appropriate. I am certainly curious.

					Jay Mitchell
					ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 26 Jun 84 19:18:32 PDT
From:           Willard Korfhage <korfhage@UCLA-ATS.ARPA>
To:             space@mit-mc
Subject:        Jessie Moore and the English Language

I just saw Jessie Moore (shuttle launch director, I think) being interviewed
on the MacNeil/Lehrer news hour about the Discovery abort.  I cringed the
entire time : such stilted bureaucratic jargon! It doesn't help NASA's image
one bit. Sigh.
					Willard

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 84 21:30:28-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Re: Spectator needs help

Geesh, I don't read news for one week and I was needed...

It's too late for everyone coming to watch 41-D, but for future
information:

(1):  Car Passes:  Per NASA (last time I asked), allow at least
      4 launch notice.  That is, if you want to attend the n-th
      launch on NASA property, request the pass by the n-4 th 
      launch date.

(2):  Good Sites:  Traffic is really starting to thin around here
      as everyone is getting used to the launches.  You can probabily
      get by arriving at *near* the viewing spots only 1-2 hours in
      advance (like me tomorrow!).  On good site is the north NASA
      entrance (the one leading to Playalinda National Seashore).
      Park in a nearby shopping mall, walk 1/4 mile past all the 
      bums sitting in their cars, and camp out near the top of the
      bridge.  You can actually see the launch gantry from the top
      of the bridge!!!!!!!  Of course, it's also nearly due east,
      so looking into the sun can be a problem.

      The south entrance also has devoted followers, contact the 
      Titusville CofC for other sites.

      Personally, I think I may try the north end of the PNS tomorrow.
      If I do go there, I will be on NASA property ~15 miles north of 
      the pad.  BUT, I will be the closest non-NASA person on Merritt
      Island excepting people on the east side of the above beach.
      And I won't have to look into the sun.

(3):  NASA Tours:  They offer them daily, EXCEPT FOR THE DAY OF LAUNCHES.
      Therefore, arrive a few days early (if possible), and you'll get 
      *very* close (or so I hear) to a shuttle on the pad.

      You can also go to PNS.  It seems strange, but I've actually 
      gotten use to seeing a shuttle towering over the beach when I
      go.  (It's not *that* bad, but you do get a pretty good view
      of the launch complexes from the access roads, and NASA has
      become *VERY* liberal with its security perimeter near PNS).

      They also just opened a 5 1/2 story IMAX screen!!!! The ads say
      they are showing an edited version of *Hail Columbia* -- perhaps
      they have included shots from the lastest missions ?!?!?!

      (Review if requested -- I'm going sometime this week).

(4):  Cheap Lodging:  If you want it cheap, DO NOT stay in Orlando
      (for Ricky Rat & fiends) and drive to Titusville for the launch
      date.  Orlando has *lots* of hotel space, but you pay for it
      during tourist season.  Of course, off season (fall, early 
      spring) it may well be cheaper to stay in Orlando, as the
      hotels are trying desperately to increase their occupancy, a
      pressure Titusville hotels do not feel as strongly.

(5):  Weather et al:  Florida + Summer = Rain Rain Rain Rain Rain ....
      Also, Florida + Summer + Snowbirds = Burn Burn Burn Burn Burn ....
      So, if you are out for any length of time, bring along an 
      umbrella (wood handle, not metal!) and sunblock (PF 15 if you 
      are from north of the Mason-Dixon line).

      Seriously -- I used to work at Dismal World (we're all mad at
      Disney "management" right now...) and an unbelievable number of
      people got fried because they forgot that the sun is only a few
      degrees from overhead during the summer.  Remember -- Central
      Florida is at 29.5 degrees north!  After all, I, a native of
      Orlando, generally go to the beach for only 2-3 hours (after
      months of conditioning) and *still* have a minor sunburn
      afterwards.

(6):  Ripley's Section:  Believe it or not, KSC is having problems
      with a PIG POPULATION EXPLOSION!!!.  Less than two weeks ago
      I jogged on a nature trail *directly* across from the landing
      strip (it was visible when they showed the shuttle landing --
      green then road then runway) and encountered a moderate sized
      pig.  After I returned to my car, I met someone else who 
      frequents the trail, and he said they are extremely common.
      I knew NASA estimated they have ~ 1000 pigs on site, and that
      they were/are worried about one darting out in front of a landing
      shuttle, but somehow it didn't seem real until I saw them!

If anyone has specific questions, (I may live to regret this) mail
them to me.  I am pretty sure that we are the closest USENET site
to KSC; I think nothing of a trip to it, it's so close. (Literally,
I go to PNS in part because it's the closest beach by far.  Primarily
because it's NATIVE).


ave discordia				going bump in the night ...
bruce giles

{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles		university of central florida
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay			orlando, florida 32816

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 84 20:17:30-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Land-based vs. Sea-based ICBMs

<I will be posting all subsequent articles to net.politics (yech), 
 perhaps USENET needs a net.arms)

When I posted my previous article, I had not had the opportunity to
research the actual number and strength of the various warheads.  I 
appreciate the mail I received concerning various technical errors, 
and they will affect this proposal in the long run.

However, it appeared several individuals mis-understood what I was
suggesting.  Specifically, I was proposing to ban outright all
land-based missile systems.  If necessary, this ban would be enforced
by a space-based ASAT system.

Submarine based ICBMs would be allowed, but once again, they would
be subject to interception by the ASAT system.

The main deterence force would become submarine-based *cruise* missiles.
While we would be forced to pay a stiff price (very little warning),
we would gain several advantages:  (1) limited number of incoming
missiles, (2) limited warhead capacity, and (3) the avionics would
pinpoint the target, permitting use of smallest yield warheads possible.

These missiles could still be used for retailiation/damage control
(destroy enemy military bases near oceans) but would not be powerful
enought to destroy entire cities.  The fact that the US has more targets
within striking distance of its coasts would be offset by the lack
of numerous winter ports in the USSR.

Overall, the effect would be to move *closer* to a knife edge, but
drastically reduce the distance one would fall if the edge was passed.

Finally, I think that such a treaty could be made workable without 
requiring explicit and complete mutual verification.  As I pointed 
out in the previous article, a warehouse of warheads doesn't do you
a bit of good if you can't transport them to the target.

Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Jun-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #233    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 233

Today's Topics:
		 U.S. Congress vs Shuttle Remote Sensing
			      Failed Launch
		   Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"
       Re: SPACE Digest V4 #232, Shuttle "self-destruct system"    
			 Re: Sea Launched Missles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 84 20:38:25-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!dual!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: U.S. Congress vs Shuttle Remote Sensing

The June 18 Aviation Week has the following on page 16:

	"German efforts to gain commercial advantage from the remote-
sensing capabilities of the U.S. space shuttle - using the German SPAS/
SPARX pallet - were blocked by U.S. legislators after the Germans had been
led to believe they had a firm agreement to allow commercialization....
The SPARX imaging activity planned for the October shuttle flight has
been removed from the payload."

Who are these legislators?  What is their reasoning?  Can we get SPARX
back on the shuttle manifest?  Write your congressmen and ask these
questions.  I can't think of a single good reason to prevent this use
of the shuttle.

Incidentally, the SPAS satellite has a very nice low cost design completely
dependent on the shuttle.  The remote sensing scheme they were coming up
with had lots of nice properties: low cost, return of instruments to
Earth for refurbishment, etc., etc.  Now somebody is pulling the rug
out from under them.

The U.S. bailed out of Solar Polar, shafted Europe on Spacelab use,
pulls this stunt on SPAS, and expects Europe to come up with $2 Billion
for the space station.  If I was Europe, I'd tell us to shove it.  Maybe
we can prevent that fate by presuring Congress to let SPAS/SPARX go
ahead as planned.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 8:33:43-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!emil @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Failed Launch

What an amazing thing to hapen.  NASA must be wondering if they did the
right thing replacing the original #1 engine.  The original #1 engine was
replaced by an engine from Challenger (flown twice before) due to heat
shield delamination.  The shield is .0040-in. thich and had delaminated
.0020-in.  The other two engines were both veterans of space, #2 having
lifted Spacelab 1 on Columbia and #1 on three flights in Challenger.  Still
the engines are are marvel compared to the beasts used on the Saturn 5.

Emil Rainero
emil@Rochester

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 10:26:03-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"

[26 June 1984]

     It is officially called the 'range safety system'.  Following are
quotes from the "Space Shuttle News Reference".  That is what NASA gives
reporters to use in writing feature articles., and the Rockwell International
STS Press Information book, which is much more technical.

     "Each Solid Rocket Booster has a systems tunnel that provides protection
and mechanical support for the cables associated with the electrical and
instrumentation subsystem and the linear-shaped explosive charge of the
range safety system.  The tunnel extends along almost the entire length of
the booster." [page 2-25]

     "RANGE SAFETY SYSTEM

     The Shuttle vehicle has three range safety systems (RSS's).  One is
located in each SRB and one in the external tank.  Any one, or all three
is capable of receiving two command messages (arm and fire) transmitted
from the ground station.  The RSS is used only when the Shuttle vehicle
violates a launch trajectory red line [comment: that means it is heading
for Cocoa Beach or Disney World instead of where it should be going].

     An RSS consists of two antenna couplers, command receivers and command
decoders, a dual distributor, a safe and arm device with two NSI's [NSI=
NASA Standard Initiator=a standard electrically fired pyrotechnic charge
used for all kind of things on the Shuttle, like igniting motors and
cutting restraining bolts], two confined detonator fuse (CDF) manifolds,
and two linear shaped charges(LSC's).

     The antenna couplers provide the proper impedance for radio frequency
(RF) and ground support equipment commands.  The command decoders use a 
coded plug to prevent any RF signal other than the proper RF signal from
getting into the distributors.  The distributors contain the logic to
supply valid destruct commands to the RSS pyrotechnics.

     The NSI's provide the spark to ignite the CDF, which, in turn, ignites
the LSC for Shuttle vehicle destruction.  The safe and arm device provides
mechanical isolation between the NSI's and the CDF before launch and
during SRB separation.

     The first message, arm, allows the onboard logic to enable a destruct
an illuminates a light on the flight deck diplay and control panel
at the Commander and Pilot stations [astronauts proceed to wet pants].
The second message transmitted is the fire command."  [page 78]

Dani Eder /Boeing Aerospace Company /ssc-vax!eder /

------------------------------

From: gd@sri-spam (Greg DesBrisay)
Message-Id: <8406271722.AA14611@sri-spam.ARPA>
Date: 27 Jun 1984 1022-PDT (Wednesday)
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Cc: nwuxc!bruce@sri-spam
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #232, Shuttle "self-destruct system"    

A coworker of mine who worked on some of the Apollo projects says that NASA
typically builds self-destruct mechanisms into all their rockets in case
they veer off course.  If one of the Apollo rockets were to have gone off
course, the astronauts would have ejected, and the range-officer would have
exploded the booster in the hope that any pieces of metal would vaporize
before hitting the ground and injuring somebody.

Of course, that doesn't preclude using the explosives to keep classified
material out of the wrong hands too....


Greg DesBrisay
SRI
gd@sri-spam

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 27 Jun 84 13:53 CST
From:     Nichael Cramer <cramer%ti-csl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       space@mit-mc.arpa
cc:       giles.ucf-cs@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject:  Re: Sea Launched Missles

	There was an article entitled "Delayed Retaliation and
Robotics" by J. Bart Czirr and E. Paul Palmer in the 28OCT83 issue of
Nation Review [yes, yes, I know, but it *is* an interesting article].
	You can look the article up yourself for details, but the
basic idea was that of a submarine-based, sea-launched "doomsday"
machine.  In short, we would have LOTS of small [one or two missile]
automated submarines roaming the oceans seemingly at random.  Every so
often, they come to the surface where they can receive radio messages.
When and where and at what radio frequency are kept secret, initially.
These messages are of three types:
	1] "All is well, resubmerge and continue."
	2] "Prepare to be boarded." [for maintenance, reprogramming, etc.]
	3] "Begin converging on enemy target." or NO MESSAGE
	In the event of receipt of this last message [or of NO MESSAGE],
the microsub begins moving towards the enemy target and once in
position comes to the surface for a short time.  If it receives a
sorry-it-was-all-a-mistake-message, it goes back on its routine patrol.
If it does not receive the message, it resubmerges and wanders about
without leaving striking range.  At some later time and position [possibly
after one or several more safety-check resurfacings] it resurfaces one last
time, checks, and in the absence of contradictory orders, fires.
	Some of the more obvious advantages are:
	1] We could freely publish all the times, locations and messages
for the resurfacings, say, a week at a time.  Anyone, anywhere could send
them.  One could even imagine a scenario where the Enemy chiefs of staff
were made responsible for sending the messages themselves.  The worst that
could possibly happen is that "that week's worth" of subs get wiped out.
This would presumably be a small portion of the total fleet.  Besides, we
would almost surely be aware of it.  So, great, we just stop publishing the
schedule.
	2] LOTS cheaper.
	3] It does have the standard "doomsday" *advantage* [I hope that is
the right word] that keeping us alive and well is suddenly in everybody's
best interest.  i.e., we have to keep supplying the codes.
	4] The system is very diffuse, which has two main advantages.  The
first advantage is tactical, i.e. given how hard it is to find and track
one large submarine, how hard would it be to keep track of lots of little
submarines, each of which could be anywhere in the world.  The second advantage
has to do with safety.  It would take a very complicated string of events to
trigger even a single accidental firing.  We could easily aid in the 
destruction of a rogue submarine, without affecting any of the rest of the 
system.   Still, in worst case, this amount to a single firing from a known
site towards a known target almost surely with a lot of warning.  [This is, of
course, a non-negligible worst case, but several orders of magnitude 
improvement over any presently existing worst case].

						NLC

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jun-84  0407	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #234    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 234

Today's Topics:
		 Re:Land/Sea based ICBMs/Cruise missiles
		      machine readable star catalogs
			 Discovery Launch Delayed
		       cmsg cancel <544@hound.UUCP>
		 Question on delayed launch of Discovery
			 How many SSME's ignited?
		   Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"
			   Post Ignition Abort
	       Re: Question on delayed launch of Discovery
			 Re: Post Ignition Abort
		   Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"
		Re: Shuttle 'self-destruct system?' - (nf)
		   Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"
		      Updated Engine Abort Sequence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 84 08:56:44 EDT
From: MG9G@CMCCTF
To: space%mit-mc@CMU-CS-A
Subject: Re:Land/Sea based ICBMs/Cruise missiles

	Beg to differ.  If ICBMs are replaced by cruise missiles, that
doesn't necessarily rule out nuclear holocaust.  Certainly, at the 
present time cruise missiles carry smaller warheads than ICBMs, but
only because they are designed with a different purpose.  So the ALCM
or the Tomahawk can only carry a 5KT(Not sure if that's true-but it's
good enough for the sake of argument) warhead, while a Minuteman III
carries 3 1.5MT warheads.  Picture, if you will, a cruise missile the
size of an F-14, and tell me that it will have a smaller warhead.

	What so many people seem to ignore or rule out when postulating
plans for various kinds of disarmament is that any time you find a way
to stop a weapon, someone, somewhere, finds a new way to use it.  
If ICBMs become obsolete, cruise missiles will fill the gap.  When
the US, or the USSR, surrounds their coastline with Phalanx CIWS to
shoot down the cruise missiles, sommeone will come up with something
else.  And so it goes...
							Deej
							(mg9g@cmu-cc-tf)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 84 15:36:31 EDT
From: Dick Koolish <koolish@bbn-vax>
Subject: machine readable star catalogs
To: space@mit-mc

To follow up on the machine readable star catalog message:

Circular 164 from the Naval Observatory is "Astronomical Data in
Machine Readable Form".  It is free from:

Administrative Management Division
U.S. Naval Observatory
34th and Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20390

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 84 12:48:00-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery Launch Delayed

The launch of Discovery today was postponed until tomorrow,
Tuesday, 26 June, at 0843 EDT, due to a hardware failure in
the backup computer on board the shuttle.  The faulty computer
is being replaced by the backup computer from the Challenger.
Today was the first time a shuttle launch has been postponed
since STS-2.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 5:28:13-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!hound!5143ama @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: cmsg cancel <544@hound.UUCP>

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 5:33:57-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!hound!5143ama @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Question on delayed launch of Discovery

Can someone please explain how the Discovery can be rescheduled for
launch only 24 hours after its launch was scrubbed?  I thought they
had to empty and refill the fuel tanks, which takes about 48 hours.
Thanks in advance.
Albert Algava   hound!5143ama

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 8:07:00-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: How many SSME's ignited?

Certainly at least one Shuttle Main Engine seemed to be going pretty well,
but I'm not sure about number two.  It seems probable to me that one of the
three just refused to ignite, judging by the time the GPC's cut them off.
I don't think that the check for sufficient thrust occurs until all three have
had an opportunity to ignite.

I think if Discovery ever does get off the ground, the computers will just go
berserk and try to kill off all the astronauts.  It's happened before :-).

Also, did anyone else notice that the sound of the stack settling back just
after cutoff sounded a lot like the Excelsior in "Star Trek III: The Search
for Spock" breaking down?
--
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon."
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 9:55:39-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"

The self destruct system is of similar idea to that used
on all American rockets, manned and unmanned.  Explosvie
charges are positioned in the shuttle and on the ET and
SRB's.  At the command of the range safety officer, these
charges are set off, destroying the orbiter and its tank
and boosters.  It would be used if, for example, the shuttle
veered off course and headed for a populated area.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 9:52:27-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Post Ignition Abort

At T-7 seconds today, Discovery's computer started the
SSME ignition sequence, in which all engines are turned
on at 120 milllisecond intervals.  Two made it, but
the computers detected a fuel valve failure in the Number
1 engine and directed it not to fire; they also commanded
the other two to shut down.  Thus, the countdown was
stopped 4 seconds before the SRB's were to have ignited.

The engine with the trouble was taken from Challenger
earlier in the month, but the fuel valve was apparently
one of Discovery's.  No word has been given on what sort
of delay to expect.  It could be several days or several
weeks.  The crew has been placed on leave status.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 9:56:18-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Question on delayed launch of Discovery

The process of cleaning the ET has been shortened from
48 hours to under a day, just like all the turnaround
functions have been improved.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 15:13:01-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Post Ignition Abort

As I understand it, the number 1 engine never started because it was never
given the command to fire. The start sequence is 3, then 2, then 1.
After starting engine 2, the onboard computers checked the valve state
on engine 3 and found the indication(s) that called for an abort.
The engine shutdowns were then commanded before the sequence proceeded
to start engine number 1.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 15:10:41-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"

A minor correction to Adam's comments about the range safety destruct
system.  The explosive charges are only on the external tank and on
the solid rocket boosters; none are on the orbiter itself. They
are actually long linear shaped charges which are designed to split the casing
of the booster or tank lengthwise, dumping the propellants and disintegrating
the casing. You can see these on the SRBs and ET as longitudinal 'ribs' running
for most of their length. (There are other ribs as well which contain
more mundane things like electrical cables and fuel lines, so not all
of them contain destruct explosives.)

The range safety system works by external radio command. I certainly
hope that the coding is reasonably secure, but I do remember when
I was on hand for the STS-9 launch that during the terminal stages
of the countdown (perhaps 10-15 minutes before launch) there was
an announcement that a "Range safety system test, using the actual
flight codes, had been successfully conducted". This could in theory
allow a terrorist to monitor the codes and retransmit them during flight.
Considering all the other precautions taken, I hope that it wouldn't
be quite this easy.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 7:24:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!cbscc!cbneb!adm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle 'self-destruct system?' - (nf)

#R:ihuxi:-94000:cbneb:10300001:000:30
cbneb!jdd    Jun 26 09:35:00 1984

Kirk:   11A
Scotty: 11A2B
...

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 6:36:24-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!hw3b!wnuxb!djmolny @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"

In light of Tuesday's fizzled launch, who needs a self-destruct!?


Today's Chicago Tribune (Tues., 6/26) has an article about the replacement
of Discovery's backup computer, described as costing $1.2 million, and
weighing 57 tons.  No wonder it won't fly.


						Regards,
						DJ Molny, ccom consultants, inc
						  at
						AT&T Technologies
						ihnp4!mgnetp!hw3b!wnuxb!djmolny

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 84 19:55:47-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Updated Engine Abort Sequence

NASA this afternoon corrected the statement that Engines
3 and 2 fired, Engine 1 had the problem, and 3 and 2 then
shut down.  What happened was this:

The firing sequence is (in order) Engine 3, then 2, then
1, at 120 millisecond intervals.  The primary hydrogen fuel
valve for Engine 3 never opened; thus, Engine 3 never ignited.
Engine 2 ignited for a brief time and was shut down by the
computers.  Engine 1's ignition was never started (due to the
shutdown order).  Thus, only one engine (Number 2) actually
fired this morning.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #235    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 235

Today's Topics:
			  planets and satelites
			 Chicago Tribune Article
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #234
			     Runway to orbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 84 10:13:52-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihuxs!jcdsc @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: planets and satelites

I have seen a lot of pictures made by spacecrafts passing the other planets.
Also descriptions about the environent on the planets and satelites are
given in magazines like Scientific American, Astronomy, etc.

All those nearby flights to the planets and satelites must have resulted in much
better values for the masses and sizes of the planets and satelites as were known
before, but I don't known where I can get this kind of information.

Dick Scherpenzeel
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Il
...ihnp4!ihuxs!jcdsc

------------------------------

From: gd@sri-spam (Greg DesBrisay)
Message-Id: <8406291748.AA03594@sri-spam.ARPA>
Date: 29 Jun 1984 1048-PDT (Friday)
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Cc: gd@sri-spam
Subject: Chicago Tribune Article

	Today's Chicago Tribune (Tues., 6/26) has an article
	about the replacement of Discovery's backup computer, 
	described as costing $1.2 million, and weighing 57
	tons.  No wonder it won't fly.

I remember seeing news pictures of a technician picking up and carrying
a box that the reporter said was the backup computer that failed on the
first launch try; it sure didn't look like 57 tons!

By the way, does the Chicago Tribune mean to imply that NASA is going to
throw that 1.2-million dollar computer on the scrap heap?!  Even the
government tries to fix such expensive pieces of equipment and use them
again, don't they?

Greg DesBrisay
gd@sri-spam

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1984 11:07-PDT
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #234
Subject: [No News is Good News]
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]29-Jun-84 11:07:42.WARD>

    Date: 25 Jun 84 12:48:00-PDT (Mon)
    From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
    Subject: Discovery Launch Delayed
    
    ------------------------------
    
    Date: 26 Jun 84 9:52:27-PDT (Tue)
    From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
    Subject: Post Ignition Abort

The net is not a very good vehicle for distributing late breaking news.
Please, if you're not going to elaborate, don't send out yesterday's news!
(I deleted the text to save space).

		Thanks in advance,

		Craig

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1984 14:08-EST
From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
Subject: Runway to orbit
To: space@mc
Message-Id: <457380493/drs@CMU-CS-IUS>

>From the Aerospace Spotlight column in the June Aerospace America:

	The U.S. can now build a prototype SR-71-class hydrogen
	scramjet-powered plane within three years, [DARPA director]
	Cooper announced.  Such a plane, he said, could take off from
	a 10,000-foot runway and use rockets to fly into low Earth
	orbit.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Jul-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #236    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 236

Today's Topics:
			Re: [No News is Good News]
			    Minor Fire Damage
			Re: [No News is Good News]
	  Aviation Space Magazine and Aerospace Education Assn.
			Re: [No News is Good News]
			     Scramjets, etc.
		       Cruise Missile Warhead Size
			  Gene Roddenberry in LA
			   Spaceweek 1984 in LA
			   Re: Scramjets, etc.
		   Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 Jul 1984 20:20:47 EDT (Sunday)
From: Stephen X. Nahm <sxn@bbncc-washington>
Subject: Re: [No News is Good News]
To: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
Cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

Craig,

	First, you should be able to tell from the "From:" field that
these messages come from the uucp net; that net doesn't use the digest
format of info-space@mit-mc, so the messages won't have the same delay
(and for sites close to 'alice', they might even be timely :-).

	Second, even if the news is stale, I like hearing about just what
happened from those who know; the general news outlets tend to heavily
filter the information for the masses.

Glad to be of help,

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 84 11:07:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Minor Fire Damage

The Discovery suffered only minor fire damage, a few scorch and burn marks
but no engine or tile damage, yesterday, and NASA said that the launch
might be rescheduled in 10 to 14 days.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 1984 10:32-PDT
Sender: WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: [No News is Good News]
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: sxn@BBNCC-WASHINGTON.ARPA
Cc: WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA, Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA] 2-Jul-84 10:32:38.WARD>

Steve,

What net they come from isn't important.

Perhaps if I had not deleted to text you would have noticed that these
messages did not add anything to what was being reported over the 
mass media.  I too enjoy hearing extra information from those who have
better sources; however, merely repeating the thirty word contents
of a radio news report will not be timely even for sites close to 'alice'
and I object to seeing it in the digest.

Craig

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 84 02:47 PDT
From: Gloger.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Aviation Space Magazine and Aerospace Education Assn.
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Gloger.es@XEROX.ARPA

I've just received in the mail a "complimentary copy" of a magazine
called "Aviation Space," 80 pages long, lots of color, published by
Aerospace Education Association.  It looks like a cross between the L-5
News and one of the current popular science magazines.

They're selling subscriptions at $25/year, plus dozens or maybe even
hundreds of different books, slides, prints, videocassettes, plastic
models, etc., many of them very attractive.  They claim to be
well-established, with more than a million readers.  If that's so, I
must be the only person on SPACE who doesn't already know about them.

Comments please, anybody, before I send 'em a wad of money?

Thanks,
Paul Gloger <Gloger.es@Xerox.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 84 11:04:03 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an sun) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407021804.AA09524@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: sxn@bbncc-washington, WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: [No News is Good News]
Cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

	Actually, what surprises me is that the uucp messages bounced around
usenet so much before they got out into the world.  I'm sure that there must
be a more accessable gateway.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 2 Jul 84 12:21:58-EDT
From: JHEIMANN@BBNA.ARPA
Subject: Scramjets, etc.
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

	Scramjets are supersonic combustion ramjets, as I recall.  Does 
anybody know anything more about them?  Are they just ramjets that work at 
very high speed, or are there special problems with turbulence in the 
combustion chamber or mixing fuel and air or whatever asscociated with them?
Now that I'm thinking about it, I seem to recall reading about hypersonic 
research projects in the sixties.  Does the word "hypersonic" have a well
defined meaning - i.e. is there a threshold above which certain aerodynamic 
effects come into play - or does it just mean "much faster than supersonic?"
On a related note, what were the reasons for US aircraft companies'
abandonment of the SST?  I remember that noise and pollution of the upper 
atmosphere were sources of public concern, but was the real reason economic?

						John

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 1984 8:28-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Cruise Missile Warhead Size

I believe the yield of the cruise missile warhead is 270 KT, not 5 KT.

Doesn't this discussion belong on arms-d?

------------------------------

Date:  2 Jul 1984 15:01:06 PDT
Subject: Gene Roddenberry in LA
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: bboard@USC-ISIF.ARPA, bboard@USC-ECL.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA,
    sf-lovers@RUTGERS.ARPA
cc: katz@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, will be giving a talk
for the OASIS/L5 lecture series on July 17, 1984 as a part of
Spaceweek.  The program will begin at 7:00 pm at the Glendale
High School Auditorium.

Admission is $5.00, $3.00 for OASIS/L5 members.  Tickets may
be purchased at the door, or from:

		OASIS/L5
		PO Box 1231
		Redondo Beach, Ca  90278

For more information, call (213)374-1381.

-------

------------------------------

Date:  2 Jul 1984 15:16:08 PDT
Subject: Spaceweek 1984 in LA
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
To: bboard@USC-ISIF.ARPA, bboard@USC-ECL.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA,
    sf-lovers@RUTGERS.ARPA
cc: katz@USC-ISIF.ARPA


		SPACEWEEK 1984 IN LOS ANGELES:


Spaceweek 1984, which commemorates the 15th anniversary of mankind's
first moon landing, will be celebrated in Los Angeles on July 16-22.  Below
is a list of some of the activities, including where to find out
more about them.  (NOTE:  These events are sponsored by
many Southern Californian pro-space groups).

Many cities will be having their own spaceweek activities, if you
do not live in the LA area, you should contact your local L5 or AIAA chapter.



	LOS ANGELES SPACEWEEK SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

     Gene Roddenberry lecture, July 17, 7 p.m., Glendale High 
School, 1440 E. Broadway.  Ticket information:  $3 for OASIS/L-5 
members, $5 for non-members.  Write to OASIS/L-5, P.O. Box 1231, 
Redondo Beach, CA   90278.

     Buzz Aldrin luncheon, July 18, 11:30 a.m., The Proud Bird, 
11022 Aviation Blvd.  Ticket information: $20 per person.  Write 
to Westchester/LAX Chamber of Commerce, 8833 South Sepulveda Blvd.,
Westchester, CA 90045. (213) 645-5151.

     Space Station dinner, July 20, 6:30 p.m., Orange County 
Mining Co., 10000 Crawford Canyon Rd., Orange County.  Ticket 
information:  $12; AIAA student members-$6, dinner is free if you 
join AIAA at the meeting.  Call: Dr. Ron Richmond (714)720-6007, 
Bill Rickland (213)593-7525 or Mike Kirkland (805)253-5332.  

     Aerospace Musuem Reception, July 21, 7 p.m., California 
Museum of Science and Industry, 700 State Drive, Los Angeles.  
Ticket information:  $30 per person.  Write to Los Angeles 
Section AIAA, 5001 Airport Plaza Drive, Long Beach, CA 90815.  

     Rockwell Open House, July 13, 7 p.m., Rockwell 
International, 12214 Lakewood Blvd., Downey.  Park and enter 
through Gate 53 at the southwest corner of Bellflower Blvd. and 
Stewart and Gray Rd.  Admission is free.

     Voyages of Apollo, July 13, 7:30 p.m., Orange Coast 
College, 2701 Fairview Rd., Chemistry 214, Costa Mesa (parking 
off Adams St.).  Ticket information:  $2 at the door.  Call:  Jim 
Moore (714)558-0555. 





				Alan

-------

------------------------------

	id AA00482; Mon, 2 Jul 84 15:13:47 pdt
	id AA13210; Mon, 2 Jul 84 14:16:29 pdt
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 84 14:16:29 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an sun) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407022116.AA13210@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: JHEIMANN@BBNA.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Scramjets, etc.

	The real reason was that Congress killed the development funds.
Why the aerospace firms [Boeing in particular] needed govt. funds to develop
the aircraft is a good question, one I don't have the answer to.
					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 84 13:46:22-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!judd @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"

OK what happens to the shuttle itself after the fire command ??

-- 
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa:   judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!judd

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #237    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 237

Today's Topics:
			Re:  SPACE Digest V4 #236
		     Hypersonic == 5x speed of sound
		   Re: Hypersonic == 5x speed of sound
				Scramjets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 3 Jul 84 10:19:23 EDT
From:     Joe Pistritto <jcp@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
To:       Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V4 #236

	From the July 2nd issue of Aviation Week, this summary of events
immediately after the aborted launch of Discovery:  All times are T+ times,
ie. seconds/minutes after intended launch.

	2 sec - "We have an RSLS abort" - Lockheed rep on launch console to NASA

	6 sec - "Ground Launch Sequencer safing in progress" - a reference to
		returning  range safety charges to disarmed condition

	12 sec - "Verify engine ignition is safe" - Lockheed test director

	17 sec - "Break - break - ground launch sequencer shows engine one
		not shut down" - indicating a possibly runaway engine, which
		caused several minutes of confusion before it was verified that
		one had never been ignited, (the sequence aborted before that)

	45 sec - "All engines are shut down" - test director

	49 sec - "We have a red light on engines two and three in the cockpit,
		  not on one" - Astronaut Hartsfield from Discovery, verifying
		  that one had not ignited.

	1 min. 59 sec. - "I think we are okay now, everything looks good,
		  safing is in progress, I think its finished"|y|yyyy||

	2 min. 30 sec. - "Ground launch sequencer safing is complete"

	3 min. 30 sec. - A controller radios test director Weinberg "Do you
		  know there is a small flame on tv monitor 58 on the main
		  engines?"  (it turned out to be engine #3)

	-- several minutes of discussion of fires around the vehicle followed,
	along with several instances where the water deluge system used to
	suppress the shock of launch was manually turned off and on.  Fires
	continued until 20 min. or so.  During this period, an emergceny
	evacuation of the crew was considered but not initiated.  Crew was
	evacuated at T+40 minutes using the crew access arm and the gantry
	elevator.

				Thought someone might like to know...
					-JCP-

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 84 12:42:06 EDT
From: Ron <FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Hypersonic == 5x speed of sound
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

(ron)

[Presumably that's >= 5x. -Ed.]

------------------------------

Date: Tue 3 Jul 84 13:34:52-EDT
From: Martin J Mahoney <UI.MJM%CU20D@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Hypersonic == 5x speed of sound
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA


Is there any reason the 5x was chosen? Was it chosen because it is a nice 
number or are there any aerodynamic reasons which makes travelling faster than 
Mach 5 different than travelling faster than Mach 1

Martin Mahoney

------------------------------

Date: 3 July 1984 23:36-EDT
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Scramjets
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

The idea behind a scramjet is that the flow of air through the combustion
chamber is supersonic. Even in turbojets which operate at supersonic
speeds, the air flow in the combustion chamber is subsonic.  The air flow
is slowed by the inlet and the compressor; after combustion, the heating
then accelerates the air back up to supersonic speeds.

The reason this distinction is important is that an ordinary flame
cannot be maintained in supersonic flow (in effect, the molecules are
moving too fast for any reaction to propogate). All I've heard beyond
this is that no scramjet has generated more thrust than its own drag,
presumably because the inlets and flame holders obstruct the flow.

After hearing about this problem, I had a thought which I'd like those
reading this digest who really know something about it to criticize.
Since the propogation of combustion requires a chain reaction which
continually maintains free radicals of oxygen and of the fuel, perhaps
one could use an continuous ultraviolet laser operating at a frequency
corresponding to the dissociation energy of one of the electrons on
either oxygen or the fuel. This laser would maintain a population of
radicals that would maintain combustion.

Bob Bruccoleri (BRUC@MIT-MC)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #238    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 238

Today's Topics:
		 NASA considers combining two flights   
			    Scramjet problems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 04 Jul 84  1315 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: NASA considers combining two flights   
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a046  0338  04 Jul 84
PM-Shuttle Plans,340
NASA Officials Considering Eliminating One Shuttle Mission
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The last-second scrapping of Discovery's
maiden voyage June 26 may force the elimination of one of the planned
space shuttle flights this year, sources reported.
    NASA officials are considering combining into a single flight the
best features of last week's aborted mission and the next flight
scheduled in August, the sources, who insisted on anonymity, said
Tuesday.
    That plan would eliminate one mission and would help put the shuttle
launch schedule back on track, said the sources, who emphasized that
several other ideas are being considered.
    The sources said several top officials of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration don't like the combined-flight approach and
are pressing instead to reset Discovery's launch as soon as possible
and try to catch up with the rest of the schedule later.
    The Discovery countdown was stopped four seconds before liftoff when
a computer ordered an engine shutdown after detecting an engine fuel
valve which didn't open.
    The earliest possible new launch date is July 17, officials have
said.
    A decision may come later this week when NASA management officials
meet to assess the impact of Discovery's delay. If a combined mission
is selected, a decision will have to be made as to which crew will
fly - the six who were aboard when the launch was aborted last week or
the five slated for the next trip.
    And payloads might have to be shifted to later flights.
    Discovery's second flight is scheduled Aug. 29, but NASA has said
that almost certainly will be moved back because of the abort.
    After that, three more flights are scheduled in 1984 - in October,
November and December, with Challenger and Discovery alternating.
    With 13 flights scheduled next year, NASA is concerned with bunching
up the schedule, even with three shuttles flying.
    If Discovery's second mission is delayed into September officials
said it would have to land at night at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.,
because of the requirement to deploy three communications satellites
at precise times.
    But that flight is to be the first in which the shuttle attempts an
automatic landing, and NASA wants to accomplish that in the daytime.
    
ap-ny-07-04 0638EDT
**********

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 4 Jul 84 23:31:04 EDT
From:     Joe Pistritto <jcp@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
To:       Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject:  Scramjet problems

	Assuming that you could maintain a population of free radicals
thru means other than heating due to combustion, (Lasar dissociation was
postulated), you also have to worry about the kinetic energy of the
molecules being high enough to support the reaction.
	The SR-71A gets around this, (it has subsonic chamber flow, buts
its the same idea from a kinetic energy standpoint), by using the movable
shock cones on the front of the intakes to propagate a compression shock
wave INTO the intake, thereby raising both pressure and temperature.  Remember
also that the SR-71 operates at in excess of Mach 3.0, and the combustion
chamber flow NEVER goes Transonic.  It may be possible to maintain this,
(albeit at higher altitudes), for considerably higher Mach numbers...

	If you go high enough though, you run out of oxygen, which is another
story...

						-JCP-

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #239    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 239

Today's Topics:
			  Re: OMNI ASAT article
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 84 9:29:36-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: OMNI ASAT article

In article <20400bbb.142@apollo.uucp> eric@apollo.UUCP writes:

>>The most recent issue of OMNI magazine has an article by Oberg about
>>a technique the Soviets could use to wipe out all satellites in
>>geosynchronous orbit.
>>
>>Upon command, the satellite would expel its
>>cargo of pebbles/sand grains/etc.  US satellites in geo would encounter
>>the objects at twice orbital velocity, once every 12 hours.
>
>What a mess that would make!  GEO orbits are VALUABLE!  And it would be
>a long time (if ever) before anyone could clean them up.  Who thinks of
>this stuff, I wonder?

Chess players.  QxR/GEO, sacrificing Q but mate in 2.

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #240    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 240

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"
			     Loose Insulation
			     Engine Replaced
		 Re:Land/Sea based ICBMs/Cruise missiles
			  Re: OMNI ASAT article
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 84 20:11:23-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Shuttle "self-destruct system?"

Presumably, it will have had time to jettison away
from the ET and SRB's.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 84 13:46:07-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Loose Insulation

Engineers today discovered loose insulation on a fuel line
in Discovery's Number 3 Engine while they were removing it
for replacement.  The loose insulation may have allowed nitrogen,
used to purge the engine, to come into contact with the
super-cold hydrogen fuel, liquify, and clog the valve that didn't
open.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 84 21:07:26-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Engine Replaced

Workers today replaced the Number 3 Engine of the
Discovery well ahead of schedule.  The old engine
and its faulty valve have been shipped separately
to a testing lab and the manufacturer (respectively)
for further examination.  NASA, wanting to fully
understand the problem that led to the aborted
launch of 41-D, said that 17 July looks like the
earliest possible new launch date.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 84 15:58:38-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re:Land/Sea based ICBMs/Cruise missiles

> at the present time cruise missiles carry smaller warheads than ICBMs, but
> only because they are designed with a different purpose.  So the ALCM
> or the Tomahawk can only carry a 5KT(Not sure if that's true-but it's
> good enough for the sake of argument) warhead, while a Minuteman III
> carries 3 1.5MT warheads.  Picture, if you will, a cruise missile the
> size of an F-14, and tell me that it will have a smaller warhead.

You don't even need to go that far.  Remember that a lousy little
13-kiloton bomb demolished Hiroshima.  When the Oppenheimer committee
recommended against US development of the hydrogen bomb, one of their
reasons was that there was no real need for it:  fission bombs were
powerful enough to meet all valid military requirements.
-- 
				Henry (why no net.arms-d??) Spencer
				U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 84 13:45:08 PDT
From: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: OMNI ASAT article
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA

How would sand or pebbles stay in GEO? There isn't much air left up
there, but there is radiation pressure. What else disturbs orbits?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #241    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 241

Today's Topics:
		    Sand/Pebbles/Geosynchronous orbit
		    Dyson's New Book WEAPONS AND HOPE
		    Dyson's New Book WEAPONS AND HOPE
     Re: useless repeats of ancient history --  moderator please help
		      Fire after Discovery Shutdown?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 84 17:40:51 EDT
From: MG9G@CMCCTF
To: space%mit-mc@CMU-CS-A
Attention: Space Bboard
Subject: Sand/Pebbles/Geosynchronous orbit

How would sand or pebbles remain in geosynch. orbit?  It really doesn't
matter if the particles' orbits decay after 1 or 2 orbits-if there are
enough of them, which there would be, the job would be done by then...

Why isn't this on net.arms?  We poor peons without access to CMU Computer
Science machines don't have access to ARPANET, and get the Space BB only
through the grace of the CMU Comp Center...

							Deej
							mg9g@cmu-cc-tf

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 84 12:27:24-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!elt @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Dyson's New Book WEAPONS AND HOPE

I have just finished reading Freeman Dyson's new book WEAPONS AND HOPE
about the nuclear arms problem.  I recommend it very strongly to anyone
interested in this topic.  It is, in my experience, absolutely unique
in its point of view and approach.  I expect that essentially everyone
will find themselves stimulated and challenged by some of the arguments
Dyson advances, particularly from the historical metaphors and comparisons
he presents.

Basically the book refuses to take either of the two familiar points of
view about nuclear weapons which it identifies as the warrior's (detached,
rational, and perhaps fasinated) and the victim's (involved, emotional, and
perhaps despairing).  It instead seeks some middle ground upon which these
two views can meet and relate to one another.  Neither view is taken to be
"correct" but the strengths and inadequacies of both are explored.  This is
the best I can do at a *general* description of the book.  It also is full
of fascinating material about the evolution of our current situation, the
Soviet view of nuclear war, civil defense, high tech defenses, militarization
of space, disarmament negotiations, the history of previous peace and 
disarmament movements, etc.

If you have read it already, what did you think of it?

Ed Turner
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 84 9:55:54-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!elt @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Dyson's New Book WEAPONS AND HOPE

I have just finished reading Freeman Dyson's new book WEAPONS AND HOPE
about the nuclear arms problem.  I recommend it very strongly to anyone
interested in this topic.  It is, in my experience, absolutely unique
in its point of view and approach.  I expect that essentially everyone
will find themselves stimulated and challenged by some of the arguments
Dyson advances, particularly from the historical metaphors and comparisons
he presents.

Basically the book refuses to take either of the two familiar points of
view about nuclear weapons which it identifies as the warrior's (detached,
rational, and perhaps fasinated) and the victim's (involved, emotional, and
perhaps despairing).  It instead seeks some middle ground upon which these
two views can meet and relate to one another.  Neither view is taken to be
"correct" but the strengths and inadequacies of both are explored.  This is
the best I can do at a *general* description of the book.  It also is full
of fascinating material about the evolution of our current situation, the
Soviet view of nuclear war, civil defense, high tech defenses, militarization
of space, disarmament negotiations, the history of previous peace and 
disarmament movements, etc.

If you have read it already, what did you think of it?

Ed Turner
astrovax!elt

------------------------------

	id AA20961; Sat, 7 Jul 84 23:15:54 pdt
	id AA20155; Sat, 7 Jul 84 23:16:12 pdt
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 84 23:16:12 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an h19-u) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407080616.AA20155@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: useless repeats of ancient history --  moderator please help
Cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

	Worse, it's bypassing earlier gateways, for what reason I know not
-- but I do know that allegra talks to ucbvax [allegra is the third of 15
hops in the path] -- for some reason hplabs passes the stuff to ucbvax, not
allegra, which is why it takes forever to get to arpaland.  So why doesn't
allegra pass to ucbvax?
					-- Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 84 8:16:46-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Fire after Discovery Shutdown?

After the engine shutdown on Discovery, the TV pictures (via NBC) showed what
appeared to be a ~small(?) fire in the area of the engines.  The NBC
man-at-KSC asked his astronaut/consultant about it.  The astro replied that
he thought it was a normal part of the shutdown.  Does anyone know anything
more about this?  (By the way...while I have to give NBC credit for continuing
to cover shuttle launches, their coverage is truly abysmal!  Bryant Gumbel
is the biggest flamer I have ever seen, with the possible exception of Jules
Bergman!  B.G. seemed to be nearly in a panic wondering why the astros did
not get out of the shuttle.  They kept trying to get the astro/consultant to
admit that everyone was within an inch of loosing their life.  They kept
alluding to what a close thing it was...only 4 seconds later and it would have
been all over.  [I would like to ask them how the hell you are supposed to
detect that an engine has not fired correctly before it is supposed to fire
at all!]).

Also, it appeared that water was being used as a fire extinguisher around the
base of the shuttle after the shutdown.  Will water really put out an LH2 fire?
Or is it for some other purpose?

Thanks,

Burns

	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher

	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Jul-84  0431	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #242    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 242

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown?
		   Re: destruct systems trivia question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 84 11:35:31 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an h19-u) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407081835.AA23663@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-dvinci!fisher@Berkeley, space@Mit-Mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown?

	Well, "normal shutdown" is a lot less exciting to a TV audience than
incredible danger, and Today is consistently beneath GMA in the morning
ratings.  I suppose BG smelled a scoop, or a coup...and wound up in the soup.

	As for the fire, keep in mind that there are humongous temperatures
on the pad at a launch.  During the Apollo and Skylab missions, the pads
were literally destroyed by the launch.  The STS pad is better, but there
are still fires...
				Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 84 14:59:06-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: destruct systems trivia question

I asked:

   For 10 points, name the one (major, modern) American (NASA) rocket
   which did *not* have a self-destruct system, and explain why.  I will
   post the answer in a few days.

I know you've all been hanging on the edges of your seats, waiting to
hear the answer, so here it is.

The Apollo Lunar Module, despite being a two-stage rocket with several
tons of propellant on board, had no self-destruct system.  While NASA
was concerned about safety in general for Apollo, they had a particular
horror of Lunar Module failures that might leave astronauts alive and
intact but stranded on the lunar surface, beyond all rescue.  The LM
was made as simple and reliable as humanly possible.  The usual range
safety policy definitely called for a self-destruct system, to disperse
the propellants safely in the event of a launch accident.  But NASA
saw it as one more thing that could fail, and obviously could fail in
a rather disastrous way, so they absolutely refused to include it.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #243    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 243

Today's Topics:
		      Shuttle A-K-O White Elephant?
			 June 29 Science article
		 Why the LEM didn't have a self destruct
		      When is the next night launch?
			    Pebbles in the Sky
			Re: planets and satelites
				  Trivia
	      Want Soviet space data? / Usenet via satellite
			 Fire after launch abort
			  Engine to be Replaced
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 1984 9:00-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Shuttle A-K-O White Elephant?

The space shuttle is starting to lose its glamour for the media.  Since
Discovery's launch failures, I've seen several stories in newspapers
and magazines (LA Times, Time) about the shuttle's economic problems.
Turn around and launch reliability problems (the Time story says 75% of
the launches have been delayed -- is this correct?) have made the
shuttle noncompetitive with expendable boosters, at least without
massive government subsidies.

So, in retrospect, where did NASA go wrong?  How can launch costs be
reduced?  Some speculations:

The space shuttle has been designed for too many missions, so it
doesn't do any of them particularly well.  Specifically, the shuttle is
designed as both a cargo carrier (satellite launcher) and a passenger
vehicle.  Because it carries passengers, it must be more reliable than
an unmanned cargo rocket, and has to carry life support, adding to
launch weight.  Because it has a large nonairtight cargo bay, it can
only carry 7 people (I suppose with some modifications more could be
crammed in).  The shuttle's large cross sectional area is needed for
launching stout satellites; a purely passenger carrying shuttle could
be much smaller.

Perhaps a two vessel fleet would have been better: unmanned reusable or
semireusable cargo launchers and small passenger carrying vehicles.
The first would be used to launch comsats and carrying space station
components, the second for rotating crews, emergency rescue flights and
satellite repairs.

An aside: the recent AWST issue on space commercialization had a
description of a company that wants to build a single stage to orbit
vehicle called the Phoenix, using dual-fuel engines.  The booster would
be reusable, landing on rockets, not wings.  They hope to get launch
costs down to $10 per payload lb.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 1984 11:26-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: June 29 Science article

[PFD: I believe this was written before the second Discovery launch
attempt.]

"Estrangement on the Launch Pad" -- DOD loses affection for the space
shuttle and takes up with an old flame

When Congress first approved the space shuttle, it did so on the
government's advice that existing rockets were an absurdly extravagent
means of transporting military and civlian satellites into orbit.  Buy
a manned reusable ferry, said officials at the Defense Department (DOD)
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the
costly, expendable rockets will be forsworn.  Satisfied, the Congress
plunked down billions of dollars so that the shuttle could meet any
foreseeable need.

Now, however, one of the principle partners in the venture is preparing
to jump spaceship, only 3 years after the shuttle's first flight.
Having decided that the spacecraft is simply incapable of living up to
its billing as a flexible, reliable, and cheap transportation system,
the Department of Defense has proposed -- amazingly enough -- to launch
some satellites originally intended for the shuttle on a series of new
expendable rockets.  Although th exact specifications have not yet
been determined, the lifting power and payload capacity of each rocket
will be comparable to that of the shuttle, but the cost of each launch
has been forecast as somewhat less.

Not suprisingly, the proposal has generated considerable anger and
anxiety at NASA.  The anger stems from a conviction that after emerging
from a long and difficult development period, the shuttle presently
deserves more, not less, Defense Department support.  "The space
shuttle is the most reliable space transportation system ever built,"
NASA administrator James M. Beggs has told allies on Capitol Hill.  "I
believe the current fleet can meet all presently projected foreign and
commericial, DOD and NASA requirements for years to come."  For months,
space shuttle enthusiasts, including Representative Don Fuqua (D-Fla.),
chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, have been
lobbying vigorously to kill the Pentagon proposal.

Anxiety at NASA stems largely from recognition that the proposal is
likely to win approval anyway.  As powerful as NASA's allies are, the
Pentagon's are even more powerful.  The agency fear is that a small
withdrawal of payloads from the shuttle to expendable rockets could
easily expand to a substantial migration.  The difficulty is that every
time a payload is removed from the shuttle manifest, the actual cost of
ferrying the remaining payloads increases.  Already facing serious
competition from the European Space Agency's Ariane program, NASA may
thus face the disagreeable choice of increasing its rates and pricing
itself out of the commercial market, or making up the loss with funds
from other space programs.  "Am I worried about this possibility?" says
Chester Lee, the director of space shuttle customer services.  "You bet
I am."

Although Pentagon officials claim that they will remove no more than 10
satellites from the shuttle manifest, hardly anyone in Washington
believes them.  One reason is that more than 10 rockets will be
produced.  Another is that the primary candidates for rocket launching
are communications and early warning satellites that come in
constellations of 3, 6 and 7.  Other payloads are also under
consideration, and the Air Force is apparently having a tough time
deciding among them.  A third reason is that the Pentagon wants to
start using rockets in 1988, when the price of sending payloads on the
shuttle could jump sharply, from roughly $30 million to as much as $100
million per flight, as existing NASA subsidies are phased out.

Taking this into consideration, a congressman recently asked Edward C.
Aldridge, Jr., the under secretary of the Air Force, whether the
Pentagon would have the option of removing all payloads from the
shuttle in 1988.  Aldridge replied, "That option would exist, yes sir.
Whether or not we would exercise it would depend opon the cost to us to
modify additional payloads to go on the [expendable rocket]."

To NASA, the proposal to build new rockets seems particularly cruel
because the agency has exerted enormous effort to win the Pentagon's
business over the past decade.  During its early development, the
shuttle's shape was altered so that it could traverse the distance
demanded by military requirements; the payload bay was expanded to hold
unwieldy intelligence satellites; and the state of the art engines were
designed specifically to lift weighty military payloads.  Roughly a
billion dollars is presently being expended on shuttle weight
reductions and engine improvements so that these goals will be met.

In exchange for these commitments, NASA won a pledge in the late 1970's
that the Pentagon would itself contribute more than $15 billion to the
shuttle program and allow it to become the exclusive transportation
system for military payloads.  This pledge was reiterated by Pentagon
officials at several congressional hearings and codified in the
National Space Policy, a document signed by President Reagan in 1982.
"Expendable launch vehicle operations shall be continued by the United
States Government @i<until> the capabilities fo the [shuttle] are
sufficient to meet [Pentagon] needs and obligations," the policy states
(emphasis added).

Although NASA fervently believes this bargain can be met by 1988, the
Pentagon strongly disagrees, on two principle grounds.  One claim is
simply that the program's terrible track record casts grave doubt on
NASA's assurances.  "We're looking at essentially a change in the
conditions under which we signed up to that original agreement," says
Aldridge, an aeronautical engineer.  NASA has thus far failed to launch
most of its missions on time; it has vastly exceeded cost projections;
and it has failed to provide a flexible choice of 5 shuttle orbiters
(NASA and the Pentagon agree that only two will be capable of
transporting the heaviest military payloads to geosynchronous orbit).

"All of these are new factors that really only came to light in the
last year or two," Aldridge says.  "If things worked perfectly, which
they do not ... could we do with the shuttle?  Absolutely ... The
question is, do we want to depend on things working perfectly for the
future? ... Right now, we do not have a reliable, responsive launch
capability for the future."

Specifically, the Air Force says it expected that each shuttle could be
reflown within 7 days, that military payloads could be quickly and
easily loaded on board, and that total launch costs would be one-third
those of an expendable rocket.  Instead, the minimum shuttle turnaround
time will probably be 40 days, "payload integration is more time
consuming and technically difficult than previously thought," missions
have to be scheduled far in advance, and launch costs are equal to or
greater than comparable rockets.  A space policy document approved by
Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in February concludes that, as a
result, total reliance on the shuttle "represents an unacceptable
national security risk," and unmanned, expendable rockets -- which
"offer a high degree of requirements satisfaction, low technical risk,
and reasonable schedule availability" -- are needed to satisfy DOD
needs.

"I'm sorry, I can't accept that," responds Chester Lee at NASA.  "They
watched as the program was cut to four vehicles, and they were onboard
throughout that period.  They don't need a 7-day turnaround time -- 7
days for what you ask them.  Frankly, they couldn't get their own
payloads ready for launch that quickly.  We're making damn good
progress getting the turnaround down to 28 days.  How can they predict
it will be 40 days?  We work in the business and we know what we're
doing.  As to cost, it's true, we told them in an official letter that
it could go as high as $100 million.  But we might bill only for launch
materials and services, which would be roughly half that amount."

Back at the Pentagon, however, another, more worrisome complaint
arises.  The shuttle is simply unsafe, various officials suggest.
Minor mishaps are predictable, catastrophic accidents are likely, and
the entire fleet could be grounded at any time.  "What if it lands
sideways?  What if the auxiliary power units catch fire as it comes
in?" speculates Colonel William Barlow, an aide to under secretary
Aldridge.  "What if it crashed on launch?  What if it was sabotaged?"
adds Dennis Granato, an aide to the Pentagon's top scientist.  This
fear is butressed, the Air Force says, by a 1982 RAND Corporation
study, which flatly predicts that between one and three of the billion
dollar shuttle orbiters will be lost to accident during the lifetime of
the program. [Footnote: A spokesman for the RAND Corporation cautions
that this was only a preliminary analysis based on highly conjectural
statistics.]

Additonal evidence along these lines is supplied by the congressional
testimony of Willis Hawkins, who recently chaired NASA's Aerospace
Safety Advisory Board.  "One of these days," Hawkins told the House
Science and Technology Committee in April, "we're going to lay up a
shuttle for a substantial amount of time."  He complained in particular
that the shuttle's "rotating machinery, the hydrogen and oxygen pumps
are very, very marginal;" that "the shuttle landing gear comes up to
its design load almost every landing ... I think there's just not
enough margin there;" that "a lot of the parts and pieces on the
shuttle could stand some reassessment;" that the shuttle's auxiliary
power units, needed for steering in ascent and reentry, are susceptible
to fuel leaks and early breakdowns; and that NASA still tests and
certifies shuttle components haphazardly.

NASA responds by discounting the enduring significance of these
problems and by insisting that DOD needs can be accomodated even if a
shuttle vehicle is lost.  "We feel we can support them anyway, with a
minimum of inconvenience," Lee says.  "They have launch priority.
Besides, if they're so concerned about it, why don't they support the
construction of a fifth shuttle orbiter?"  Because, Pentagon officials
curtly say, that would simply be more of the same.

Under DOD's initial plan, the new expendable rockets were to be
purchased under a highly unusual arrangement whereby the Air Force
could put off any payment until the construction was complete, at which
point all contractor costs would be reimbersed.  In so doing, the
program could have bypassed congressional appropriations committees
until 1988.  In May, however, the plan was withdrawn at the direction
of the Office of Management and Budget, whic stepped in at NASA's
request.  "The idea hadn't gone through channels," a senior
Administration official explains.  "The funding plan was clearly
unorthodox and potentially a management disaster."

But a new, more straightforward financing plan is now being formulated,
and White House sources predict that this time the idea will win the
necessary sanctions.  Already two aerospace firms, Martin Marietta and
General Dynamics, have submitted bids for the work.  Even NASA sees
that the die is cast.  Recently, the agency has publicly suggested that
if the Pentagon insists on building a new rocket, it do so with shuttle
derived hardware.  This would help cut shuttle development and launch
costs and provide a bridge to the agency's much desired "heavy-lift
vehicle" -- an unmanned cargo ship for space station materials and
equipment, as well as manned planetary exploration, and the
construction of a base on the moon.

The Pentagon, however, is resisting NASA's compromise, partly out of
skepticism that the shuttle-derived vehicle will be ready by 1988,
and partly out of a simple desire to control the program by itself.
Several months ago, the House and Senate appropriations committees
requested an assessment of the competing proposals by the National
Academy of Sciences.  The study, to be chaired by Robert Fossum, a
former director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency who is
now dean of the school of engineering and applied science at Southern
Methodist University, will be completed by 1 September.

Whichever rocket is built, the shuttle is in for some rough
competition.  Although intended primarily for the heaviest military
payloads, the new rocket may also be capable of cheaply hoisting both
lightweight and heavy commericial payloads. Separately, the Air Force
is studying a plan to refurbish 56 old Titan II missiles for use with
lightweight military payloads.  And $2.8 million in the Air Force
budget is allocated to preliminary design of a manned spaceplane,
similar to the shuttle but capable of lifting off from a conventional
airfield on short notice and circling the globe in 90 minutes.

NASA officials are justifiably concerned that the potential withdrawal
of the shuttle's single biggest customer will convey a strong,
worrisome message to its commercial clients.  Yet they can hardly deny
that the shuttle has thus far failed to live up to its promise.
"Somebody made a big mistake long ago," says the senior Reagan
Administration official.

The ironies were noted by Representative Kenneth MacKay, a first-term
Democratic congressman from Gainesville, Florida, during Aldridge's
recent congressional testimony.  "We have put the rest of the space
research program back a decade trying to get the shuttle in gear, and
find that the military basically sees good reasons why the shuttle [is]
not a crucial thing ... Maybe this is the first time we have [had] ...
a realistic assessment of the shuttle system.  Maybe we've designed a
dinosaur.  What will it be used for if you and the other commercial
users decide that we're going to expendables?  What will it be used for
except for the occasional recovery of something ... for the
Smithsonian?"  Twenty billion dollars later, these are all good
questions.  -- R. Jeffrey Smith

------

[PFD: RAND predicts 1-3 shuttles will prang!?!  If there's no strong
economic justification for the shuttle that could make Congress ground
the fleet permanently.

I expect vicious congressional investigations in a few years.]

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 1984 13:37-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: decvax!linus!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Subject: Why the LEM didn't have a self destruct

What!?  The LEM didn't have a self-destruct?  How irresponsible!  Think
of all the lives that could have been lost had it crashed on an
inhabited part of the moon's surface.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 84 8:45:26-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!jeff @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: When is the next night launch?

Could someone mail me the date of the next scheduled night launch?

Thanks in advance.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 1984 9:58-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Pebbles in the Sky

How fast would small objects in GEO decay?  Certainly not in one or two
orbits.  Atmospheric drag is nil at that altitude.  And satellites in
GEO are not all in exactly the same orbit; radii can vary by several km.

While we're on the subject of ruining GEO:  did you know a US nuclear
explosion in near earth space in the 1960's injected electrons into the
magnetosphere that were still detectable ten years later?   Charged
particles in the magnetosphere are trapped very effectively by "magnetic
mirrors" at the earth's poles.  I wonder how big an accelerator you'd
need to raise radiation levels there to unacceptable levels?

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 84 20:01:27-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!pegasus!gsw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: planets and satelites

The currently accepted data for the satellites in the solar system
as presented in July 1983 at the International Astronomical Union
Colloquium No. 77 (Natural Satellites) was presented in Sky and Telescope,
November 1983. I have reproduced part of it below.

The information given in S&T does not include the masses of the satellites
but does include their orbital radius, orbital period, eccentricity,
inclination, apparent magnitude and radius. Other information may
be available from the I.A.U. Data for the planets is easy to find.

Here are the radii for the known satelites. Parenthetic values are
uncertain by at least 10 percent. Parenthetic names await approval by
the IAU. Compound radii are the values for the "best-fit" triaxial
ellipsoid (for those of a strange shape.)


				Radius (km.)
EARTH
		Moon		1,738

MARS
MI		Phobos		14   11   9
MII		Deimos		(8)  6    (5)

JUPITER
(J16)		(Metis)		(20)
(J15)		(Adrastea)	12   10   8
JV		Amalthea	135  85   75
JXIV		Thebe		55   ?    45
JI		Io		1,815
JII		Europa		1,569
JIII		Ganymede	2,631
JIV		Callisto	2,400
JXIII		Leda		(5)
JVI		Himalia		(90)
JX		Lysithea	(10)
JVII		Elara		(40)
JXII		Ananke		(10)
JXI		Carme		(15)
JVIII		Pasiphae	(20)
JIX		Sinope		(15)

SATURN
(SXV)		(Atlas)		(19)   ?   (13)
1980 S 27			70    (50) (37)
1980 S 26			(55)  (42) (33)
SX		Janus		110    95   80
SXI		Epimetheus	(70)  (57) (50)
SI		Mimas		196
SII		Enceladus	250
SIII		Tethys		530
SXIII		Telesto		?     (12) (11)
SXIV		Calipso		(15)  (12) (8)
SIV		Dione		560
1980 S 6			(18)   ?   (<15)
SV		Rhea		765
SVI		Titan		2,575
SVII		Hyperion	175    117 (100)
SVIII		Iapetus		730
SIX		Phoebe		110

URANUS
UV		Miranda		(200)
UI		Ariel		665
UII		Umbriel		555
UIII		Titania		800
UIV		Oberon		815

NEPTUNE
NI		Triton		(1,750)
NII		Nereid		(200)

PLUTO
PI		Charon		(500)


	Gordon  "returning to longtitude zero"  Watson

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 84 11:32:00-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!ths @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Trivia

O' Henry....that was a trick question! The LEM was hardly a
"major" piece of Apollo hardware being less than 1% of the
Saturn V launch weight. No doubt there were two people on each
flight that thought otherwise.

Your reference to the LEM as a "modern" rocket was also
a bit questionable, since the LEM hasn't flown in the
past twelve years. I would guess that since there wasn't
anyone on the Lunar surface that needed protecting from
an errant missile a self destruct system was not seriously
considered.

While your thinking up another trivia, let me run one up the
flag pole...."what was the first missile to fly using gimbaled
engines for control". This was also perhaps the first liquid
fueled rocket to employ the cluster concept since it was powered
by four engines.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 84 9:46:51-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Want Soviet space data? / Usenet via satellite

A month ago, I posted a summary of a presentation by Marcia Smith of the
Library on Congress on Soviet space.  I have received a copy of her
viewgraphs and will post [lots of typing] significant tables and Soviet
'names': satellites, launch sites, and others, if I get at least
six or seven requests to do so.

Also, since the time of Usenix and the Weinstein propsal to circulate
net.news via satellite, I see than Danny Cohen at USC-ISI just
released a paper on Real Time Packet Video via Satellite for those
still interested.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,menlo70,dual,icase,research,hao}!ames-lm!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 10 Jul 84 0:13:46 EDT
From:     Joe Pistritto <jcp@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
To:       Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject:  Fire after launch abort

As the article in Aviation Week which I summarized part of earlier
mentioned, there was indeed fire around Discovery after the abort, it was
caused by Hydrogen venting from the unstarted engine, (which was being
cycled into a firing sequence when the shutdown occurred, with the fuel
valve aready 10% open).  Also, to control pressures, the fuel and oxidyzer
line valves were alternately closed and opened to allow excess pressure to
vent.  The fire was merely this gas flaring off around the pad.  Since the
shuttle is covered with heat resistant tiles, it was in no danger, but
some of the control wiring to/from the gantry tower (as well as the tower
itself, and supporting structure under Discovery), probably was.  Hence
the use of the water deluge system to suppress the fire.  There were
numerous times in the 20 minutes after abort when the fire detectors on
level 1 and 2 of the gantry tower illuminated lights in the firing room
indication fire however, so it was a real problem.  (It was very difficult
to see the flames in TV or still photographs though, as gas fires are
typically very thin flames, (although sometimes very large in size)).

					-JCP-

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 84 13:37:44-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Engine to be Replaced

A simulated ignition of Discovery's Number 3 engine yesterday yielded no
problems; the only unusual thing found was a tiny foreign particle on a
cable connector.  Due to the inconclusive troubleshooting, NASA has
decided that it would be more time efficient to replace the entire engine.
On Monday, the Number 3 engine will be replaced with the engine that used
to be Discovery's Number 1 engine until it, itself, was replaced last
month due to a now-fixed loose fuel pump thermal shield.  NASA plans to
reschedule the launch next week, with 16 and 18 July being considered as
possible launch dates.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Jul-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #244    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 244

Today's Topics:
			Re: planets and satelites
			Re: planets and satelites
			 Re: Sea Launched Missles
				discovery
			  Re: Trivia Question #2
		       Re: June 29 Science article
			  Re: Pebbles in the Sky
		 Shuttle Television Receiver Info Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 84 19:57:44-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!gsw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: planets and satelites

The currently accepted data for the satellites in the solar system
as presented in July 1983 at the International Astronomical Union
Colloquium No. 77 (Natural Satellites) was presented in Sky and Telescope,
November 1983. I have reproduced part of it below.

The information given in S&T does not include the masses of the satellites
but does include their orbital radius, orbital period, eccentricity,
inclination, apparent magnitude and radius. Other information may
be available from the I.A.U. Data for the planets is easy to find.

Here are the radii for the known satelites. Parenthetic values are
uncertain by at least 10 percent. Parenthetic names await approval by
the IAU. Compound radii are the values for the "best-fit" triaxial
ellipsoid (for those of a strange shape.)


EARTH
		Moon		1,738

MARS
MI		Phobos		14   11   9
MII		Deimos		(8)  6    (5)

JUPITER
(J16)		(Metis)		(20)
(J15)		(Adrastea)	12   10   8
JV		Amalthea	135  85   75
JXIV		Thebe		55   ?    45
JI		Io		1,815
JII		Europa		1,569
JIII		Ganymede	2,631
JIV		Callisto	2,400
JXIII		Leda		(5)
JVI		Himalia		(90)
JX		Lysithea	(10)
JVII		Elara		(40)
JXII		Ananke		(10)
JXI		Carme		(15)
JVIII		Pasiphae	(20)
JIX		Sinope		(15)

SATURN
(SXV)		(Atlas)		(19)   ?   (13)
1980 S 27			70    (50) (37)
1980 S 26			(55)  (42) (33)
SX		Janus		110    95   80
SXI		Epimetheus	(70)  (57) (50)
SI		Mimas		196
SII		Enceladus	250
SIII		Tethys		530
SXIII		Telesto		?     (12) (11)
SXIV		Calipso		(15)  (12) (8)
SIV		Dione		560
1980 S 6			(18)   ?   (<15)
SV		Rhea		765
SVI		Titan		2,575
SVII		Hyperion	175    117 (100)
SVIII		Iapetus		730
SIX		Phoebe		110

URANUS
UV		Miranda		(200)
UI		Ariel		665
UII		Umbriel		555
UIII		Titania		800
UIV		Oberon		815

NEPTUNE
NI		Triton		(1,750)
NII		Nereid		(200)

PLUTO
PI		Charon		(500)


	Gordon  "returning to longtitude zero"  Watson

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 84 19:41:30-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!gsw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: planets and satelites

The currently accepted data for the satellites in the solar system
as presented in July 1983 at the International Astronomical Union
Colloquium No. 77 (Natural Satelites) was presented in Sky and Telescope,
November 1983. I have reproduced part of it below.

The information given in S&T does not include the masses of the satellites
but does include their orbital radius, orbital period, eccentricity,
inclination, apparent magnitude and radius. Other information may
be available from the I.A.U. Data for the planets is easy to find.

Parenthetic values are uncertain by at least 10 percent. Parenthetic
names await approval by the IAU. Compound radii are the values for
the "best-fit" triaxial ellipsoid (for those of a strange shape.)


EARTH
		Moon		1,738

MARS
MI		Phobos		14   11   9
MII		Deimos		(8)  6    (5)

JUPITER
(J16)		(Metis)		(20)
(J15)		(Adrastea)	12   10   8
JV		Amalthea	135  85   75
JXIV		Thebe		55   ?    45
JI		Io		1,815
JII		Europa		1,569
JIII		Ganymede	2,631
JIV		Callisto	2,400
JXIII		Leda		(5)
JVI		Himalia		(90)
JX		Lysithea	(10)
JVII		Elara		(40)
JXII		Ananke		(10)
JXI		Carme		(15)
JVIII		Pasiphae	(20)
JIX		Sinope		(15)

SATURN
(SXV)		(Atlas)		(19)   ?   (13)
1980 S 27			70    (50) (37)
1980 S 26			(55)  (42) (33)
SX		Janus		110    95   80
SXI		Epimetheus	(70)  (57) (50)
SI		Mimas		196
SII		Enceladus	250
SIII		Tethys		530
SXIII		Telesto		?     (12) (11)
SXIV		Calipso		(15)  (12) (8)
SIV		Dione		560
1980 S 6			(18)   ?   (<15)
SV		Rhea		765
SVI		Titan		2,575
SVII		Hyperion	175    117 (100)
SVIII		Iapetus		730
SIX		Phoebe		110

URANUS
UV		Miranda		(200)
UI		Ariel		665
UII		Umbriel		555
UIII		Titania		800
UIV		Oberon		815

NEPTUNE
NI		Triton		(1,750)
NII		Nereid		(200)

PLUTO
PI		Charon		(500)


	Gordon  "returning to longtitude zero"  Watson

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 84 18:23:13-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Sea Launched Missles

It is truely frightening that someone should seriously propose a bunch
of killer robots that must actively be kept in check to prevent nuclear
attack. I'm refering, of course, to the robot nuclear subs that surface
every once in a while and check for a radio signal.  If the signal is
not there they begin their attack.

When dealing with something as essential as our survival, I believe
we should strive for passive systems (greater reliability) and should
never give up human control of the nuclear button.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 1984 11:38:12-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: discovery

One of our PghL5 people was in the control room (by invitation of a friend)
during the whole thing. His impression was that nobody was really in control
or knew what was happening for several minutes. They had ground crews
stalled half way between safety and the Discovery, not knowing whether to
run or go back. The evacuation decision may have been very close, in which
case the astronauts take a wire ride into to a little concrete bunker. I
would say that the ground crew had need of judicious use of several rolls of
toilet paper at about that time...

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 1984 15:19-EST
From: Edward.Tecot@CMU-CS-H.ARPA
Subject: Re: Trivia Question #2
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

Could that be the Atlas?  Developed at Ames I think?

					_emt

------------------------------

	id AA05430; Tue, 10 Jul 84 10:28:43 pdt
	id AA23183; Tue, 10 Jul 84 10:28:43 pdt
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 84 10:28:43 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407101728.AA23183@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: June 29 Science article

	What was the basis of Rand's figures?  How did they get reliable
numbers for probability of component failure?

------------------------------

	id AA05494; Tue, 10 Jul 84 10:31:08 pdt
	id AA23268; Tue, 10 Jul 84 10:31:08 pdt
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 84 10:31:08 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407101731.AA23268@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Pebbles in the Sky

	What US nuclear explosion in the 60's -- I don't think that the US
has had any atmospheric explosions since the 50's, and as far as I know
there have never been any nuclear explosions in space...

------------------------------

Message-ID: <13104@Wayne-MTS>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 84 23:38:38 EDT
From: Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Shuttle Television Receiver Info Request

I'm  interested  in  receiving space shuttle television
broadcasts directly on my TV. I recently heard of a low
frequency receiver attachment you can put on your TV to
receive shuttle  television  transmissions.  Apparently,
this  is  a  $14  device you hook on to your TV antenna
where it connects to the TV. What you see  are  the  TV
broadcasts  shown  on the news - the shuttle broadcasts
television images to  substations  on  earth,  and  the
substations  relay  them  around  the world at very low
frequencies. Does anyone have any information on such a
device  - where can I obtain one, and for how much? Has
anyone used one?

Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne.MTS%UMich.MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #245    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 245

Today's Topics:
			   Apollo Film Question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 1984 09:27-EST
From: James.Sherman@CMU-CS-SPICE.ARPA
Subject: Apollo Film Question
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <458400456/jss@CMU-CS-SPICE>

I have seen several times, movies taken from the second stage of
an Apollo, looking aft, showing the first stage separating and drifting
off toward Earth. Usually the film continues and the viewer sees the
separation ring also being ejected and flying off.  How did NASA get
these pictures? I thought that the 2nd stage burned up upon reentry.

Also, I heard that Discovery failed an engine test on tuesday (7/10). Any
confirmation???

- jss

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #246    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 246

Today's Topics:
			New Discovery Launch Date
		    Pentagon dissatisfied with Shuttle
		    Discovery launch date announced   
		    Length of Neptune's day measured  
			RE nuclear tests in space
		      Re: RE nuclear tests in space
			       Mailing list
		    Re: Discovery status and Bob Truax
		    Re: Discovery status and Bob Truax
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 84 11:48 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: New Discovery Launch Date
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Anderson.ES@XEROX.ARPA

NASA is currently holding a press conference right now, and has
announced that Discovery's maiden voyage will launch no earlier than
August 24.  The mission will be a combination of the 41D and 41E
missions with most of the payload being from 41D.  The 41D crew will fly
the mission, with the 41E crew being assigned to a later mission.

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 1984 1356-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MC
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: Pentagon dissatisfied with Shuttle
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 12030246264.33.583.7769 at DEC-MARLBORO>

So the Pentagon is talking about bowing out of the Shuttle program?  I can't
blame the NASA people for their frustration!  The Shuttle was reworked
extensively for the Pentagon's sake, and now they are giving them the shaft. 
For the military to complain about cost and reliability problems is enough
to make one choke.  Who is it who builds million-dollar tanks that only
run a hundred miles between breakdowns?  Who is it who can only keep half
of their fifty million dollar fighters flying at any one time?

The Pentagon is dreaming if they think they can equal the Shuttle's cost and
performance combination by 1988. The Shuttle is already well down the learning
curve.  Building a booster from scratch in four years that will beat it is
grossly optimistic.  Look at the Ariane program.  That was begun in the
mid-70's and they still blow up on the launch pad.  I suspect that a power
play is going on here.  The missile people are probably unhappy that most of
their launches are going to be done by civilians.  They tell people that they
are uneasy about the Shuttle's well-publicized difficulties, and then
put forth a proposal that protects their own turf.  NASA tried to head off
this kind of manuevering by giving the Air Force their own shuttle at 
Vandenburg, but I guess someone was not cut in for enough of the action.

John Redford
   --------

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 84  1407 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Discovery launch date announced   
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a106  0934  12 Jul 84
PM-Space Shuttle,330
Two Flights to be Combined for August Mission 
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA announced today it will combine
space shuttle Discovery's first and second flights into a single
mission and launch the ship on Aug. 24.
    The decision was announced by Jesse Moore, acting shuttle director,
at a news conference in Washington. The conference was monitored by
reporters here and at other space agency centers.
    By flying a combined mission, NASA will eliminate one shuttle flight
and keep the shuttle schedule on track. Officials had been concerned
about bunching up the schedule, which accelerates to a rate of one
launch a month in October.
    The first attempt to launch Discovery on its maiden flight was
scrubbed June 25, just nine minutes before liftoff, because of a
faulty computer. The next day, a computer detected a valve failure and
ordered shutdown of the engine start sequence just four seconds
before the planned blastoff.
    Shuttle managers started seriously considering a combined mission
last week and were ready to announce that decision Monday when another
complication arose: A Star-48 rocket nozzle failed in a test chamber
at the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis.
    Star-48 rockets are on the two communications satellites which are
to be added to the cargo of the combined mission, and their owners,
Satellite Business Systems and AT&T, did not want to commit to flight
until the problem was understood.
    The problem has not been completely resolved, but it is believed the
failure was the result of test conditions and not a nozzle defect. If
it turns out to be a nozzle problem, the sources said the two
satellites still could be removed from the manifest, with Discovery
then being launched with its original flight plan.
    Work crews here have been directed to prepare to roll Discovery from
the launch pad back to a hangar on Saturday so the two new satellites
can be loaded in the cargo bay.
    The combined mission will keep a Leasat communications satellite, a
solar panel package and a miniature drug factory from the first
manifest and add the two communications satellites. Pushed off to
later flights will be a large Earth-mapping camera from Flight 1 and a
second Hughes Communications Leasat satellite from Flight 2.
    
ap-ny-07-12 1234EDT
**********

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 84  1410 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Length of Neptune's day measured  
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a026  0118  12 Jul 84
PM-Neptune Clouds,520
Photos Allow First Direct Measurement Of Neptune's Length of a Day
Laserphoto LA3
By LEE SIEGEL
AP Science Writer
    PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - The clearest photographs yet of Neptune and
its giant clouds have enabled scientists for the first time to
precisely determine the length of a day on the solar system's eighth
planet - 17 hours and 50 minutes.
    The new photographs show three 5,000-mile-diameter cloud patches in
Neptune's outer atmosphere in the planet's middle latitudes.
    The clouds are believed to rotate at the same speed as the entire
planet, so the photos ''allowed us to measure the length of the day on
Neptune by watching cloud features move all the way around,'' Richard
J. Terrile, a Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist, said Wednesday.
    Terrile said it's the first time scientists have directly measured
the length of a day on Neptune.
    ''These are some of the clearest pictures ever taken of Neptune,''
he said. ''... It's the first time we've been able to see the rotation
of the clouds in Neptune directly.''
    Previous observations by telescope showed changes in the brightness
of sunlight reflected by Neptune's clouds as the planet rotated -
changes that led scientists to conclude that a day on the planet
lasted somewhere between 17 and 18 1/2 hours, Terrile said.
    The latest series of photos, while still fuzzy by earthly standards,
clearly shows the cloud patches and their movement as the planet
rotates. Terrile said he calculated that a day on Neptune is about 17
hours and 50 minutes long.
    The clouds, probably made of frozen methane, likely are relatively
fixed features of Neptune's atmosphere, like the giant red spot in
Jupiter's atmosphere, Terrile said. So the clouds' 17-hour, 50-minute
rotation corresponds with the rotation speed of the planet, he added.
    But if winds make the clouds move at a different speed than the
planet itself, the actual length of day could be different, Terrile
said.
    Even newer photographs of Neptune await examination to determine if
the clouds remain stable, he said.
    Neptune, at a distance of nearly 3 billion miles from the sun, is
not visible to the naked eye on Earth, even though it is the fourth
largest of the solar system's nine planets with a diameter of 31,000
miles. By comparison, Earth's diameter measures some 8,000 miles.
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory operates America's unmanned space
exploration program for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. JPL scientists expect to learn much more about Neptune
in August 1989, when the Voyager 2 spacecraft encounters the planet
and its moons.
    Terrile and Bradford A. Smith of the University of Arizona took the
detailed photographs of Neptune in May 1983 using the du Pont
telescope at the Carnegie Institution's Las Campas Observatory in
Chile. The photographs, which recorded light at nearly infrared
wavelengths invisible to the human eye, were not released until
Wednesday because ''it takes a long time to interpret them'' and the
researchers were busy with other studies, Terrile said.
    Researchers already believed clouds existed on Neptune, but Terrile
said the latest photos were ''exciting because clearly there's
evidence of weather patterns in the (planet's) atmosphere.''
    
ap-ny-07-12 0418EDT
**********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 84 17:48:17 EDT
From: John Heimann <jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA>
Subject: RE nuclear tests in space
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

	In 1962, prior to the Limited NUclear Test Ban Treaty, the
US detonated one and the Soviet Union three nuclear weapons at high altitude.
It's been several years since I took a course on arms control, but I believe
that the US test was code-named ALOHA and took place at a 100 mile altitude.
As I recall these three tests significantly increased the density of high
energy particles in the Van Allen radiation belts.

					John

------------------------------

	id AA16249; Thu, 12 Jul 84 16:03:39 pdt
	id AA05471; Thu, 12 Jul 84 16:03:01 pdt
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 84 16:05:02 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbchip@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407122305.869@ucbchip.ARPA>
	id AA00869; Thu, 12 Jul 84 16:05:02 pdt
To: jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA, space@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: RE nuclear tests in space
Cc: POURNE@MIT-MC.ARPA, Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.ARPA

	Let's wish away for a moment the Test Ban Treaty and the Space
Treaty, or (better) wish that they are modified to permit Project Orion
launches from earth orbit.  Under those assumptions, does the data from the
Aloha and the Soviet tests give any indication of what conditions must be
met for a safe Orion-style launch?

						-- Rick

------------------------------

	id AA16602; Thu, 12 Jul 84 16:28:07 pdt
From: ihnp4!lznv!lzpa!rbr@Berkeley
Date: 12 Jul 84 18:18:01 CDT (Thu)
Message-Id: <8407122318.AA08556@ihnp4.ATT.UUCP>
Subject: Mailing list
Apparently-To: ucbvax!C70:space

Dear fa.space editor,

I am an employee of AT&T Information Systems in Lincroft N.J. and
would like to be added to the mailing list for this digest.  My
vital statistics are:

	Name:		Robert R. Barbato
	Company:	AT&T Information Systems
	USnail address:	307 Middletown-Lincroft Rd
			Lincroft, N.J.  07738
	E-mail address:	ihnp4!lznv!rbr

If I have sent this request to the wrong place could you please

	1) forward to the guilty, if possible
	2) failing that, send me some mail so I know my request
	   has not been ignored.

I don't have access to Netnews, so this is my only hope to receive
the digest.  Thanks.
					Bob Barbato

Cc: rbr

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 1984 19:25-EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA
Subject: Re: Discovery status and Bob Truax
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <458522737/dmw@CMU-CS-UNH>

McNeil/Lehrer just said tonight that the delayed Discovery mission and
the next one would be combined into one mission in August.  That's
about all the details on the launch.  They also had a commentator who
felt that NASA had to get the shuttle operating reliably and on time by
then end of 1985 if they didn't want to lose lots of commercial
customers.

They also had a real interesting piece on Bob Truax, what he's really
doing, how he's doing it, and his plans.  His rocket engines, like
everything else, are surplus Atlas vernier engines.  He had a
successful test firing recently.  The capsule is barely big enough to
hold a person in a fetal position.  The capsule is so small that the
astronaut can't wear a space suit, and there is no life support.  As
Truax says, life support is a deep breath.  He's tested a man sitting
in the capsule for 30 minutes.    The first flight will be a 15-minute
suborbital one.  The rocket is launched from the back of a barge and
lands engine-end down in the water.  He has actually drop-tested a
mockup in the water.

A few senior retired Lockheed people were interviewed.  They seemed to
feel that Truax wasn't totally crazy, and that a sub-orbital flight was
possible, but they didn't want their son on it.

------------------------------

	id AA21595; Thu, 12 Jul 84 23:03:47 pdt
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 84 23:05:38 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an h19-u) <mcgeer%ucbchip@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407130605.1003@ucbchip.ARPA>
	id AA01003; Thu, 12 Jul 84 23:05:38 pdt
To: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA, space@mit-mc
Subject: Re: Discovery status and Bob Truax
Cc: 

	The astronaut on the Truax flight is certainly serious about it --
he's financing the thing to the tune of $600,000.  There are other sponsors,
of course.

	Truax may not need to many sponsors.  He got his engines - 15 of
them - for $125 each.

					Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Jul-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #247    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 247

Today's Topics:
		Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown? - (nf)
			Computer Problem Isolated
     Re: Just when you thought it was going to be a dull election...
		      Fire after Discovery Shutdown!
		    Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown!
     Re: Just when you thought it was going to be a dull election...
			  Nuke in space, (again)
	       Star-48 Nozzle Compounds Scheduling Problem
	  Space Day 1984 - Big Space-Related Event in Trenton NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 84 7:51:08-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown? - (nf)

The water system is not to prevent metal from melting.  It was installed
after STS-1 to help cushion the giant shockwave resulting from SRB
ignition.  As some may recall, it was this shockwave that ripped off most
of the lost STS-1 tiles as well as bent some support structures.  The
water system, which begins to fire seconds before SSME ignition, shoots
100,000 gallons of water per second throughout the flame trench.  Also,
there are bags of water under the SSME's and SRB's.  These are, of course,
blown into oblivion.

I don't know whether or not the water system that was used to put out the
fire was this shockwave suppression system or not.

Adam

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 84 7:43:55-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Computer Problem Isolated

Engineers have located the source of the problem that grounded the
Discovery for the first time two weeks ago.  It was a broken microscopic
wire on an integrated circuit in the I/O system of the backup computer.
When the four main GPC's (general purpose computer) detected the failure
of the backup computer, they decided to scrub the launch.  The next day,
of course, they did the same thing when the engine valve failed to open.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 84 11:26:36-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!rti!crm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it was going to be a dull election...

This LaRouche fellow may be familiar to some of you all --  did you ever get
accosted by the people in airports trying to sell Fusion magazine and
bumper stickers that said things like "Nuke Jane Fonda"?

Yeah, those are the same people.  LaRouche also has some wild economics ideas
that he claims revolutionize the whole field, and used to be associated with
the U.S. Labor Party (which I think he founded...)

Re: the economics ideas -- the Nobel committee hasn't noticed him yet ;
no doubt because of Communist influence.

The best reason I can think of to not worry about him is that he has been
raving for some long time, and still hasn't been able to make much impact.
Still, he probably bears watching.

	Anybody know how to get hold of Remo and Chiun (he said obliquely)?

Charlie Martin

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 84 8:11:00-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!wateng!pdbain @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Fire after Discovery Shutdown!

I watched the news footage of the launch, and I could see flames around the
plumbing for the engines. The news commentator indicated that heat detectors 
then activated the sprinkler system which I saw spraying up into the engines.
	-peter

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 84 18:11:25-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!burl!clyde!bonnie!dpw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown!

The best preflight and postflight coverage of Space Shuttle missions I've
found is in Aviation Week and Space Technology.  Craig Covault generally
writes a multi-segment preview of a mission and tries out Shuttle hardware
(MMU, CANADARM, Shuttle Simulator, etc.).

The Discovery abort analysis points to potential fuel system
over-pressures as the main point of concern.  Hydrogen and Oxygen venting
(and the resulting fire) were necessary to safe the combined engine and
external tank fuel systems.  The fire suppression water system was
intended for use in such circumstances.  At about 10 minutes after
shutdown the water system was used to put out the first of several fires.
Apparently there was less concern about the fires (low temperatures as far
as Discovery was concerned) than preventing an explosion in the fuel
system.  Read Av. Week July 2 for details.

David Williams (AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany NJ)
whuxo!clyde!bonnie!dpw

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 84 23:32:54-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!nsc!proper!mikevp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it was going to be a dull election...

I saw Lyndon LaRouche on TV a couple of years ago.  He's one of the
few political types around who really scares me.  Something about his
eyes... grim fanaticism.

  What really aggravates me is that he has filched some of my favorite
  soapboxes:  Nuclear power, BMD, and space development.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 1984 11:34:49-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Nuke in space, (again)

I posted this same response only about a month ago. The explosion of a
nuclear device in space occured circ 1961-62. It was launched from Johnston
Island and if anyone cares to go library searching there was a LIFE magazine
pictorial of it. The explosion was one of the last before Kennedy and
Kruschev agreed to a test ban.

It was also around this time that the soviets fired off a superbomb at
Novaya Zemyla (airburst, not space burst!!). It was (possibly) as large as
100MT.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 84 18:07:39-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Star-48 Nozzle Compounds Scheduling Problem

Back in February, when two communications satellites, Westar-6
and Palapa-B, were placed into errant orbits, it was a Star-48
rocket nozzle that failed.  Back in May, engineers at MacDonald-
Douglas, which builds the solid fueled upper stage rocket, said
they had solved the problem.  But, just after the order had been
given to begin preparations to roll Discovery back to its hangar
so that two satellites from the mission after this could be loaded
aboard, in a decision to combine the aborted mission with its
successor, tests at MacDonald-Douglas revealed another faulty
nozzle.  Thus the order was rescinded, and NASA is again confused
about the shuttle schedule.  If MacDonald-Douglas and its customers
decide to wait until more tests can be conducted, the aborted
mission may launch by early August; however, the mission after that
could very well be postponed several months, thus putting the whole
shuttle schedule up in arms.  NASA is unsure over just what to do
next, and the agency has not released a date for a decision.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 84 11:06:13-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxm!mhuxi!charm!mam @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Space Day 1984 - Big Space-Related Event in Trenton NJ

[My mind is going, Dave.  I can feel it.]

		ANNOUNCEMENT:

	On July 21, the 15th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon,
there will be an all-day Space Day event at the New Jersey State Museum in 
Trenton.  There will be speakers, planetarium shows, a video room, and
movies.  The schedules will be as follows:

		Video:

9:00-10:00 25 Years in Space: A Reprise
10:00-10:35 Skylab Science Experiments
		(includes: Zero-G (1974, 15 minutes)
			   Conservation Laws in 0-G (1974, 17 minutes) )
10:35-11:00 Shuttle Spacewalk Set to Music (by E. Leeper)
11:00-1:00  L5 Video Show
		STS-1 Press Conference (17 min.)
		STS-3 Postflight Press Conference (17 min.)
		STS-8 Postflight Press Conference (15 min.)
		The Next Frontier: Intro to L5 Society (40 min.)
		NASA Report: Space Colonization (5 min.)
		NASA Report: Space Solar Power (5 min.)
		Zero Gravity Gymnastics (7 min.)
		Jupiter and Saturn Rotation Films (14 min.)
1:00-2:00   Business in Space: Free Enterprise Reaches Out
2:00-3:00   Careers in Space
		Space for Women (1981, 28 min.)
		Where Dreams Come True (1979, 28 min.)
3:00-5:00   History of the Early Apollo Program
		Apollo 8: Go for TLI (1969, 22 min.)
		Apollo 9: Three to Make Ready (1969, 17 min.)
		Apollo 10: To Sort Out the Unknowns (1969, 25 min.)
		Eagle Has Landed: The Flight of Apollo 11 (1969, 28 min.)


		Speaker's Schedule

9:00-9:30  Intro to Model Rocketry, James Newquist
9:30-10:00  Model Rocketry Demo, James Newquist
10:00-11:00 The Work of the Space Studies Institute, April Whitt,
			Executive Director, SSI, including slides and
			video tape
11:00-12:00 RCA Astro-Electronics
12:00-1:00  History of the Space Program, slides&lecture by J. Striab,
			Prof. of Physics, Villanova
1:00-2:00   The L5 Society and Mankind's Future in Space, slides&lecture
			by Chuck Divine, President, North Jersey L5
2:00-3:00   The Space Shuttle Main Engines, slides&lectures by
			J.R. Thompson, Deputy Director, Forrestal Labs,
			former Chief Engineer for Space Shuttle
3:00-4:00   Intro to Model Rocketry, James Newquist
4:00-4:30   Model Rocketry Demo, James Newquist

		Planetarium Schedule

10:00-11:00 Movies: The Sunbeam Connection, The Weather Machine, and other
		science shorts
11:00-12:00 Planetarium Show: Countdown: 25 Years in Space
12:00-1:00  Planetarium Show: Summer Stars for Tots
1:00-2:00   Planetarium Show: Countdown: 25 Years in Space
2:00-3:00   Planetarium Show: Summer Stars for Tots
3:00-3:30   Movie: TRON
3:30-4:00   Planetarium Show: Coundown: 25 Years in Space


	This event is brought to you by the North Jersey L5 Society,
makers of fine space-related events, and by the New Jersey State Museum of
Science, where the Moon can be yours for a few dollars admission.

		DIRECTIONS:

>From the North:
	Route 29 South to Calhoun or Willow St. Exits
	Route 31 South to I-95 South to Exit 1 (Trenton) Route 29 S to Calhoun
		or Willow St. Exits
	Route 1 South to Market St. Exit

>From Turnpike (from North):
	Get off exit 9, onto Rt. 1, follow to Market St.

>From East NJ
	Rte. 33 W to Nottingham Way to Greenwood Ave around 2 adjacent
	circles to Market St.

>From South NJ
	NJ Turnpike N to Ex. 7, Rte 206 N to South Broad St. to Lalor St.
	to Rte 29 N (John Fitch Pkwy)

	I-295 to Rte 130 N to Rte 206 N, coninue as above

******* Disclaimer *******
	These directions were supplied by someone else and came with a
	sketchy map which I obviously can't reproduce.  Therefore, go at
	own risk.
**************************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #248    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 248

Today's Topics:
		How long will sand or pebbles stay in GOE?
			 SPACE Digest V4 #247    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 84 20:04:17 PDT
From: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: How long will sand or pebbles stay in GOE?
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA

I botched my first attempt, so here goes again...

How long would sand, pebbles, bowling balls, or whatever stay in
(anti)GEO? I just don't have a feel for that sort of thing. I'd guess
that things like solar radiation are area dependent and mass (stability)
is volume dependent, so bigger things should last longer. Would they
last years, centurys, ...?

For that matter, how long will a satelite stay in GEO without power
and/or how much power does it take to keep a satelite in the right
place?

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 1984 00:00-PDT
Sender: RMCCON@SRI-CSL
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #247    
Subject: do
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A.ARPA>
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
To: rmccon@SRI-CSL
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL]15-Jul-84 00:00:51.RMCCON>
Return-Path: <OTA@S1-A.ARPA>


Date: 13 Jul 1984 11:34:49-EDT From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Nuke in space, (again)

I posted this same response only about a month ago.  The
explosion of a nuclear device in space occured circ 1961-62.  It
was launched from Johnston Island and if anyone cares to go
library searching there was a LIFE magazine pictorial of it.  The
explosion was one of the last before Kennedy and Kruschev agreed
to a test ban.

It was also around this time that the soviets fired off a
superbomb at Novaya Zemyla (airburst, not space burst!!).  It was
(possibly) as large as 100MT.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Jul-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #249    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 249

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Missions Combined -- Launch Date Set
		    Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown?
		  How long will a satellite stay in GEO?
     Re: Just when you thought it was going to be a dull election...
			       Slip covers
			   Re: USENET satellite
		Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown? - (nf)
			  Re: OMNI ASAT article
	Viewgraphs of Soviet space activities (with minor editing)
      Big Space-Related Event at NJ State Museum of Science, Trenton
			  Re: OMNI ASAT article
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 84 6:30:06-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Missions Combined -- Launch Date Set

I had heard that Leasat-2 would be added to mission 51A, currently set for
launch Nov. 2 and that SPARTAN-1 would be put with 41G, to launch Oct. 1.
What's the real scoop?  And have they made a decision whether or not 51A
will really be used to rescue Westar 6 and/or Palapa B-2 or will it just
deploy its Telesat of Canada comsat and run its experiments (including the
GAS stuff)?
--
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 84 10:01:45-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown?

(1):  Yes, there was a small hydrogen fire in the tail of the orbiter after
      the aborted launch.  Fire suppression equipment in the rear of
      the orbiter put it out without difficulty.

(2):  That water may have been the sound suppression system in action.  I
      have not seen the entire launch sequence on tape yet, so I can't say
      that was the source of the water for sure.

      The sound suppression system, for those joining us late, is required
      because the launch pad is a giant slab of concrete.  Apparently the
      old Saturn Vs had a relatively quiet ignition; when the SRBs of the
      Shuttle ignite, a *very* strong shock wave leaves the engines, hits
      the pad, and bounces straight back into the ET and orbiter.  (Note:
      this was not anticipated, in part because the SRBs had not been fired
      on the launch pad, as the SSMEs had.)

      According to one of my former professors (who monitored air quality 
      during the launch) NASA determined that the most dangerous point of
      STS-1 occured just a few seconds after launch -- when this echo was
      reverbating throughout the orbiter and ET.  In fact, they found a 
      four-foot reinforcement rod bent in the orbiter's nose.  Add this to
      the well documented "walk" of the orbiter across the launch pad and
      Young & Crippen had an interesting couple of seconds.

      Anyway, instead of rebuilding the launch pads (out of nice fireproof
      soundabsorbing materials) NASA decided to dump a couple of tons of
      water between the Shuttle and the pad.  The general idea is that the
      acoustical energy will be spent breaking the water drops into water
      vapor, instead of the Shuttle system into a giant fire-cracker.  
      I recall that there was quite a bit of debate at the time over the
      usefulness of this approach, but it apparently has worked.


Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles		university of central florida
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay			orlando, florida 32816

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 1984 7:55-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA
To: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: How long will a satellite stay in GEO?

Radiation pressure itself won't cause a satellite's to decay very fast,
because accelerations on opposite sides of the orbit cancel out.  The
fuel is mainly to keep satellites at the correct longitude.

When comsats have exceded their useful lives they are boosted to a
somewhat larger orbit.  Decay time from this orbit must be fairly long
for this to work (how much bigger are these orbits?).

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 84 8:08:15-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!fluke!moriarty @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it was going to be a dull election...

>	Anybody know how to get hold of Remo and Chiun (he said obliquely)?

Yes, why isn't there a master of Sinaju around when you need one?

			"That's the biz, sweetheart"

					Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
					John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
 {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
    {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
	fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 84 17:53:32-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!greg @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Slip covers

I was asked this the other day, in all seriousness:

"What color are the slip covers used to cover the seats in the shuttles?"

I don't have any idea.  Does anybody know?

Tks.
-- 
-- Greg Noel, NCR Torrey Pines       Greg@sdcsvax.UUCP or Greg@nosc.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 84 23:08:21-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: sun!idi!kiessig @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: USENET satellite

	It's much simpler to use VIR space off of an existing
television channel.  Lauren gave a talk on this at the last
Usenix conference.

-- 
Rick Kiessig
{decvax, ucbvax}!sun!idi!kiessig
{akgua, allegra, amd70, burl, cbosgd, dual, ihnp4}!idi!kiessig
Phone: 408-996-2399

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 84 20:36:02-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!cca!ima!haddock!stevel @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown? - (nf)

#R:decwrl:-234400:haddock:10400003:000:370
haddock!stevel    Jul  6 11:15:00 1984

It is standard procedure to shoot water all over the thrust deflectors
just below the engine starting just before launch. This help keep
the metal from melting away, or just weakening too much. That is
probably what you saw. I assume the engine just burned itself out
once the fuel was shut off.

Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {amd70|ihnp4!cbosgd}!ima!stevel

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 84 8:23:28-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!wivax!apollo!eric @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: OMNI ASAT article

>The most recent issue of OMNI magazine has an article by Oberg about
>a technique the Soviets could use to wipe out all satellites in
>geosynchronous orbit.

>Upon command, the satellite would expel its
>cargo of pebbles/sand grains/etc.  US satellites in geo would encounter
>the objects at twice orbital velocity, once every 12 hours.

What a mess that would make!  GEO orbits are VALUABLE!  And it would be
a long time (if ever) before anyone could clean them up.  Who thinks of
this stuff, I wonder?

Eric Peters    (...decvax!wivax!apollo!eric)
Apollo Computer Inc., Chelmsford, MA

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 84 12:27:43-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Viewgraphs of Soviet space activities (with minor editing)

[]

Soviet Space Activities

Marcia S. Smith
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress

Soviet Launch sites: (map)
Plesetsk (near Akhangel'sk)
Kapustin Yar (near Volgagrad)
Tyuratam
/* Each corresponds to existing US lanunch sites: one for polar, another for
small, and other for most other lanuches */

Soviet Space Program Elements

Unmanned scientific program
Unnammed applications
Unmanned military
Manned civilian programs
Manned military programs
/* Again note parallels to partitioning, regarding parallels: note that
not all parallels are do to copying, but consider physical factors such as
the nature of fluid dynamics which make our shuttle and their space plane
look very much alike. */

Soviet Unmanned Scientific Space

Earth Orbital (On going)

	Kosmos	/* a general designation used for failures, too */
	Interkosmos (22 fls. since 1969) /*sorry no notes, forgot why diff */
	Prognoz (9 fls since 1967)
Lunar
	Luna/Lunokhod (24 fls since 1959, 3 successful sample returns, 2
			rovers (lunokhods))
	Zond
Planetary
	Mars ( 7 fls) /*none suscessful*/
	Venus (16 fls since 1961) /*partially successfull*/

Soviet Unmanned Applications

Weather
	Meteor
Earth Resources
	Kosmos and Salyut (film)  /*note emphasis on film rather than imaging*/
	Meteor-Priroda (scanner)  /*newer trend*/
Communications
	Molniya
	Statsionar Series (1st geostat. in 1974)
	Raduga/Gorizont (Communication)
	Ekran (Broadcasting)
	Intersputnik organization  /*guess!*/
	Inmarsat
Navigation
	Tsikada /*like US programs*/
	Glonass
Ocean Resources /*they have big sea ice problems, their imagery has appeared
		 in AW&ST, so tihs is a big area for them*/
Geodesy /*like US programs*/

Current Military uses of Space

Communications
Navigation
Weather
Geodesy and Mapping
Recon: (Photo, Ocean Surv., Early warning, Elect., Nuc. Exp. Detect.)
Weapons

Special Soviet Unmanned Programs
Radar Ocean Surveillance /* an important point for FBMSubs.  I asked how the
Soviets did their processing (on board or ground) to which I got a "that's
classified." */
FOBS /* this was included in SALT II agreements, but current Admin dropped*/
ASats /*enough said*/

Summary of Soviet manned programs
Vostok (1961-1963) 6 fls:1st man, 1st woman in space
Voskhod (1964-1965) 2 fls: 1st 3-man crew, 1st EVA
Soyuz (1967-1981) 38 fls, 3 unmanned, 25 manned to Salyut space stations,
			2 unmanned to stations, 19 of 25 manned fls were
			successful
Soyuz T (1979-pres.) 10 manned fls, 1 manned launch failure, 1 unmanned test
			fl.
Salyut Space station 8 launches since 1971, 6 sucessful, 5 civilian
			3 military: distinction can be made by telemtry,
			crew composition, orbit altitude and mission.

Summary of Fre Flying Soyuz missions

Soyuz 1-9 (Pre-space-station):
		S 1: Death of Pilot Komarov on Apr. 24, 1967
		S 2/3 Rendezvous between manned S 3 and unmanned S 2
		S 4/5 First docking of two manned ships, crew transfer
		via EVA
		S 6/7/8 Group flight, S 6 performed first space welding,
		S6 and S8 were supposed to dock, but did not
		S 9 New world space duration record 17 days 17 hours
Soyuz 12,13,16,19,22
		S 12 Systems test after fatal S11 (A Kosmos)
		S 13 in lieu of space station (after 2 station failures)
		8 day Earth Resources and astronomy mission
		S 16 Systems test of modified Soyuz for ASTP
		S 19 ASTP
		S 22 Earth resources with German multispectral camera
		1st non-Russian equipment on manned mission

Summary of Soyuz/Salyut Missions
Space Stations
Salyut 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,		S1, K 557, S4,6,7 were civilian missions
Kosmos 557			K577 was a failure.
				S 2,3,4 were military missions S2 was a failure

Soyuz Transport Craft
Soyuz 10/11		(Salyut 1) S 10 docked but could not enter
			S 11 sucessful 23 day 18 hour mission, but crew died on
			reentry of asphyxiation
Soyuz 14/15		(Salyut 3) Reminder of these flights were ferry craft
Soyuz 17/18A/18/20	(Salyut 4) (without solar panels) for Salyut 3,4,5,6.
Soyuz 21/23/24		(Salyut 5) Soyuz 15/18A/23/25/33/Soyuz T-8 were
				failures/ Soyuz 20 and T-2 were unmanned tests.
Soyuz 25-40 Soyuz T1-4	(Salyut 6) Soyuz 34 was unmanned replacement for 32.
				Soyuz T-3 was first 3man crew since S11.
				10 missions carried international crews.
Soyuz T5-11		(salyut 7) Soyuz T-5 crew set new duration (211 days).
				Soyuz T-7 launched second woman in space
				/*just preceded Sally Ride*/ Soyuz T10-A
				attempt aborted due to launch pad fire: crew
				used escape tower

Salyut 6 Summary
Launch Sept 26 1977, deorbited July 29, 1982, Second generation station with
two docking ports (incuding fuel transfer) with resupply missions (Progess
transport ships) and multiplew crew dockings.

Kosmos 1267 docked June 1981 for 1 year of tests related to modular space
station construction.

Crews set new duration records of 96, 140, 175, and 185 days.

18 manned Soyuz/Soyuz T flights: 2 unmanned, 12 unmanned Progress craft
(2 manned flight did not sucessfully dock 25 and 33).
9 international crews:
	28 (Remek - Czech)
	30 (Hermaszewski - Pol.)
	31 (Jahn - East Germ.)
	33 (Ivanov - Bulg)
	36 (Farkas - Hung)
	37 (Pham Tuan - Viet.)
	38 (Tamayo Mendez - Cuba)
	39 (Gurragcha - Mongolia)
	40 (Prunariu - Romania)

Experiments in biology, astronomy, materials processing, earth resources
and photography.

Salyut 7 Summary
Launch Apr 19 1982, Virtually identical to S 6, 3 crews during 1982, new
duration of 211 days, first French "spationaut" and second woman in space.
Kosmos 1443, A multipurpose module like Kosmos 1267.  Soyuz T-8 failed to
dock.  S T-9 stayed 149 days and installed solar panels (including
one GaAs panel) Appempt to launch S T 10A crew (replacement?) failed.
Soyuz T-10 crew now on board.  Two of three members have performed
multiple EVAs to repair malfunctioning fuel tank value.
Photo of 1443

Future directions of Manned Soviet Flight

Permanent Earth Orbital Station
Manned Interplanetary Missions
Manned Moon Missions
"Super Booster" /* problem of low energy fuels, even China is using H2-02*/
Space shuttle  /*and space plane, DOD terminology*/

Diagrams from Soviet Military power diagraming US Shuttle size to above
vehicles

Photo - Soviet Space plane recovery from I. Ocean


US/USSR Comparisons

/*Speaker shows viewgraph and states "You cannot just judge by numerical
values"  you get into deep water very quickly"*/
Total Launches 1957-1982

US	796 successes
	106 failures
USSR	1538 successes
	187? failures

Total launches 1983
US	22
USSR	98	/*It must be remembered that Soviet space technology
		and objectives differ.  They launch very short lived,
		satellites, they use film rather than imagers, etc.
		but on the whole our systems are better built*/

Total Manned Launches since 1961
US 	42 (3 to a space station, all sucessful)
USSR	56 (32 to space stations, 25 sucessful, +1 launch failure)

Cumulative hours in space
US	29,153:06 (Longest flight 84 days)
USSR	70,407:46 (longest flight 211 days*)
*Does not count current Soyuz T-10/T-11 mission.

/* It is this last figure which is significant, and the speaker
enumerated reasons such as fuel transfer in space, materials processing,
space health, etc.)*/



If you need certain other specifics, I will try to remember me as I didn't
take notes (next time).
If there are typos and what, not......  I spent time over three days
keying this as I am not a touch tyist.  Seriously->anybody have an
suggestions for purchasing good optical character readers?  Good meaning,
works well, service is okay, etc.  Is the Wang system any good?

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,hao,dual}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 84 19:55:00-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxm!mhuxi!charm!mam @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Big Space-Related Event at NJ State Museum of Science, Trenton

[My mind is going, Dave.  I can feel it.]

		ANNOUNCEMENT:

	On July 21, the 15th anniversary of the first landing on the Moon,
there will be an all-day Space Day event at the New Jersey State Museum in 
Trenton.  There will be speakers, planetarium shows, a video room, and
movies.  The schedules will be as follows:

		Video:

9:00-10:00 25 Years in Space: A Reprise
10:00-10:35 Skylab Science Experiments
		(includes: Zero-G (1974, 15 minutes)
			   Conservation Laws in 0-G (1974, 17 minutes) )
10:35-11:00 Shuttle Spacewalk Set to Music (by E. Leeper)
11:00-1:00  L5 Video Show
		STS-1 Press Conference (17 min.)
		STS-3 Postflight Press Conference (17 min.)
		STS-8 Postflight Press Conference (15 min.)
		The Next Frontier: Intro to L5 Society (40 min.)
		NASA Report: Space Colonization (5 min.)
		NASA Report: Space Solar Power (5 min.)
		Zero Gravity Gymnastics (7 min.)
		Jupiter and Saturn Rotation Films (14 min.)
1:00-2:00   Business in Space: Free Enterprise Reaches Out
2:00-3:00   Careers in Space
		Space for Women (1981, 28 min.)
		Where Dreams Come True (1979, 28 min.)
3:00-5:00   History of the Early Apollo Program
		Apollo 8: Go for TLI (1969, 22 min.)
		Apollo 9: Three to Make Ready (1969, 17 min.)
		Apollo 10: To Sort Out the Unknowns (1969, 25 min.)
		Eagle Has Landed: The Flight of Apollo 11 (1969, 28 min.)


		Speaker's Schedule

9:00-9:30  Intro to Model Rocketry, James Newquist
9:30-10:00  Model Rocketry Demo, James Newquist
10:00-11:00 The Work of the Space Studies Institute, April Whitt,
			Executive Director, SSI, including slides and
			video tape
11:00-12:00 RCA Astro-Electronics
12:00-1:00  History of the Space Program, slides&lecture by J. Striab,
			Prof. of Physics, Villanova
1:00-2:00   The L5 Society and Mankind's Future in Space, slides&lecture
			by Chuck Divine, President, North Jersey L5
2:00-3:00   The Space Shuttle Main Engines, slides&lectures by
			J.R. Thompson, Deputy Director, Forrestal Labs,
			former Chief Engineer for Space Shuttle
3:00-4:00   Intro to Model Rocketry, James Newquist
4:00-4:30   Model Rocketry Demo, James Newquist

		Planetarium Schedule

10:00-11:00 Movies: The Sunbeam Connection, The Weather Machine, and other
		science shorts
11:00-12:00 Planetarium Show: Countdown: 25 Years in Space
12:00-1:00  Planetarium Show: Summer Stars for Tots
1:00-2:00   Planetarium Show: Countdown: 25 Years in Space
2:00-3:00   Planetarium Show: Summer Stars for Tots
3:00-3:30   Movie: TRON
3:30-4:00   Planetarium Show: Coundown: 25 Years in Space


	This event is brought to you by the North Jersey L5 Society,
makers of fine space-related events, and by the New Jersey State Museum of
Science, where the Moon can be yours for a few dollars admission.

		DIRECTIONS:

>From the North:
	Route 29 South to Calhoun or Willow St. Exits
	Route 31 South to I-95 South to Exit 1 (Trenton) Route 29 S to Calhoun
		or Willow St. Exits
	Route 1 South to Market St. Exit

>From Turnpike (from North):
	Get off exit 9, onto Rt. 1, follow to Market St.

>From East NJ
	Rte. 33 W to Nottingham Way to Greenwood Ave around 2 adjacent
	circles to Market St.

>From South NJ
	NJ Turnpike N to Ex. 7, Rte 206 N to South Broad St. to Lalor St.
	to Rte 29 N (John Fitch Pkwy)

	I-295 to Rte 130 N to Rte 206 N, coninue as above

******* Disclaimer *******
	These directions were supplied by someone else and came with a
	sketchy map which I obviously can't reproduce.  Therefore, go at
	own risk.
**************************

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 84 19:01:35-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: OMNI ASAT article

Apparently this article claimed the Soviets could ruin GEO by putting
up a retrograde sand box.  Two things: if the Soviets can do it so can
the U.S., second - what benefit is there for either?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #250    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 250

Today's Topics:
			  Discovery Back in VAB
		      # of satellites in earth orbit
		       Re: Chicago Tribune Article
		       5 years ago today... - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 84 16:57:23-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery Back in VAB

The Discovery was moved back to the VAB today, the first
time a space shuttle has been removed from the launch pad
after being rolled out there, so that workers could separate
the ship from its external tank and SRB's.  After the
separation, the shuttle will be moved to the OFP, where
modifications will be made to the cargo bay to enable the
ship to take two extra comminucations satellites up in
August.  The new launch date is, again, 24 August.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 16 Jul 84 08:59:24-EDT
From: Anthony J. Courtemanche <AC@MIT-OZ>
Subject: # of satellites in earth orbit
To: space@MIT-MC

Can anyone tell me a rough estimate of how many working and nonworking
artificial satellites (not counting pieces of explosive bolts and
other random things) are in Earth orbit?  I had heard from a friend of
mine that it was between 70 and 100 and I am curious to find out if
this is accurate.

						Thanks in advance,
						Anthony

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 84 11:15:15-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune Article

No, the computer will not go into the scrap heap (yet, anyway). Much more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
important (at least in the NASA way of doing things) is to discover exactly
WHY the computer failed. It will most probably be sent back to the
manufacturer to be tested to death in order to find out whether the fault
was a fluke (and why) or whether it is a design error....

This is one of the major reasons why the exploration of space has been so
expensive. In a commercial operation, that computer would be tested, and if
it failed, it would be scrapped and replaced. Another $1.2 million burned.
NASA will more than likely expend far more than the $1.2 million tracing
the error. The largest part of that cost per computer, in the first place,
is the paperwork that the manufacturer has to generate on each piece of
hardware in order that a fault can be traced to the exact step where it
was introduced. Yes, this probably kept a few astronauts from being killed
in space; but it has made space exploration a very expensive proposition,
indulged in only by governments.
-- 
		Lyle McElhaney
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As a recent spate of in flight failures
has shown, extreme caution is needed in space to make things work.  The 
margins for error are tiny and the consequences of mistakes in the hundred
million dollar range or more.  Insurance money for spacecraft is drying up
and getting very expensive due to failures by PAM-D, Ariane and other upper
stages.  NASA is extremely careful because that is what it takes to make
spacecraft work.  Even the vast documentation requirements failed to note
a critical pin on Solar-Max that almost caused the mission to fail.  The
paper work could be replaced by computer work at lower cost and greater
reliability, but leaving out the tests and documentation is asking for
megabucks down the tubes.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 84 17:22:00-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!gm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: 5 years ago today... - (nf)

July 11, 1979 -- Skylab fell to Earth.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #251    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
			   Sand/pebbles in GEO
			       comet Austin
		       Re: SPACE Digest V4 #250    
			 Re: Sea Launched Missles
	      Re: Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown? - (nf)
		   Missions Combined -- Launch Date Set
	       Re:^2  Fire after Discovery Shutdown? - (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 84 14:11:36 EDT
From: MG9G@CMCCTF
To: space%mit-mc@CMU-CS-A
Attention: Space Bboard
Subject: Sand/pebbles in GEO


The benefit comes from the fact that all strategic sattelites occupying
GEO would be destroyed.  Obviously this would hurt both countries -- but
about 80%, I believe the article said, of US strategic (read military)
sattelites are in GEO, while nearly 80% of Russian military/strategic
sattelites are NOT in GEO.  Thus, the US would be hurt much more than
the USSR.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 84 17:31:10 EDT
From: Dick Koolish <koolish@BBNCD.ARPA>
Subject: comet Austin
To: space@mit-mc.arpa

NEW COMET AUSTIN, 1984i

    Orbital elements have now been calculated by Brian G. Marsden
of  the  Smithsonian  Astrophysical Observatory.  As announced on
IAU Circular 3958, they show Comet  Austin  is  in  a  retrograde
orbit  and will reach perhelion in mid-August inside the orbit of
Mercury.  Marsden's 1950.0 elements are as follows:

    T           1984 Aug 12.13
    q           0.2912
    Arg. peri.  352.83
    Asc. node   170.57
    i           164.11

Comet   Austin  is  currently  visible  only  from  the  Southern
Hemisphere.  By late August, it will emerge from the Sun's  glare
and  become  accessible  to northern observers with binoculars or
small telescopes.  It will then be low  in  the  eastern  predawn
sky,  near the Sickle of Leo, and shining with a visual magnitude
of perhaps 7 or 8.  As the comet moves  slowly  northeastward  it
will  climb  higher,  fading  to magnitude 10 or 11 by the end of
September when it lies near Castor and Pollux. 


COMET AUSTIN (1950 Coordinates)

 1984        R.A.    Dec     Mag   Op Lat  Tail PA 

JUL 19.0    9 17.2  -12 10  +6.8    59 S    148
JUL 24.0    9 50.7   -4 30  +6.8    46 S    136
JUL 29.0   10 05.9   +0 29  +6.5    40 S    130

AUG  3.0   10 10.8   +4 30  +6.0    36 S    126
AUG  8.0   10 07.0   +8 28  +5.3    ----    121
AUG 13.0    9 55.2  +12 42  +5.2    ----    110
AUG 18.0    9 39.6  +16 41  +6.0    ----    328
AUG 23.0    9 25.0  +20 00  +7.1    ----    308
AUG 28.0    9 12.3  +22 48  +8.1    32 N    304

SEP  2.0    9 00.7  +25.19  +8.8    33 N    301
SEP  7.0    8 49.5  +27 45  +9.4    34 N    298
SEP 12.0    8 37.7  +30 12  +9.9    35 N    296
SEP 17.0    8 24.5  +32 47 +10.2    36 N    294
SEP 22.0    8 08.9  +35 33 +10.5    38 N    291
SEP 27.0    7 49.6  +38 33 +10.8    40 N    287

OCT  2.0    7 24.8  +41 44 +11.0    42 N    282
OCT  7.0    6 52.4  +44 54 +11.1    44 N    274

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1984 19:16-EST
From: Hank.Walker@CMU-CS-UNH.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #250    
To: AC@mit-oz,space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <458954201/dmw@CMU-CS-UNH>

The number of satellites in orbit is far higher than 70 or 100, more
like 1163.  According to the September 1983 issue of Spectrum, the
breakdown for 1066 of them is as follows:

TYPE	Com.   Nav.   Mil.   Met.   Res.   Sci.   Ama.   UFO

ORBIT
Geo      85      0     14     11      0      9      0      2?

High    114     92    282     51     13    115     13    144?

Low       3      2     40     19     16     32      0      9?

Geo = Geosynchronous orbit (37,165 km)
High = High Orbit (833 to 37,000 km)
Low = Low Orbit (Less than 833 km)

Com = Communications
Nav = Navigation
Mil = Military
Met = Meteorologic
Res = Earth and Sea Resources
Sci = Scientific
Ama = Amateur radio
UFO = Unidentified

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 84 10:36:17-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!toby @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Sea Launched Missles

This has already gotten too far away from net.SPACE.  I think it is an 
interesting discussion, but it doesn`t really belong here.  How about
bopping this over to net.misc or net.politics (since us USENET types
cannot post to fa.arms-d)?

To add fule to the fire:  the suggestions (ASAT`s, SLM`s, baby-subs, etc.)
are all ways to preserve MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), if indeed it
still exists.  If you go in for MAD (a.k.a Balance of Terror), what`s
wrong with germs?  Germ war is no more an abomination than nuclear war,
and stockpiling and protecting (i.e assuring their release) would be
*much* cheaper than building ICBM`s and their ilk.  And if done right
the killer germs would only affect homo.sap, giving them post-Armageddon
cockroaches some competition.


Toby Harness		Ogburn/Stouffer Center, University of Chicago
			...ihnp4!gargoyle!toby

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 84 14:48:19-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!cca!ima!haddock!stevel @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Re: Fire after Discovery Shutdown? - (nf)

>      The sound suppression system, for those joining us late, is required
>      because the launch pad is a giant slab of concrete.  Apparently the
>      old Saturn Vs had a relatively quiet ignition; when the SRBs of the
>      Shuttle ignite, a *very* strong shock wave leaves the engines, hits
>      the pad, and bounces straight back into the ET and orbiter.

I belive the Saturn V had a water spray system like the shuttles.
I don't know if it was kept when the pad was rebuilt. Maybe it
wasn't enough for the SRB's. Does anybody out there know?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 84 17:37:56-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Missions Combined -- Launch Date Set

NASA today announced that it will combine the aborted mission and its
successor into one flight of the Discovery.  That flight is now scheduled
to launch on 24 August.  On Saturday, the shuttle is to be rolled back to
the hangar so that two satellites from the second mission can be loaded
aboard.  The Star-48 nozzle failure earlier this week was attributed to
test conditions and was ''probably not due to the nozzle itself,'' said a
McDonnel- Douglas statement.  Thus, the two satellites will fly; if it is
found that the nozzle was indeed at fault, they can always be removed.
One Leasat satellite from mission 1, in addition to the space solar panel
and pharmaceutical experiments, will be retained; a second Leasat
satellite will be moved to the 1 October launch of the Challenger
(beginning with the 1 October launch, shuttle are scheduled to fly at
least once a month.)  The crew for the combined mission will be the crew
from mission 1, commanded by Henry Hartsfield; the crew from mission 2
will be reassigned as soon as possible.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 84 6:57:22-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re:^2  Fire after Discovery Shutdown? - (nf)

>>      The sound suppression system, for those joining us late, is required
>>      because the launch pad is a giant slab of concrete.  Apparently the
>>      old Saturn Vs had a relatively quiet ignition; when the SRBs of the
>>      Shuttle ignite, a *very* strong shock wave leaves the engines, hits
>>      the pad, and bounces straight back into the ET and orbiter.

>  I belive the Saturn V had a water spray system like the shuttles.
>  I don't know if it was kept when the pad was rebuilt. Maybe it
>  wasn't enough for the SRB's. Does anybody out there know?

If I recall correctly, the water spray system for the Saturn Vs were
for thermal protection of the pad.  (Not so much to prevent outright
melting as to avoid thermal shock & resulting fatigue).

In contrast, the Shuttle water supply is used to absorb the sound of the 
engines igniting and the first few second of thrust.  I'll ask my source
for the other information I posted if the thermal protection system for
the Apollo program was retained for the shuttle, but he has moved to Colorado
and I frequently forget to mention things when I call.  (Yup -- 23 & senile!).

Bruce Giles
{decvax, duke}!ucf-cs!giles		university of central florida
giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay			orlando, florida 32816

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Jul-84  0407	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #252    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 252

Today's Topics:
		       Amateur Astronomy Convention
			   Geostar seems alive
			    lighting in space
		   software modeling for space station
				  Friday
			 Re: Apollo Film Question
			 Geostar one step closer
		 Re: Chicago Tribune Article (long flame)
		 Re: Chicago Tribune Article (long flame)
			   Re: USENET satellite
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Wed, 18 Jul 84 11:08:33 PDT
From:           "Kyle D. Henriksen" <kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
To:             space@mit-mc, sky-fans@mit-xx
Subject:        Amateur Astronomy Convention


Can anyone out there when and where the Riverside California amateur astronomy
convention is?  Have I already missed it?  How much is admission?  Thanks for
any information provided.

Kyle Henriksen

address:	kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 1984 20:38:40-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: Geostar seems alive

>From ELECTRONICS 7/12/84:

Supercomputers and satellite-based radio positioning systems should form the
backbone of the nation's next generation of air-traffic-control systems.
But unless the Federal Aviation Administration rethinks its 10-year-old
modernization strategy, billions of dollars will be spent on technology that
will be obsolete and in need of replacement by the mid-1990s, warns the
General Accounting Office.  "It's just another example of a Federal agency
failing to keep up with the latest technological developments," notes
Douglas Cannon, a senior systems analyst who helped prepare the GAO's
critique.  For example, the FAA wants to equip its 20 air-traffic-control
centers with new scanning-beam radar systems at a time when users throughout
the world are saying that satellites may offer significantly better
coverage, accuracy, and capacity at a lower total cost.  "It just doesn't
make sense to take an interim step when a leap is within our means,"
concludes Cannon.

The message hasn't been lost on Capitol Hill.  First of all, the House, in
its 1985 appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation, says that
the FAA must submit a full report answering the GAO's concerns 45 days
before any purchase of new hardware.  Second, the FAA must prove that the
proposed equipment will be able to satisfy its future software needs.
Finally, the lawmakers have cut $20 million from the agency's budget for
ground-based radars and put a freeze on spending until the FAA produces a
study on the feasibility of a space-based air-traffic-control ssytem.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 84 22:33:49-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: lighting in space

We need to do real time displays of out the window and video views from
a simulated space station.  One of the issues is how to do the lighting
effects (very dark shadows, little scattering, sharp shadow/light lines).
Any ideas?  It has to be fast enough to keep up with the real world!

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 84 22:28:51-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: software modeling for space station

We're designing a space station simulator to study human factors.
One of the things the crew must interact with is the data system, including
the software.  Any good ideas on modeling data systems in general and software
in particular without writing the whole thing?  Simply implementing even
just the on board software is prohibitive, much less ground software the
crew will likely have access to.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 84 15:34:14-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Friday

This Friday at 1617 EDT, everyone should spend a moment remembering
that this is the 15th anniversary of one of the most significant events
in human history.

If you don't know what happened at 1617 EDT 20 July 1969, you shouldn't
be reading this newsgroup.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 84 15:30:51-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Apollo Film Question

The early Saturns (or maybe even all of them -- I'm not sure) carried
camera pods in various places.  The pods were built to stand reentry
and had flotation gear and beacons for recovery.  One more way of
collecting data for analysis in case something went wrong.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 84 19:23:28-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Geostar one step closer

>From Electronics, 12 July 1984:

	...Following a year of intense lobbying by the Geostar Corp.,
	Princeton, NJ, the FCC has decided to allocate frequencies to
	an operational satellite system for radio-location services.
	The firm is the first, and, up to now, the only company with
	both a design and an application pending for approval by the
	FCC...

Hooray!

[For those of you who don't know what this is about, Geostar is Gerard
O'Neill's latest bright idea:  a location and communication system that
uses a few satellites and a big ground-based computer to provide very
accurate position information and (perhaps) communications service
to simple and cheap mobile terminals.  Quite apart from the intrinsic
merits of the scheme (it's a much better navigation system than, say,
the US military Navstar system) and its potential applications to things
like air traffic control, a substantial fraction of the profits from
Geostar go to the Space Studies Institute.  SSI was the first, and is
still the most forward-looking, source of private funds for research on
space development.]
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 84 18:59:54-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune Article (long flame)

> As a recent spate of in flight failures
> has shown, extreme caution is needed in space to make things work.  The 
> margins for error are tiny and the consequences of mistakes in the hundred
> million dollar range or more.  Insurance money for spacecraft is drying up
> and getting very expensive due to failures by PAM-D, Ariane and other upper
> stages.  NASA is extremely careful because that is what it takes to make
> spacecraft work.  Even the vast documentation requirements failed to note
> a critical pin on Solar-Max that almost caused the mission to fail.  The
> paper work could be replaced by computer work at lower cost and greater
> reliability, but leaving out the tests and documentation is asking for
> megabucks down the tubes.

As several projects have demonstrated, vast documentation systems are *not*
necessary for the (rare) projects that are run *right*.

A good example of this is the SR-71 Blackbird.  It's still the world's
fastest aircraft (if you don't count the Shuttle's brief reentry), and
25 years ago it was a formidable challenge.  New ground had to be broken
in a dozen areas, including metallurgy.  [I mention this because tracking
every last piece of metal is one of the reasons frequently advanced for
needing bales of paper for everything.]  Nevertheless, it got by with
several orders of magnitude less documentation than "ordinary" aircraft
projects needed, even then.  "Do not confuse effort with work."

The basic problem with the space business right now is not the lack of
still-more-detailed documentation.  It is the "everything is required to
work right the first time" attitude.  Now, don't get me wrong.  There is
nothing wrong with "we will do our best to make sure it works the first
time"; it's definitely the only way to go.  The problem is when you
start insisting that failures are not just undesirable, but unacceptable.
This means that it is impossible to do meaningful experiments, because
they might fail.  *OF COURSE* it is expensive to build, say, a Space
Shuttle, when the roof falls in if the tiniest thing goes wrong.  How
many aircraft are required to be perfect after only a handful of test
flights?  Yet the Shuttle program not only organized things this way,
it based the whole viability of the program on the notion that the
Shuttle would be fully operational almost instantly.  This is madness,
and awesomely expensive madness too.

Even in military aircraft programs, not noted for being well-managed,
it's common for the first dozen aircraft to be allocated solely to test
work, with no expectation that they will ever be useful otherwise.
Where are the test shuttles?  Please don't tell me that the orbiters
are too expensive to be used this way; this is known as "painting
yourself into a corner", and does not connote good design to me.  In
retrospect, it is clear that the Shuttle was too ambitious a project
trying to meet too many needs simultaneously.  The US would be much better
off with a large fleet of much smaller reusable spacecraft, plus big
expendable boosters for heavy-lift work.  Oh, true, the heavy-lift jobs
ought to be done with reusables, too -- EVENTUALLY.  But one must learn
to crawl before one can walk, and NASA is now paying the price for trying
to take shortcuts.  "Of course it'll work."  Sure.

Of course "extreme caution is needed... to make things work", of course
"margins for error are tiny", of course the consequences of mistakes are
severe -- because the whole system is organized on the assumption that
mistakes will never happen!  The margins for error should never have been
allowed to get that small, because Murphy's Law really does apply here,
as everywhere else.  "Even the vast documentation ... failed to note a
critical pin on Solar-Max that almost caused the mission to fail...",
and as we all know, it's a good thing for the Shuttle's credibility
that the Solar Max repair worked.  This sort of cliffhanger should not
be allowed to happen.  It's a travesty to design a spacecraft to be
repaired in-orbit by the shuttle and then forget to include an emergency
de-spin system, which would permit the thing to be despun for repair
in the presence of attitude-control failure.  It's ridiculous to set up
a repair mission which cannot adapt to the smallest problem.  My
understanding was that the docking failure was because of a spike of
fiberglass sticking up; why didn't the astronaut have clippers on hand
for coping with such things?  (Yes, I know, because the spacesuits
are too clumsy for such fine work in tricky conditions... please don't
set me off about the wretched misdesign of current spacesuits...)  It's
a credit to the cleverness of the astronauts and the people on the ground
that they managed successful completion of such a zero-defects mission
after the inevitable defects showed up.

I hope the rescue mission for the PAMmed satellites is indeed mounted.
It would be another small step towards a system that is somewhat tolerant
of unexpected difficulties.  Unless, of course, the mission is a failure
because NASA, once again, assumes that the plan is perfect and nothing
will go wrong...

I realize that I am, to some degree, slandering NASA unfairly.  They do
put a lot of attention into contingency plans and such.  But this is all
to meet *expected* troubles; building in enough flexibility to meet the
*unexpected* problems is a subtly different thing.  Sometimes NASA
pulls this off, sometimes not.  It was fortunate for the Apollo 13 crew
that some smart people insisted on making the LM computer identical to
the CM one, rather than specializing it for the lunar landing only.  It
was a potentially-disastrous inconvenience to them that nobody thought to
apply the same philosophy to the lithium-hydroxide air-purifier cartridges;
fortunately they managed to improvise around that one.

This same phenomenon has been noted in other contexts, notably military
aircraft projects:  lots of attention to known problem areas, but a firm
subconscious assumption that everything else will work, because it's
required to.  The only real solution to this is a firm emphasis on getting
real working hardware -- not computerized guesswork and theoretical
pontifications -- going *early*, so that the inevitable mistakes can be
found and fixed.  Testing must be thorough, and must be done on whole
systems, not just components!  The tests, and preferably the operational
service thereafter, must not be structured on the assumption that there
will be no failures:  failure-tolerance must be built into the plans,
not just the hardware.  Note that this implies designing the whole system
so that a single failure is neither disastrous nor astronomically expensive.
(I don't even want to *think* about the results of a Shuttle crashing.)
Everyone, especially Congress and the media, should be clearly told that
trouble is expected and is not cause for panic.  ["You say your program
still needs debugging, because you didn't write it correctly the very
first time?  Unacceptable.  You're fired."]

I know, it's easier said than done.  Especially for a US government
bureaucracy.  Best argument I've heard yet for private industry in space...
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

	id AA15434; Thu, 19 Jul 84 01:02:23 pdt
	id AA11697; Thu, 19 Jul 84 01:03:45 pdt
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 84 01:03:45 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an h19-u) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407190803.AA11697@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: allegra!watmath!utzoo!henry@Berkeley, space@mit-Mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Chicago Tribune Article (long flame)
Cc: 

	Damn right you're being unfair.  Remember the flap in the late
fifties and early sixties when NASA did have a series of tests and did have
busted launches?  There was a howl from the public and the Congress that
could be heard from Moscow.  Given that, and the Mondale/Proxmire bills in
the seventies to kill NASA, it's not surprising that NASA feels that it
can't test and can't have any failures -- the lawyers in Congress, who don't
understand engineering design and don't want to, would cut funds in a minute
if, say, an orbiter blew up on the pad.

	Also, isn't it always the case that prototypes are more expensive
than the production version?

				Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 84 12:45:44-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: USENET satellite

The project which you suggest is in fact being done by AMSAT: it's called
PACSAT. Actually, there are now three distinct projects for packet
radio hardware (i.e., hardware containing HDLC decoding/encoding,
memory, etc, as opposed to straight "bent pipe" transponders).
PACSAT is one involving a dedicated payload to be deployed from the Shuttle
on a Vandenburg launch. The working figures are 9600 bps PSK up and down,
with 4 megabytes of CMOS bulk RAM.  The Japanese are also working on
JAS-1, which will contain a smaller pacsat-like unit, although the memory
capacity and transmission speeds will be smaller. The orbit planned for
JAS-1 is approx 1500 km, high inclination but not sun-synchronous.
JAS-1 will also carry a more conventional real-time transponder similar to
that of Oscar-8 (which also carried a transponder of Japanese construction.)

There is now a new project underway to include some form of packet radio
store-and-forward unit as part of Phase 3-C, to be launched on an Ariane
in a few years.  A new group of amateur packet enthusiasts in the Munich
area (which I just visited) is starting this work.

All in all, there is a lot of interest in this type of work. However, for
USENET there are some fatal problems. First, amateur radio cannot be
used for business purposes. Since this is how we justify USENET to our
employers (regardless of what the traffic actually looks like) it would
be somewhat hypocritical to use amateur radio.  Second, many countries
do not have rules quite as liberal as the USA and "third party" traffic
(communications involving a non-amateur party) are not permitted.
Third, some administrations do not as yet recognize digital transmissions
in their amateur rules.

Phil Karn, KA9Q
Asst VP Engineering, AMSAT

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 253

Today's Topics:
			     Two things (new)
			 Water System on the pad
		       Radiation from Sov. blast??
			  Pittsburgh Spaceday 84
		     Re: Amateur Astronomy Convention
				Discovery
		      Discovery Remodeling Commenced
		       Re: Water System on the pad
				Re: Friday
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 84 10:21:50-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Two things (new)

For Henry Spencer,

You hit the nail on the head with one of those problems: because of
'budgetary constraints' NASA has gone to 'success the first time.'
NASA is certainly guilty of this, but that is partially the nature of men
like Hans Mark and Werner von Braun.  I have met Mark, and he is a man
who "shoots crap" in his words.

As another point, remember, I mentioned that a lot of space technology
unlike electronics for example, does not scale: e.g., there are limits
to 'how thin you can make metal walls' and 'how much fuel a missile
needs to carry.'  In some cases, the problems are geometric: consider,
you have a payload and fuel, but you have to use more fuel to carry the
weight of the fuel and so on.

A local firm tried a test of their rocket the other day (not a launch, but
testing engines not big enough for orbital flight): for the test it was
successful, but only the developers (as opposed to spectators and press)
took it with a grain of salt.  Good luck to all private developers!

To correct a minor point, the Shuttle did have a number of prototypes before, 
launch.  The steps to the first Shuttle were not as fine as the Soviet space
plane and Soviet Shuttle, but they were still prototypes.  A lots of testing
was done in Hypersonic wind tunnels and using computer simulation
(lots of this work was done here at Ames, I recently learned).


Second, since Al Globius posted a note on our space station work:

Dr. Barney Oliver (formerly of HP, and now retired and working at Ames),
head of the Ames Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program,
is potentially looking for volunteers.  SETI is not a heavily funded
program, but they could use the labor to help build a very wide band
spectrum analyzer for analysis of possible signals.  They need EEs
as well as software types.  Interested Bay Area individuals can send
mailer to me.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,hao,menlo70,dual}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb  [note uucp name changes]

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 84 6:35:07-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Water System on the pad

My recollection of things about water cooling/shock-wave-suppression is as
follows:

1)  The Saturn 5 without question had water cooling at its base.  I remember
    seeing it start up a few seconds before ignition.

2)  Even on mission 1, the shuttle had SOME water.  I believe that ugly water
    tank you can see in almost any picture of the pad supplies water too this
    system.  Note that that tank was there for the first launch.  I don't know
    if the original intent of this water was cooling the pad or shock sup-
    pression or both.

3)  After the first launch, as others have said, the shock-wave-from-the-SRBs
    problem was discovered (or at least quantified), and it was determined that
    more suppression was needed.  At this point, the "water balloons" mentioned
    in other notes were added.  I don't know if the original flowing water was
    modified to help the shock-wave problem or not.

Interesting question:  did the Saturn 1B have any cooling water?  I suspect not
since it sat way up on that "milk-stool" launch platform.

Burns Fisher 

	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 84 13:52:40-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Radiation from Sov. blast??

    Does anyone out there in netland monitor rain water for radioactivity??
(Or perhaps know of someone who does this, like some high school or college
classes occasionally do.)  If so, and if any nukes cooked off in the blast,
perhaps the count in the rainwater rose a few weeks after the blast.  I'm 
sure there are many people who are curious about this, so I'm hoping for some
sort of response.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Someday, all this will be     |
        yours!!"                |  A message from the mental maze that 
                                |      calls itself:
 "What??? The curtains????"     |
                                |      ERIC STROBEL
--------------------------------|
UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET:       els @ pur-phy.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 1984 12:01:48-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Pittsburgh Spaceday 84

			SPACEDAY 84
		Saturday, July 21, 1984
		(Starts at 11:30am)
		Buhl Science Center
		Allegheny Square,
		Pittsburgh, PA 15212
		412-321-4302


Sponsored by:
		Pittsburgh L5 Society
		Buhl Science Center


Speakers:	Philip Smith	University of Pittsburgh English Dept.
		Al Janis	University of Pittsburgh Physics Dept.
		John Stein	Allegheny Observatory
		Bruce Hapke	University of Pittsburgh Geology and
						Planetary Sciences

Exhibitors:	Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
		American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
		Astrotech International, Inc
		Computer Friend
		Digital Equipment Corporation
		High Frontier
		International Technology Institute
		Pittsburgh Area Computer Club
		Pittsburgh High Technology Council
		Pittsburgh L5
		The Robotics Institute of Carnegie Mellon University
		Rockwell International
		Tripoli Science Association
		United States Air Force

Skyshow:	To Worlds Unknown

Movie:		2001 (showing at 5:45pm)

Other:		Lunar Sample Workshops
		Solar Observatory (weather permitting)
		Refreshments		


We have a fine day planned out, so bring your family and friends and make a
day of it!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 1984  12:24 EDT
Message-ID: <OAF.12032588881.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Replying to Henry Spencer, I suspect that PART of the documentation
hangup is due to political influences.  There are now, always have
been and always will be people in congress (if not the presidency)
willing to sacrifice the space effort (and everything else) to 
advance their political careers.  These ambitions are orthogonal to
common sense, honesty or other traditional values.

As a result,  people working in the space program tend to make sure
there's a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong.  That requires
KGBish documentation.  End of exposition.

(I don't think that's the whole reason; just agreeing that there's
too much bureaucracy amd looking for shreds of explanation.)

Oded

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 84 11:33:25 PDT (Thursday)
From: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Amateur Astronomy Convention
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA, kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA

The Riverside Telescope Makers Conference is always held on Memorial Day
weekend (friday noon to monday noon) at Camp Oakes just east of Big Bear
City.  It consists of seminars and talks on telescope
making/astrophotography/observing etc., star gazing, a telescope and
parts flea market, and a chance to meet lots of the names you see in the
astronomy magazines.  It was great, so start planning to go next year.
Prices vary from $5 for one daytime admission to $43 for 3 nights,
including lodging and 8 meals.  Proceedings were $10 additional.  I will
be glad to expound further if anyone has questions.  If anyone messages
me next April or so, I will undoubtedly have next year's info sheet by
then.
/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 19 July 1984 20:56:34 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Discovery
Message-ID: <1984.7.20.0.55.47.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>


a058  0527  18 Jul 84
PM-National Briefs,620
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA technicials have begun remodeling
the shuttle Discovery's cargo hold to carry two additional satellites
as part of plans to combine its delayed maiden voyage with a
scheduled August mission.
    Work began Tuesday, said National Aeronautics and Space
Administration spokesman Dick Young. The earliest launch date would be
Aug. 24, he said.
    NASA plans monthly shuttle launches starting in October.
    Discovery will retain the IMAX camera and a drug-making machine from
the delayed June mission. It will also carry Leasat II, the satellite
Business Systems and the Telstar satellite.
    ---

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 84 5:12:37-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery Remodeling Commenced

Technicians yesterday began remodeling the cargo bay of
the Discovery to enable it to hold two extra satellites
on the upcoming mission.  The process should take the
rest of the month, with rollback to the VAB scheduled
for 3 August and launch for 24 August.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 84 8:54:05-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!tellab1!tellab2!thoth @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Water System on the pad

The first flights of the Saturn IB were launched from Launch Complex 34
and LC37.  These definately had water systems to protect the pad after
launch, but I don't know about the launches from LC39.  It seems that
there must have been something to protect the launcher, though.

marcus
..!ihnp4!tellab1!tellab2!thoth

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 84 14:52:29-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!atkins @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Friday

What if you are only 16 years old??

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #254    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 254

Today's Topics:
			     Two things (new)
			 Re: Sand/pebbles in GEO
			Re: NASA reliability flame
			  Geostar failure modes
			Re: Geostar failure modes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 253

Today's Topics:
			     Two things (new)
			 Water System on the pad
		       Radiation from Sov. blast??
			  Pittsburgh Spaceday 84
		     Re: Amateur Astronomy Convention
				Discovery
		      Discovery Remodeling Commenced
		       Re: Water System on the pad
				Re: Friday
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 84 10:21:50-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Two things (new)

For Henry Spencer,

You hit the nail on the head with one of those problems: because of
'budgetary constraints' NASA has gone to 'success the first time.'
NASA is certainly guilty of this, but that is partially the nature of men
like Hans Mark and Werner von Braun.  I have met Mark, and he is a man
who "shoots crap" in his words.

As another point, remember, I mentioned that a lot of space technology
unlike electronics for example, does not scale: e.g., there are limits
to 'how thin you can make metal walls' and 'how much fuel a missile
needs to carry.'  In some cases, the problems are geometric: consider,
you have a payload and fuel, but you have to use more fuel to carry the
weight of the fuel and so on.

A local firm tried a test of their rocket the other day (not a launch, but
testing engines not big enough for orbital flight): for the test it was
successful, but only the developers (as opposed to spectators and press)
took it with a grain of salt.  Good luck to all private developers!

To correct a minor point, the Shuttle did have a number of prototypes before, 
launch.  The steps to the first Shuttle were not as fine as the Soviet space
plane and Soviet Shuttle, but they were still prototypes.  A lots of testing
was done in Hypersonic wind tunnels and using computer simulation
(lots of this work was done here at Ames, I recently learned).


Second, since Al Globius posted a note on our space station work:

Dr. Barney Oliver (formerly of HP, and now retired and working at Ames),
head of the Ames Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program,
is potentially looking for volunteers.  SETI is not a heavily funded
program, but they could use the labor to help build a very wide band
spectrum analyzer for analysis of possible signals.  They need EEs
as well as software types.  Interested Bay Area individuals can send
mailer to me.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,hao,menlo70,dual}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb  [note uucp name changes]

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 84 6:35:07-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Water System on the pad

My recollection of things about water cooling/shock-wave-suppression is as
follows:

1)  The Saturn 5 without question had water cooling at its base.  I remember
    seeing it start up a few seconds before ignition.

2)  Even on mission 1, the shuttle had SOME water.  I believe that ugly water
    tank you can see in almost any picture of the pad supplies water too this
    system.  Note that that tank was there for the first launch.  I don't know
    if the original intent of this water was cooling the pad or shock sup-
    pression or both.

3)  After the first launch, as others have said, the shock-wave-from-the-SRBs
    problem was discovered (or at least quantified), and it was determined that
    more suppression was needed.  At this point, the "water balloons" mentioned
    in other notes were added.  I don't know if the original flowing water was
    modified to help the shock-wave problem or not.

Interesting question:  did the Saturn 1B have any cooling water?  I suspect not
since it sat way up on that "milk-stool" launch platform.

Burns Fisher 

	UUCP:	... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
	ARPA:	decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 84 13:52:40-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Radiation from Sov. blast??

    Does anyone out there in netland monitor rain water for radioactivity??
(Or perhaps know of someone who does this, like some high school or college
classes occasionally do.)  If so, and if any nukes cooked off in the blast,
perhaps the count in the rainwater rose a few weeks after the blast.  I'm 
sure there are many people who are curious about this, so I'm hoping for some
sort of response.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Someday, all this will be     |
        yours!!"                |  A message from the mental maze that 
                                |      calls itself:
 "What??? The curtains????"     |
                                |      ERIC STROBEL
--------------------------------|
UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET:       els @ pur-phy.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 1984 12:01:48-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Pittsburgh Spaceday 84

			SPACEDAY 84
		Saturday, July 21, 1984
		(Starts at 11:30am)
		Buhl Science Center
		Allegheny Square,
		Pittsburgh, PA 15212
		412-321-4302


Sponsored by:
		Pittsburgh L5 Society
		Buhl Science Center


Speakers:	Philip Smith	University of Pittsburgh English Dept.
		Al Janis	University of Pittsburgh Physics Dept.
		John Stein	Allegheny Observatory
		Bruce Hapke	University of Pittsburgh Geology and
						Planetary Sciences

Exhibitors:	Amateur Astronomers Association of Pittsburgh
		American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
		Astrotech International, Inc
		Computer Friend
		Digital Equipment Corporation
		High Frontier
		International Technology Institute
		Pittsburgh Area Computer Club
		Pittsburgh High Technology Council
		Pittsburgh L5
		The Robotics Institute of Carnegie Mellon University
		Rockwell International
		Tripoli Science Association
		United States Air Force

Skyshow:	To Worlds Unknown

Movie:		2001 (showing at 5:45pm)

Other:		Lunar Sample Workshops
		Solar Observatory (weather permitting)
		Refreshments		


We have a fine day planned out, so bring your family and friends and make a
day of it!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 1984  12:24 EDT
Message-ID: <OAF.12032588881.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Replying to Henry Spencer, I suspect that PART of the documentation
hangup is due to political influences.  There are now, always have
been and always will be people in congress (if not the presidency)
willing to sacrifice the space effort (and everything else) to 
advance their political careers.  These ambitions are orthogonal to
common sense, honesty or other traditional values.

As a result,  people working in the space program tend to make sure
there's a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong.  That requires
KGBish documentation.  End of exposition.

(I don't think that's the whole reason; just agreeing that there's
too much bureaucracy amd looking for shreds of explanation.)

Oded

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 84 11:33:25 PDT (Thursday)
From: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Amateur Astronomy Convention
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA, kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA

The Riverside Telescope Makers Conference is always held on Memorial Day
weekend (friday noon to monday noon) at Camp Oakes just east of Big Bear
City.  It consists of seminars and talks on telescope
making/astrophotography/observing etc., star gazing, a telescope and
parts flea market, and a chance to meet lots of the names you see in the
astronomy magazines.  It was great, so start planning to go next year.
Prices vary from $5 for one daytime admission to $43 for 3 nights,
including lodging and 8 meals.  Proceedings were $10 additional.  I will
be glad to expound further if anyone has questions.  If anyone messages
me next April or so, I will undoubtedly have next year's info sheet by
then.
/Don Lynn

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 19 July 1984 20:56:34 EDT
From: Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Discovery
Message-ID: <1984.7.20.0.55.47.Hans.Moravec@cmu-ri-rover.arpa>


a058  0527  18 Jul 84
PM-National Briefs,620
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA technicials have begun remodeling
the shuttle Discovery's cargo hold to carry two additional satellites
as part of plans to combine its delayed maiden voyage with a
scheduled August mission.
    Work began Tuesday, said National Aeronautics and Space
Administration spokesman Dick Young. The earliest launch date would be
Aug. 24, he said.
    NASA plans monthly shuttle launches starting in October.
    Discovery will retain the IMAX camera and a drug-making machine from
the delayed June mission. It will also carry Leasat II, the satellite
Business Systems and the Telstar satellite.
    ---

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 84 5:12:37-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery Remodeling Commenced

Technicians yesterday began remodeling the cargo bay of
the Discovery to enable it to hold two extra satellites
on the upcoming mission.  The process should take the
rest of the month, with rollback to the VAB scheduled
for 3 August and launch for 24 August.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 84 8:54:05-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!tellab1!tellab2!thoth @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Water System on the pad

The first flights of the Saturn IB were launched from Launch Complex 34
and LC37.  These definately had water systems to protect the pad after
launch, but I don't know about the launches from LC39.  It seems that
there must have been something to protect the launcher, though.

marcus
..!ihnp4!tellab1!tellab2!thoth

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 84 14:52:29-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!atkins @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Friday

What if you are only 16 years old??

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 84 13:16:12-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Sand/pebbles in GEO

>The benefit comes from the fact that all strategic sattelites occupying
>GEO would be destroyed.  Obviously this would hurt both countries -- but
>about 80%, I believe the article said, of US strategic (read military)
>sattelites are in GEO, while nearly 80% of Russian military/strategic
>sattelites are NOT in GEO.  Thus, the US would be hurt much more than
>the USSR.

I don't see any benefit here, I see levels of hurt.  When someone's got
thier hand over yours and you hit it with a hammer, you do not benefit
simply because he has more broken bones than you do.  Neither can write
a poem.  I challange the assumtion that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. are in a
zero sum game where damage to one is benefit to the other.  It has never
been proved, and we are not at war - contrary to popular belief.  In fact,
we live on the same planet, breath the same air, drink the same water, and
fear the same weapons.  We are completely dependent on each other for our
security.  Our fates are inextricably bound.  We'd better realize that.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 84 13:04:55-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: NASA reliability flame

This is in response to Henry Spencer's flame.  I don't include the flame
since it was rather long.  I trust the paraphrases are accurate.

Henry Spencer asked:  'where are the shuttle test articles?'  Answer:
the Enterprise.  The Enterprise was the first orbiter built.  It was never
planned to go to space.  It was strictly a test article.

Henry doesn't appear to know much about how NASA actually works, although
he has lots of opinions.  NASA, contrary to Mr. Spencer's contention, does
not assume that everything will work properly.  Failures happen regularly
at both the subsystem (bad) and system (mission failure) level.  This is
taken into account and planned for.

Henry claims the astronauts should have had clippers to cut the pin off of
Solar Max.  For several reasons this would not have worked.

	1. Cutting the pin might have loosened the insulation it held down
	   leading to an over heated (failed) satellite.

	2.  A brief look at the the set up the astronaut was in makes it
	   clear that there is no way he could have reached the pin.

	3. Nobody knew that a pin was the problem for some time after the
	   attempt.

Henry seems to think there are no backup de-spin mechanism for Solar-Max.
This is untrue.  There are two systems that can de-spin the satellite.
One failed and was replaced by the shuttle crew.  The other was, in the
end, used to de-spin the satellite.  This operation was, however, full of
risk and was not attempted until all other approaches had failed.

People have a lot of fun thinking that NASA is a pack of overly cautious
turkeys.  These people, as far as I can tell, have never put anything
in space and frequently don't know much about real space operations.
Before you critisize the pros, I strongly suggest that you know A LOT about
what you're talking about.  At the least, read Aviation Week regularly.
That's not to say that things can't be improved.
I am saying that those who make the improvements will know where-of they
speak, usually via direct hands-on experiance.

Finnaly, aircraft are not spacecraft.  If a aircraft has a problem you land
it and look at it at your leasure on the ground with all the facilities of
a major industrial power at hand.  This is not the case for an orbiting
spacecraft.  Not only is access difficult in orbit, pre-launch testing is
difficult since the operational environment is radically different from
that found in ground facilities.

------------------------------

Date: 20 July 1984 08:39-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Geostar failure modes
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

If the ground computer sysem crashes, does the whole navigation system
fail at one moment, leaving thousands of airplanes in flight suddenly
without location information? The other system with a computer in each
plane is more expensive but not prone to any common mode of failure
short of EMP from nuclear war. Would there be sufficient backup in the
ground computer system to avoid any remote chance of full system crash?
(Literally, lots of planes suddenly unable to dodge mountains they had
been counting on being able to dodge?)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 84 10:52:54 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407201752.AA02344@ucbkim.ARPA>
To: REM@MIT-MC, SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Geostar failure modes

	Foo.  In such an event, aircraft would still have the radio and
navigational aids they do now, from INS systems on large aircraft down to
VOR indicators and ADF needles on small craft, plus (I should hope)
navigational charts.  Planes aren't robot controlled -- even Cessna 172's
are piloted by people who have passed extensive written and flying exams.

						Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #255    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 255

Today's Topics:
		Re: How long will a satellite stay in GEO?
		     Re: Radiation from Sov. blast??
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 84 12:41:50-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: How long will a satellite stay in GEO?

> Radiation pressure itself won't cause a satellite's to decay very fast,
> because accelerations on opposite sides of the orbit cancel out.  The
> fuel is mainly to keep satellites at the correct longitude.
> 
> When comsats have exceded their useful lives they are boosted to a
> somewhat larger orbit.  Decay time from this orbit must be fairly long
> for this to work (how much bigger are these orbits?).

Not a lot bigger.  Neither atmospheric decay nor radiation-pressure issues
are very significant at 40000 km, where the Clarke ["geostationary"] Orbit
is.  As you point out, the staion-keeping fuel for a comsat is mostly to
keep it at the right *place* in Clarke Orbit.  A satellite boosted to a
slightly higher orbit will be slightly higher for a long time, centuries
at least I would think.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 84 12:37:36-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Radiation from Sov. blast??

> .........................  If so, and if any nukes cooked off in the blast,
> perhaps the count in the rainwater rose a few weeks after the blast.  ... 

Sorry to ruin your day, Eric, but nuclear weapons don't "cook off" in any
very spectacular way.  The most one would get would be a "fizzle" explosion,
which would spray radioactive debris through the immediate vicinity, but
wouldn't put anything substantial up into the stratosphere where it could
travel long distances.  Getting a nuclear explosion requires very fussy
timing and just the right conditions; nuclear bombs are precision devices.
[Obviously, I'm referring to their innards rather than their effects.]
They explode properly only when triggered properly; anything else (fire,
impact, mechanical damage) and they just go "splat" and make a nasty but
fairly localized mess.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #256    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 256

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #254
			 Commercial use of space 
			   Zero defect systems
			  Politics vs efficiency
			private space developement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 84 11:48 EDT
From: Marshall.wbst@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #254
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Marshall.wbst@XEROX.ARPA

A curious question.. Are the electronics in satellites exposed to the
vacuum of space or are they enclosed in pressurized containers?

--Sidney Marshall

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 84  1118 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Commercial use of space 
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n114  2125  20 Jul 84
AM-SPACE
By STEPHEN ENGELBERG
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - On the 15th anniversary of man's first steps on the
moon, President Reagan announced on Friday a series of initiatives
intended to speed commercial development of outer space.
    The Reagan administration immediately plans to remove several
regulatory and tax obstacles to industrial use of space, according to
an official who briefed reporters. It will also propose legislation
to remedy ''discrimination'' in the tax code against space ventures,
he said.
    Standing beside the three-man Apollo 11 crew that made the historic
flight to the moon, Reagan said, ''We will do all we can to insure
industry has routine access to space and a suitable, reliable place
to work there.''
    On July 20, 1969, Neil A. Armstrong and Col. Edwin E. Aldrin stepped
onto lunar soil and Armstrong declared, ''One small step for man, one
giant leap for mankind,'' while Col. Michael Collins orbited above in
the command module.
    At the White House ceremony, Reagan echoed the words of President
Kennedy, who initiated the manned space program in 1961 with a
promise that the United States would land a man on the moon within 10
years. Reagan pledged that the United States would complete an
orbiting space station ''within a decade.''
    Congress has already authorized money for the first steps in
designing such a project.
    -
    Reagan said the benefits from the commercial development of space
''literally dazzle the imaginiation.'' Factories, he said, would one
day take advantage of the weightless environment to produce rare
medicines, new metal alloys and super computer chips that could not
be made on earth.
    The president also said the United States had entered a new era in
space exploration with the successful flights of the space shuttle.
    ''The footprints on the moon showed us that America's future can be
determined by our dreams and visions,'' he said. ''The shuttle and
our space station will make those dreams come true.''
    L.J. (Bud) Evans, NASA's associate deputy administrator for space,
said the president hoped to clear away unintended obstacles posed by
rules that were issued years before entrepeneurs began thinking about
industry in space.
    Several regulations that define the products of orbiting businesses
as imports would be changed immediately, he said. That would allow
businesses to claim an investment tax credit as well as avoid tariffs
in the future.
    The administration will also seek to rewrite current tax law so that
joint ventures could receive a 25 percent tax credit for research and
development not directly related to their existing business. Such a
change, which would apply to all businesses, would be particularly
helpful to space ventures because most of the companies involved have
not worked on space-related ventures before.
    -
    Evans said the government would continue to play a substantial role
in space, providing both transportation and orbiting facilities such
as the space station.
    ''The government is going to pay for the large infrastructure, just
like we do with the roads down here.'' he said. ''On the other hand,
more and more private corporations will take over manufacturing.''
    He added that major corporations and small companies were already
gearing up to develop industry in space.
    In June, a McDonnell Douglas engineer, Charles Walker, became the
first person from private industry to travel in space. McDonnell
Douglas and Ortho Pharmaceutical, a division of Johnson & Johnson,
are hoping to establish a multbillion-dollar market for
pharmaceutical products made in space. Other companies have signed
preliminary agreements with NASA to develop space products.
    
nyt-07-21-84 0022edt
***************

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 1984 16:08:00-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Zero defect systems

I very much agree with the let's get a piece of hardware and bang on it
philosophy. It is indeed true that a prototype costs far more than a
production model, but so what? The expenses are incurred in the hundreds of
thousands of wasted manhours involved in shuffling inconsequential paper.
This is not to say that all paper is inconsequential; there is a reasonable
need for schematics, blueprints, ECO forms, computerized record keeping of
parts from the production line, etc. It can be carried to extremes. I really
can't imagine keeping records on individual resistors. 100% incoming
inspection is probably a good idea, as well as burn in for infant mortality,
IF the parts are used in life critical areas. If it is used in a radio and
there are two radios, so what if one goes bad every few years? As the
computer failures have shown, faults will occur anyway. And they'll occur in
things that weren't thought of.

What is needed in space systems is what in other fields we call Engineering
common sense.

My attitude from years of work in automation systems is that the best
results are gained by getting prototype hardware and software together as
earlier as possible. Your team gets experienced with the nature of the
specific problem at hand, and then you use the prototype as a basis for a
REAL system specification. You discover what bells and whistles come cheap,
and which ones are so complex as to be uneconomic. An initial spec is not
the holy scripture. If meeting the spec will be too costly, then you change
the SPEC, not the DESIGN. If the overly costly item is absolutely critical,
then you make an honest appraisal of the fact that the whole project is
possible but not practical.

At both the experimental prototype and production prototype stages, you run
very harsh test conditions on your units, with the express purpose of making
things fail. (Of course this goes through phases when life safety is
involved. An aerospace craft has to have a first flight confidence level at
least high enough that a Chuck Yeager wouldn't refuse to fly it...

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 1984 18:10:35-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Politics vs efficiency

I'm cognizant of all the problems you noted, and find them an excellent
reason for getting private enterprise to do it as quickly as possible.
I have the suspicion that NASA may well find itself in danger of being
passed up once the ball really gets rolling. I also suspect that such
restriction will be less applicable to second generation shuttle
technology, and scram jets. They'll be cheaper, shuttle flights will be
so common that it won't be carry quite the same media interest, and
thus won't have the scandal buster re-election value that it would at
this time. 

It is quite accurate to state that the all or nothing character of the
shuttle forced the program into a certain mode of operation. I just
hope to see that type of thinking go the way of the dinosaurs (where it
belongs) before it causes the space station to be similarly
overpriced/pound.

A friend of mine who owns  one  of the fledgling launch companies, when
referring to a diagram showing everything from delta launchers, 747's
and Cessna 172's clustered around the same $/lb ratio, (where his
launcher also falls) and the shuttle off in the far upper right hand
corner stated:

 "Don't ask ME why I'm so cheap; ask THEM why they're so expensive!"

It's really a shame that politicians are such useless creatures. If we
didn't have congress we'd have to invent it to keep them out of
circulation. Hopefully we can one day soon apply the even better
solution suggested in the Hitchhikers Guide Series.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 1984 19:11:17-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: private space developement

(In answer to letter noting $125 engine being a rather heavy "subsidy")

Mostly agree, however Truax is an anomaly. SSI is using modified
Minuteman III engines built for them, everyone using solid fuel is
having them poured to their own specs (mostly by Morton Thiokol).
Another group (Starstruck) is doing it ENTIRELY from scratch. So is
OTRAG (if it can find an American partner so it can continue testing).
Another group is contracting out the modification of an existing high
energy engine (H2-O2). It's other design is a from scratch construction
of a rather unique engine.

In the case of two of the companies mentioned above, the technologies
were indeed studied by NASA, but were never built. Both bought up the
patent rights.

Personnel are quite easily pirated.  One group was given the offer to
actually build and fly something it had been studying to death for maybe 10
years or more. You can bet it didn't take very much to get them to pull
up stakes and move to a small nongovernment contractor!! From what I
heard, the ENTIRE group was pirated.

I'd say more abouyt the technologies involved excpet I'm not sure what
is confidential and what is not, so I'd rather say nothing.

I also have it on good authority that one of the major aerospace
companies will build a cheaper COMMERCIALLY oriented shuttle from
internal capital sources as soon as the market has ripened a little
more. I believe they are mainly waiting for the current shuttle to be
desubsidized.

I'm not going to knock NASA's efforts entirely. They have been a
pathfinder. The shuttle is a marvelous piece of equipment because it is
the ONLY spaceship we've got at this moment. So what if it becomes
obsolete and noncompetitive in a couple of years? It will still have
been money well spent (even if it could have been cheaper) if it kicks
us over the edge of the real space age. The shuttle fleet will have
earned their honored places in the Air and Space Museums of the 1990's.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #257    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 257

Today's Topics:
		      Aviation Week Railgun Article
				 Geostar
			       reliability
				  NCC/NX
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 1984 8:32-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA
To: arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Reply-To: dietz@USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: Aviation Week Railgun Article

The latest Aviation Week has the fifth (and final) article in their
series on ballistic missile defense.  The article discusses
hypervelocity launchers, such as railguns.  Some tidbits:

Railguns have accelerated small (a few grams) lexan cubes to 10 km/sec
with an energy efficiency of 40%.  The next expermients are shooting
for 20 km/sec and 50% efficiency.  The ultimate goal is 100 km/sec at
100,000 gee's (with an accelerator 500 meters long), using a laser to
drive a projectile with an ablative rear surface.  (An aside: by
launching deuterium-tritium pellets at one another at >= 100 km/sec one
can possibly generate significant fusion energy.)

In tests against actual ICBM components, gram size projectiles moving
at 10 km/sec have been found to cause considerable damage (they can
penetrate quarter-inch steel plate).  The article includes a picture of
a metal cylinder with a large, blackened hole in the side.

Rail erosion problems during projectile startup have been solved by
using gas injection.

Studies have shown that hypervelocity launchers with homing projectiles
deliver more energy per area at the target than lasers, particle beams,
25 KT nuclear ABMs or nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers (I'm not sure what
systems they're comparing here).

The military is considering using railguns as gatling gun replacements
for close-in defense of ships against cruise missiles, and as long
range artillery (50 miles) with terminally guided shells.  Advances in
active cooling are making very high velocity projectiles feasible in
the atmosphere (this technology is borrowed from military reentry
vehicle research).

 ***

These things look much more technically feasible than laser BMD systems.
At 100 km/sec you can reach LEO from GEO in under six minutes, which is
fine for mid-course intercept.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 1984 15:02:41-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Geostar

Geostar will use multiple computers so that a crash or failure of one will
not bring down the system. It is part of their planning that the system
accessibility will be close to 100%. These are not amateurs. In fact, they
probably understand the problem a great deal better than the turkeys who put
together the "National Airspace Plan". THe FAA's interim system would not
even INCLUDE most GA craft, because not very many of us would be able to
afford it. I really hope for some sanity in avionics, such as Geostar may
make possible. Flying is rapidly getting out of reach of those who would do
it for the love of it. We need cheap aircraft, cheap upkeep, inexpensive
avionics, lower taxes on fuel, less regulation, fewer military operations
areas and similar travesties (ie are they protecting our airspace or
conquering it?) and lower property taxes so that the number of small
airfields will cease it's decline.

I salute Dr. O'Neill's efforts. I'm quite certain Geostar is much more than
a simple profit making venture to him. As someone stated before, SSI does
indeed hold a majority of the stock, so benifits will certainly accrue where
the money will be efficiently used for space developement R&D. In addition,
he is also a GA IFR pilot and understands the problems GA now faces.

I would like to note, since I have not seen it much publicized, that Geostar
successfully completed it's field testing, has it's designs fairly well in
hand, has (or soon will have) the frequencies allocated by the FCC, and has
full financial support to build and launch the 3 satellites in the 1987 time
frame, probably via shuttle. (Ie capital in the range of $100-250M is
available to them)

Contacts have stated they expect to be a fortune 500 after the first year of
operation.

Also of interest, I have been told the SSI R&D program is about a year ahead
of schedule. They expect to be ready to have a preliminary exploratory unit
sent to the moon around 1992. (Shuttle launch + commercial OTV) I believe it
will be a prospecting vehicle of some sort, but I'll have to wait until I
hear Morris Hornik talk about it when he speaks at our conference here in
October.

As you all may know, Mass Driver III, (either 1/3 or 1/2 scale prototype)
has been tested out and accelerates 13,000G throught the first 3 coils.
Design specs are for 18,000G. The initial design work on this pull only unit
were done with a very slow Apple Basic program. They are now switching to a
VAX, so the advances should come very quickly now.

It's amazing what a few dollars in the hands of totally dedicated unshackled
freethinkers can do.

It's my guess that the next person on the moon may well be from the private
sector.

I really wish NASA were developing hardware that picked up where NERVA left
off. That's an area that is unlikely to be picked up by private sector any
time in the near future, mainly because of regulatory restraints.  Even if
it costs more to have gov't do it, at least they're harder to sue, and "we
need it bad". Do you realize that the late 60's/early 70's Jackass Flats
NERVA tests were for an engine with TWICE the specific impulse of the most
advanced engine (the SSME) in existance today?

So my challenge to all you guys at Ames, etc is, lets start REALLY pushing
the envelope! (IE, tell your boss to tell his boss to get off his can and
start acting less like a beaureaucrat and more like a space activist, like
the young dreamers and romantics who STARTED NASA back in '58) Don't give me
a boxcar of paper. Give me an interplanetary rocket engine. Now. If
necessary, get your buddies together and give up your evenings and weekends
and do it on your own time. Most of us in L5 and Spacepac haven't had a day
to ourselves in over a year because of the fight for the space station. We
don't expect any less out of anyone else.

My attitude about earth is summed up by a favorite cliche of a former room
mate. "Let's blow this popsicle stand..."

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 1984 18:12:46-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: reliability

My point is that when people are on board, and if the part does not
have immediate life safety implications, the crew can fix or bypass the
problem, thus making it a nonproblem. The reliability levels need be no
higher than those on a Boeing 747, with the exception of components
critical to boost phase or control of reentry angle. Those parts need
to be of a similar reliability to autopilots and navigation systems
rated for blind landing in 0-0 weather by an airliner with 400+ lives
at stake. I am not talking about autonomous ten year probes: there lies
an entirely different set of engineeering constraints.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 84 15:24:20 EDT
From: Deej <DL02@CMU-CC-TD>
To: space%mit-mc@CMU-CS-A
Subject: NCC/NX

NCC = Naval Construction Contract; NX ?  Easy.  Naval eXperimental.  As
in XB-17.  XF-80.  And so on.

Deej
DL02@cmu-cc-td

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Jul-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #258    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 258

Today's Topics:
		       TOC NASA Activities v15, #6
		     Re: Radiation from Sov. blast??
			 Soviet Soyuz T-12 flight
			Soyuz T-12 flight, update
	      'Big' science, private space, and electronics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 84 13:08:17-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: TOC NASA Activities v15, #6

Administrator's Column [Summarizes years events]

NASA Transfers Ownership of Viking Lander 1 to Museum
Shuttle Mission 41-D Pre-Launch Statistics [Oh well!]
Dr. Hans Mark Named to University of Texas Post
Productivity Conference Held at Marshall
NASA Signs Agreement with Israel for Earthquake Study
Earth Observation Mission Payload Specialists Named
H. William Wood Named to Tracking Networks Post
NASA Selections 17 Astronaut Candidates [Full stats]
Plasma Physics Experiments Continued at Wallops
Astronaut Hart Leaves NASA
Fine Guidance Sensors Tested
ESP - NASA's Renewed Suggestion Program
[Images: Space telescope wiring, IRAS mosaic of entire sky, image from fixed
Solar Max, Thematic mapper image Landsat 5 (first)]
Deere & Company Designing Metallurgical Tests Aboard Shuttle
What's New in NASA Television and radio Programming
Launch Activity

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 84 9:45:23-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Radiation from Sov. blast??

   Granted that strategic warheads are really touchy, but tactical
warheads (the type which may have gone off in this incident) are
designed to take quite a pounding and still function.  Given what
may have been a whole warehouse of these things, it is still possible
that an intense source of heat could've triggered the conventional
shaped charges which are used to initiate the nuclear explosion.
Also, don't forget the quite obvious Soviet tendency toward carelessness.
If these devices are meant to be armed inertially (i.e. upon firing)
then a shock wave could accidentally arm some, making an explosion 
much more likely.  I admit that I didn't feel it too likely that
any went off (appreciably), but positive data from rainfall would
allow certain unclassified conclusions to be drawn about the Soviet
arsenal.  I'm hoping that a discussion will start in net.physics
about what (if any) conclusions might be drawn.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Someday, all this will be     |
        yours!!"                |  A message from the mental maze that 
                                |      calls itself:
 "What??? The curtains????"     |
                                |      ERIC STROBEL
--------------------------------|
UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET:       els @ pur-phy.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 1984 13:33:35EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: Soviet Soyuz T-12 flight

The latest Soviet space flight (Soyuz T-12, launched July 17) has received
almost no notice in the press here, perhaps because it seems old hat besides
the space shuttle flights.  Nevertheless on close inspection there are a
number of interesting features of this Soyuz that indicate changes in the
Soviet space program.  Here are a list of the ones that I have noticed
along with some personal projections of what they may mean.

First the flight engineer in this 3 crew Soyuz is Svetlana Savitskaya, the
woman who flew up to the Salyut about two years ago.  The fact that she was
sent up again after a relatively short period of time (as far as spaceflights
go) indicates that she had little in the way of problems in adjusting to
space.  Also note that historically the Russians have sent their cosmonauts
on only 3 missions, with the person going as engineer on the second flight,
and mission commander on the third.  Then that person has been moved up into
the management of the space program.  From the space spectacular point of
view it would have made more sense to send a new woman up ("Now we have had 3
females in orbit and the US had only 1").  Hence it seems likely that
Svetlana is being aimed at the position of commander of the womans'
cosmonaut corp.  A slight possibility is that she was the backup person
for some other woman.  We will know for certain if she gets a third flight
in the near future as the mission commander.  Either way it seems certain
that the Soviets are expanding the use of woman in their programs.

Secondly, the mission commander, Vladimir Dzhanibekov, is unusual also because
this is his fourth mission when, as noted in the first point, the Russians
have restricted their men to three missions before this.  Hence the Soviets
may be setting up their cosmonaut corp, which is rather large in number, to
generate more highly experience spacemen.  This suggests an expanded space
program in the near future.  It does not seem likely that he was simply
the backup man, they have lots of two flight experienced men.

Thirdly, the docking for this flight with the Salyut space station took place
in a 355 x 335 Km orbit.  However previously the Soyuz have followed a strict
rule: two man crews have docked above 300 Km, while 3 crew ships docked below
300 Km.  James Oberg calculated that previously the fuel needed to raise the
ship to the higher orbit was 110 Kg, about the weight of one cosmonaut.  Hence
the need for this difference.  Since the Salyut is always brought down to the
rendezvous orbit prior to the launch this means that the Soviets have
improved either the A-2 launcher or the Soyuz-T capsule, and will probably
used such higher cargo capacity in the future (perhaps in their Progress
cargo craft if it is the launcher).

Fourthly, this mission started a little early for their current landing window,
which is about July 24 according to Clarke in a recent Spaceflight magazine
article.  Due to safety restrictions the Russians only bring people down from
their space station during a specific landing period that occurs for about one
week every two months.  The Russians have been launching ships only two days
before the landing window opens so that if something goes wrong they can 
recover the capsule quickly and safely.  This may indicate that the Soyuz has
more supplies and can stay up longer (possibly related to point 3) or that they
are will to extend their landing window from the hour before sunset
restriction they have kept for almost the past decade.  Either on has
significant impacts on their manned program.  Also as of 3 am GMT July 25
the Soviets had not stated that the Soyuz was leaving.  Since all
previous flights lasted only eight days for crew visits to the Salyut it
will an important change if this one does last longer.

Finally the fact that a flight occurred at this time means that the Salyut
crew, which has been up for >170 days now, will not land before late September,
from the point 4 restrictions.  That will mean that they will have set a new
record of about 240 days.  If you want speculation on top of that consider that
one of the station crew is a doctor.  If they were going to try for a full
one year mission then that is just what they would want on board to check that
things were going well.  If the Soyuz ships are exchanged in the current flight
that makes a longer mission than 240 days more likely

All in all this seems to be a rather unusual flight.  Has any else noticed
other strange facts about this one?

Personally I find the contradiction shown by the comparison of the Soviet and
western (especially US) space programs recently rather depressing.  The
Russian hardware is probably about what we could have made a decade ago,
but they obviously have the will to push it to the limit and aggressively
pursue manned efforts in space.  This country has the hardware to do things
better then the Soviets, but seems to lack the will to really push things.
Look at battle the L5 society had to go through to insure the passage of
the space station program's funding for the first year!  That only means
that we have a chance that in 1992 we could have something manned as often
and long as the Salyut has been crewed for the past few years.  Does anyone
really think that when the funding costs really get high for the space station
there will not be strong efforts to stretch the program out till 1995 or even
2000?  That is what happened to the shuttle, and look at how the low funding
of the early years is still creating problems in that program.  If we are
right about there being important and useful things for mankind that will
come out of the space station I see considerable evidence to suggest the
Russians will be producing them first over the next decade.  Let us hope
that their lack of advanced hardware will prevent them from getting too far
ahead.

                                      Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 1984 23:02:54EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: Soyuz T-12 flight, update

As noted in the previous mail I sent the Soyuz T-12 flight has a number of
unusual features.  Some events new today (July 25) make it even
more important.

First Svetlana Savitskaya spent four hours in a space suit outside the
Salyut space station, making her the first woman to walk in space.  With
her was the mission commander of the T-12 Vladimir Dzhanibekov.  This time
was spent doing experiments in electron beam welding and film sputtering.
The Russian commentary was that these techniques were important for
the construction of space colonies and large space stations.  The fact that
she spent so long outside enforces the point about Svetlana being aimed at
some higher position; a simple one hour or less EVA test would have given
them a space spectacular.

Secondly the Soyuz T-12 shows no sign of returning to earth, and has already
exceeded the eight day norm for such flights.  To meet the current landing
deadline it should come down before about Aug 1, but just when will be
important.

Finally there is the point did the space walkers use their own suits or not.
If they are not the suits on board the Salyut (which have been used 5 times
in the past year) did they bring them up themselves or were they sent up
in the Progress 20 in June?  If they brought the suits up themselves it would
indicate a substantial increase in the lifting capacity of their orbital
system for the Soyuz.

Hey look it, the Russians are not letting any grass grow under their feet in
space activities.  Let us get a move on.
                                  Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 84 10:27:05-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!nsc!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: 'Big' science, private space, and electronics

Facts: question: are electronic exposed to vaccuum or it is contained:
answer: both.  The fuse which blew in Solar MAX was a sealed fuse which
apparently lost its gas.  Other electronics on Galileo are exposed (to a
degrees).

<Flame>
I have not cared for the term 'common sense' since I was a kid.  Too many
people take too much for granted (assumption == ass of you and me, remember
that joke, this is not meant as an insult) with regard to space.  We have a
lot of visitors to NASA Centers, and they usually remark on the 'incredible
scale of things'. (Especially manned space facilities.)  I think science
and engineering are reaching points where it is difficult to do work in
the garage like Hewett and Packard did.  Witness the big magnets and lasers
at LLNL for fusion energy research, note that all the companies doing molecular
biology work: emphasis, the number of PhDs they have, BS level bio is not
yet enough: they are still cracking individual genes and have yet to discover
computers.

Carl Sagan noted in 1978 that NASA has a "mission must not fail" attitude.
Agreed.
Hans Mark, James Beggs, and others want NASA to remain a research organization.
We want out of the space trucking business.  Who wants to assume the Shuttle?
No one with money yet.  Some <entrepreneurs>argue that smaller scale will
be better.  How many of you have put serious money into these firms? Just
curious.

Al Globius and I may disagree on a number of points: e.g., I want more unmanned
deep space exploration <Who in the private sector is going to do this?>,
but we are basically a research organization.  Private space,
come on in, but we warn you, development won't be easy, things don't work
like you expect them to: anybody have a 'cure' for space sickness which
is 100% effective?  I think we both argee that there is too much bureacracy
in the Government: it will eventually drive me into the private sector.

The current net.followup discussion on Proxmire has some relvance.  Men like
that keep some people on their toes, but also create more bureacracy.  Why
doesn't hit the military waste more?  IS he an agent for the Pentagon
doing a distracting action? {joking}. My God, what am I doing here!
<Flame off, running down the hallway>

--eugene miya

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Jul-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #259    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 259

Today's Topics:
		     Re: TOC NASA Activities v15, #6
				Re: Friday
				George Low
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 84 11:08:36-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxd!arlan @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: TOC NASA Activities v15, #6

Someone ought to tell whoever wrote that last newspaper announcement
here in net.space that Walker did not travel into space in June (or
if he did, it wasn't aboard Discovery---hmmm, maybe McDonnell-Douglas
has something going we don't know about?)
--arlan

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 84 17:11:00-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!hpfclo!jad @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Friday

> /***** hpfclo:net.space / opus!atkins /  3:52 pm  Jul 18, 1984*/
> What if you are only 16 years old??

	That is clearly no excuse.  I am only 23 years old, though I
	know (fairly well ... propaganda being what it is on both sides
	of the Fe2O3 curtain (sorry, no subscripts)) just what happened
	way back in 1776.  So 'cmon .... let's remember history includes
	things that happened before you were born -- sometimes in these
	days of high-tech that's easy to forget.  Look at how "ancient"
	some 15 year old machines are (oh, sorry, I forgot you're only
	16, and wouldn't have been programming at age 1).
								:-)

		  "In the shadow of the moon ..."
			--	john	  --

			  aka	John Dilley,
			[ihnp4] !hpfcla!jad.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 1984 16:32:54-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: George Low

George Low, who was head of NASA through much of the Apollo program and an
enthusiastic early backer of the program, died recently of cancer.  His son
just became an astronaut.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #260    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 260

Today's Topics:
		      Politics vs. space -- Mondale?
		    Re: Politics vs. space -- Mondale?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 84 10:38:00-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!ajs @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Politics vs. space -- Mondale?

Does anyone know what  Mondale's  real  position is on NASA  funding and
space  exploration?  For some  strange  reason  :-), the  popular  media
hasn't  mentioned this aspect of party and candidate  platforms.  We all
know what Reagan's position is.  What about Mondale?  Does he still want
to kill the Shuttle  program, as it is rumored he did some years ago, or
has he come around yet?  (Please post short responses; thanks in advance)

Alan Silverstein

------------------------------

	id AA18857; Sat, 28 Jul 84 12:23:39 pdt
	id AA09118; Sat, 28 Jul 84 12:24:48 pdt
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 84 12:24:48 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an h19-u) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407281924.AA09118@ucbkim.ARPA>
Phone: (415) 236-8262
To: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!ajs@Berkeley, space@Mit-Mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Politics vs. space -- Mondale?
Cc: 

	Does [Mondale] still want to kill the Shuttle  program, as it is
	rumored he did some years ago, or has he come around yet?  (Please
	post short responses; thanks in advance)

There was nothing "rumoured" about Mondale's hatred of the Shuttle -- he
introduced a bill to kill it every year he was in the Senate.  I think that
you can expect the space station to be killed if Mondale wins, as well as
tax incentives for private development of space.  The Shuttle program will
almost certainly be left intact, since it's too big a commitment to walk
away from.  However, I would be extremely surprised if the fifth orbiter is
ever built, or any of the heavy-lift vehicles now on the drawing board.

					Rick.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Jul-84  0408	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #261    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 261

Today's Topics:
		    Return of the optical telescopes  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 84  0044 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Return of the optical telescopes  
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n006  0621  29 Jul 84
BC-TELESCOPES
By WALTER SULLIVAN
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - After almost a quarter century of debate, final designs
have been chosen for two optical telescopes, each of which will be
far larger than any now in existence.
    One, the National New Technology Telescope, is to be a four-mirror
assemblage with the light-gathering power of a single mirror 15
meters, or about 590 inches, in diameter. Its total cost is estimated
at about $200 million, and it is hoped that funds to begin
construction can be included in the budget for the fiscal year 1987.
    The other, to be built by the University of California atop
13,825-foot Mauna Kea in Hawaii, will have a single 10-meter
reflecting area formed of 36 hexagonal segments. Its construction
seems assured by a gift of $36 million from the Marion O. Hoffman
Trust.
    The largest telescope now operating in this nation is the five-meter
reflector on Palomar Mountain in California. It is exceeded in size
only by the six-meter telescope at Zelenchukskaya in the Caucasus
Mountains of the Soviet Union.
    Two sites are under consideration for the national telescope: Mauna
Kea or Mount Graham, a 10,720-foot summit 70 miles northeast of
Tucson, Ariz..
    Choice of the 15-meter multimirror design for that telescope
culminates 24 years of study, testing and discussion. In 1960 two
national committees began exploring ways to achieve a major increase
in telescope power. Consideration was also given to a design with a
25-meter reflecting area.
    One challenge in constructing so large a reflector is to insure that
it maintains a precisely parabolic shape regardless of temperature
changes and sagging stresses as it sweeps the sky. For a mirror to
focus an image clearly, the shape cannot become distorted by more
than a fraction of the wavelengths of light being observed.
    In addition, the multimirror telescope had to be designed so that
light-path distances from all four mirrors to the focal plane were
identical. Each of its four 7.5-meter mirrors will be larger than any
made to date.
    While various designs were proposed for the national telescope, the
finalists were the multimirror concept and a single 15-meter mirror
formed of about 60 hexagonal segments. Each segment would have to be
constantly adjusted to insure that the assembly maintains its precise
shape. This is is the approach chosen for the California telescope.
    The committee charged by the National Optical Astronomy
Observatories to choose a design for the national telescope said that
since both approaches were promising, it was ''healthy'' that both
are being tried.
    The recently reorganized National Optical Astronomy Observatories
operates the Advanced Development Program that will supervise design
and construction of the instrument, along with the Kitt Peak National
Observatory near Tucson, the National Solar Observatory, with
facilities on Kitt Peak and Sacramento Peak, N.M., and the Cerro
Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile. It is supervised by a
consortium of universities under contract with the National Science
Foundation.
    The effectiveness of the multimirror concept has been shown by the
telescope operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and
the University of Arizona on Mount Hopkins, near Tucson. Its six
mirrors have the combined area of a 4.5-meter reflector.
    Its aim, like that of a large gun, is controlled by a combination of
rotation and elevation. Since rotation and elevation rates must be
constantly adjusted to maintain aim on a moving star field, computer
control is essential. The new telescopes will be mounted in this
manner, as is the Soviet instrument.
    The Hoffman Trust that will help finance the University of
California's telescope is derived from the estates of Max Hoffman, an
importer of European automobiles, and his widow, who died last year.
The University of Texas has been planning a seven-meter telescope,
but it has not yet been financed.
    
nyt-07-29-84 0919edt
**********

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Jul-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #262    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
		      Mondale and the space program
		     Soviet Soyuz T-12 flight ending
			    tethered satellite
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 1984 12:37:40EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

Subject: Mondale and the space program

Mondale's dislike of manned space flight goes back before the shuttle debates.
He was in charge of the senate committee which investigated the Apollo fire and
deaths.  Apparently he got very upset at the way NASA people were, to his
mind, trying to shift the blame elsewhere.  One comment I have read was that
Mondale felt that he was being lied to and from that date became extremely
anti NASA.  During the shuttle debates a bill he sponsored came within four
votes of killing the program.

More recently when the space station program was announced Mondale was asked
about it at a news conference.  His comments were that it was that NASA had
not demonstrated a that the space station would be useful and that better
science could be done for less by concentrating on unmanned probes etc.  That
last comment I felt was to show that he was for scientific research in that
field, but Mondale did not commit himself to any strong program there either.
However, has anyone heard a fuller statement on his position?

                          Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 1984 12:56:56EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

Subject: Soviet Soyuz T-12 flight ending

The Soyuz T-12 flight landed July 29 after spending twelve days in space.  That
is about 50% longer than the usual eight day flights for the crews visiting
their space station.  However they landed with the T-12 capsule instead of
switching it with the one held on the Salyut.  This suggests that either the
station crew will be coming down in mid September or a new set of visitors
will be going up then.  They will be forced to do something then do to the
life limits on their Soyuz.  Some comments by the Russians after the Soyuz
landed made it seem that this may be very long space station mission.

The Russian press made a big thing out of Svetlana's space walk.  Indeed it
said that the man that accompanied her was there to assist her and for safety
reasons.  Other comments made it obvious that she was destined for even
more work in their space program.

                            Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 84  0243 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: tethered satellite
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n129  0015  31 Jul 84
BC-TETHER
(ScienceTimes)
By WALTER SULLIVAN
c. 1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - The ''skyhook,'' a concept with deep roots in history, is
still alive in the minds of men.
    ''Let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach into
heaven,'' said the descendents of Noah, according to the Book of
Genesis. But to thwart such an impious project the Lord confused the
builders with a multitude of languages and the Tower of Babel was
never built.
    The idea of a tower that, in a sense, reached to heaven was revived
in a series of proposals, beginning in 1895, for the building of
cable-car systems or other ''highways'' into space. Their direct
descendent is a scheme of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for a satellite tethered to a space shuttle by a
60-mile cable.
    It was in 1895 that Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky, the original Russian
dreamer of space travel, proposed building a tower on the Equator
that would reach beyond geostationary altitude. At the geostationary
height, 22,300 miles above the earth, the motion of an object in a
west-to-east orbit keeps pace with the earth's rotation. It therefore
remains stationary relative to features on the earth beneath it.
    While gravity would pull on that part of a tower's structure below
that elevation, the stress could be compensated by centrifugal force
of the earth's rotation, Tsiolkovsky reasoned, if the tower were
extended beyond geostationary height.
    ''The point is,'' he wrote of such a tower, ''that the top part
aspires to fly due to the centrifugal force; while the lower part
pulls in the opposite direction.''
    In the 1960s there were several proposals in which the structure,
instead of being built up from the earth, would be suspended from
orbiting objects whose combined center of gravity was at
geostationary elevation. Y.N. Artsutanov in the Soviet Union, who
suggested such an anchor in space, envisioned it supporting a
''funicular'' or system of cable cars that would carry payloads into
the cosmos.
    Six years later John D. Isaacs of the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography and three colleagues, apparently unaware of the Russian
proposals, published in the journal Science a similar scheme that
they called the ''Skyhook.'' Once cargo passed the geosynchronous
level, they pointed out, the energy of the earth's rotation would
throw it off into space. This energy, they added, might even be used
to lift the load from the earth's surface.
    ''Very large masses could be slung into space,'' they said. A
Skyhook could also be used to support a laboratory at the
geosynchronous level, deliver supplies to spacecraft, collect energy
or material from space or support very tall structures on Earth.
    The proposal was published despite doubts by the journal referees as
to its practicalty. A seemingly insurmountable problem was providing
a cable thousands of miles long, strong enough to carry the load, yet
not so heavy that it would break of its own weight.
    Closer to the planned NASA missions was one for a low-level,
geostationary communications satellite proposed in 1969 in the
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society by A.R. Collar and J.W.
Flower. The satellite would be kept close enough to the earth for
low-power communications by being suspended from a satellite high
enough so the combined gravity of both vehicles would be at
geostationary level.
    The first tests of a tethering scheme were initiated in 1981 by
Prof. James G. Anderson of Harvard University. They consisted of
lowering an instrument package as much as 12 miles below a balloon at
very high altitude, then reeling it back up again to obtain data at
many levels of the stratosphere.
    The space missions now being planned call for a space shuttle to
deploy a tethered capsule that, with its own propulsion, will be able
to climb higher or descend lower than the shuttle's own orbit. This
will enable it to make observations in relatively ''hot'' regions of
the Van Allen radiation belt, above the shuttle orbit, or descend
into upper fringes of the atmosphere where, because of drag, the
shuttle itself could not long remain.
    This Tethered Satellite System is sponsored by the American and
Italian space agencies, which have invited researchers to submit
proposals for its first three flights. On the first mission it is
planned to project the capsule 12 miles upward with instruments to
record the earth's magnetic field as well as high energy particles
magnetically trapped in the Van Allen radiation belt.
    On the next mission, a year later, it is planned to send the capsule
down to make atmospheric observations. The third mission would again
be above the shuttle. As presently planned the capsule will be a
1,000-pound sphere, five feet in diameter, equipped with gas jets to
control its deployment out to 60 miles from the shuttle.
    The tether is a Kevlar cable one-sixteenth of an inch thick that
weighs only 3.56 pounds per mile and has a breaking strength of 650
pounds. Instruments can be attached to the capsule on long arms. On
each flight it will be left deployed for about 16 hours before being
reeled in.
    The project was devised by two Italians associated with the
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass., Mario D.
Grossi and the late Giuseppe Columbo. Last summer about 150
specialists from government, industry and academia conducted a
workshop on applications of tethered satellites and the findings have
been summarized in a NASA memorandum by Georg von Tiesenhausen of the
Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
    
nyt-07-31-84 0313edt
***************

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #263    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 263

Today's Topics:
				Why space?
			  How does Geostar work?
			      Re: Why space?
			       Space tether
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 84 9:08:43-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!wd9get @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Why space?

Here's one to get the net going. What is your best argument for why the
U.S. should spend megabucks on the space program. I realize the people
on this net don't need convincing, but what argument(s) would you use
on Joe Average about why we spend money to shoot people to space and not
pay his medicare bills?
   If you mail your arguments to me, I will summarize to the net.

Keith E. Brandt
pur-ee!wd9get

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 1984 0920-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: space at MC
cc: redford at SHORTY
Subject: How does Geostar work?
Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 12035701020.30.583.8382 at DEC-MARLBORO>

Can someone on the net tell us how the Geostar navigation system works?
The accuracies claimed for it are much higher than those for the military
Navstar system (less than 1 meter positioning accuracy versus 30 meters).
However, the Geostar ground units are simpler (they do not need an accurate
time base) and they use fewer satellites (four versus eighteen).  How can
they do so much better with so much less?  Technical answers only please,
not flames about the inferiority of anything done by the government.

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 84 10:41:46 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbchip@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8407311741.5390@ucbchip.ARPA>
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Why space?

	Here are two good reasons:
	
(1) In direct benefits alone (weather forecasting, mineral discoveries,
communications), the space program has more than paid for itself (all in,
Mercury to the Shuttle, the cost of the program has been about $50 billion.
Better weather prediction has been worth conservatively ten times that, just
counting better crop yields, less damage from hurricanes, and so forth.
Mining discoveries are worth easily $500 billion as well).  When spinoff
benefits - chips, doppler ultrasound, velcro, all manner of materials, and
so forth - are counted, the program has paid off a hundredfold over our
investment.

(2) Is it merely our lot to trudge this earth between birth and the grave,
wondering where our next meal is coming from, keeping our mind and our eyes
firmly upon the mud that we tread?  Or should we, in these niggling few
years that a cruel nature allots us, strive, seek, find and never yield?
The space program is man's answer to the  ultimate challenge of the
universe, and to our highest calling.  It seems to me that $25 for each of
us is not too large a price to pay to wander among the stars, instead of
trudging in the muck.

						Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 84 21:05:23 cdt
From: Duncan A. Buell <buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: Space-Enthusiasts%mit-mc.arpa@csnet-relay.csnet
Subject: Space tether

Volume 4, Issue 262 addresses "real" attempts to hang a skyhook from
a satellite.  This was the central theme of a science-fiction story
I read a year or two ago, which I cannot now find.  I cannot, of course
(such is the nature of the universe), remember author or title.
Anyone else remember it?

The chief engineering problem of the story was the strength of the
cable.  They used some newfangled wonder fibre.  Are people now really
serious about this?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #264    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 264

Today's Topics:
				Apollo 2-6
			      Re: Apollo 2-6
			       Space Tether
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 84 10:51:30 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Holbrook.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Apollo 2-6
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

A question that is probably often asked:

What happened to Apollo missions 2-6?  Were they so upset after the
disaster of Apollo 1 that they canceled those missions?

	Paul

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 84 13:56:08 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbchip@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8408012056.5970@ucbchip.ARPA>
To: Holbrook.ES@XEROX.ARPA, Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Apollo 2-6

	I thought that Apollo 2-6 were all unmanned missions.  No?
					Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 1984 17:44:25-EDT
From: Peter.Su at CMU-CS-GANDALF
Subject: Space Tether

There have been numerous stories about this; one of the better-known and
better-written is _The Fountains of Paradise_ by Arthur C Clarke, the
first postulator of communications sattelites in geosynchronous orbit.
It covers the designing and building of an "Orbital Tower", the main
load-bearing cable of which is made of, I believe, a monomolecular carbon
filament.  Interesting subplots, such as the fact that the ideal location
is located on top of Sri Kanda, the Sacred Mountain, location of an
Oriental monastery... Very good book -- but then, what else does Clarke
write?

Deej

dl02@cmu-cc-td

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #265    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 265

Today's Topics:
			 Re: SPACE Digest V4 #263
			Re: How Does Geostar Work?
			Re: How Does Geostar Work?
			tethered satellite stories
				Apollo 2-6
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 84 09:44:18 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V4 #263
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
From: Nick <NNicoll.ES@XEROX.ARPA>

Re: Duncan A. Buell's "skyhook" story.  It was probably Arthur C.
Clarke's Fountains of Eden.

\\ Nick

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 1984 8:49-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA
To: vlsi@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA
cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA,
    redford@shorty
Subject: Re: How Does Geostar Work?

Geostar works by triangulation.  A signal addressed to a portable
tranceiver is sent from the central ground station via one of the
satellites.  The ground unit then emits a very short omnidirectional
microwave pulse (with ID information included).  All four satellites
receive this pulse, and transmit it back to the ground station.  Time
delays are used to compute position.  The position is then transmitted
back to the ground unit.

The Geostar ground unit is simply a microwave tranceiver capable of
emitting high power (500 watts, I believe) short duration pulses, along
with some fast control logic to detect when the unit is being polled
and to receive and display position information.  Average power
consumption is low, because the pulses are so short (a microsecond?).

The Navstar system uses passive ground units, since they must operate
in combat conditions where radio silence is critical.  These passive
units must do the triangulation themselves, so they are expensive.

Paul Dietz
dietz%usc-cse@usc-ecl

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 1984 8:49-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA
To: redford@shorty
cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: How Does Geostar Work?

Geostar works by triangulation.  A signal addressed to a portable
tranceiver is sent from the central ground station via one of the
satellites.  The ground unit then emits a very short omnidirectional
microwave pulse (with ID information included).  All four satellites
receive this pulse, and transmit it back to the ground station.  Time
delays are used to compute position.  The position is then transmitted
back to the ground unit.

The Geostar ground unit is simply a microwave tranceiver capable of
emitting high power (500 watts, I believe) short duration pulses, along
with some fast control logic to detect when the unit is being polled
and to receive and display position information.  Average power
consumption is low, because the pulses are so short (a microsecond?).

The Navstar system uses passive ground units, since they must operate
in combat conditions where radio silence is critical.  These passive
units must do the triangulation themselves, so they are expensive.

Paul Dietz
dietz%usc-cse@usc-ecl

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 1984 14:41:29-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: tethered satellite stories

A recent one is "Tank-Farm Dynamo" by David Brin in the November 1983 Analog.
A space station is created out of two groups of shuttle external tanks
connected together by cables.  Shuttles take advantage of the fact that the
lower platform is moving slower than orbital velocity by "landing" on it and
transfering their payload.  The dynamo effect of a cable moving through
magnetic fields is used to pump energy into the stations orbit to compensate
for atmospheric drag.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Aug 84 10:51:41 pdt
From: David Smith <dsmith%hp-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Message-Id: <8408021751.AA01896@HP-MARS>
To: space%mc@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Apollo 2-6
Cc: dsmith@csnet-relay.arpa
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

The spacecraft which burned on the pad was known as Apollo 204 for
some reason.  I think (but am not at all sure) it was also counted
as Apollo 4.  One unmanned Apollo was lofted into a high suborbital
trajectory, then rammed into the atmosphere at 25000 mph to test the
heat shield.

			David Smith
			dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay
			...!ucbvax!hplabs!dsmith
			Formerly at Cmu-cs-ius.arpa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Aug-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #266    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 266

Today's Topics:
		       Early Saturn-Apollo flights
			       Space Tether
	    Where/How to buy used and surplus space equipment
		      Why did the US let Skylab die?
			  Jilted Crew Reassigned
			      RE: Why Space?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 Aug 1984  8:06:23 EDT (Friday)
From: Tom Reid <treid at mitre-gateway>
Subject: Early Saturn-Apollo flights
To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc

The Saturn-Apollo 200 series flights used a Saturn-1B first stage with
1.6M lbs. of thrust to lift a Saturn-IVB second stage (which was also used
for the third stage of the Saturn 500 series).  Flight 201 merely tested the
first and a single burn of the second stage with recovery of the booster.
On flight 202, the second stage was to ignite briefly to simulate a low
level spacecraft abort.  202 had problems with fuel lines catching fire
and I can't remember whether the second burn actually occurred.  203 was to
simulate a high level abort so the second stage burned longer.  I believe 
that 203 also left its S-IVB second stage in orbit as space lab.  204 was
to have been the first manned flight until the space capsule caught fire.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 1984 08:56-EDT
Sender: MHARRIS@BBNF.ARPA
Subject: Space Tether
From: MHARRIS@BBNF.ARPA
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: MHarris@BBNF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[BBNF.ARPA] 3-Aug-84 08:56:54.MHARRIS>

Mr. Buell might have been thinking of <The Descent of Anansi>, co-authored
by Larry Niven.  A potboiler with gyrating wired-together spacecraft and
terrorist complications.  Not bad, really.

--mh     ...at Fritz Electronics -- 'everything we have is on the fritz'

------------------------------

Message-ID: <18615@Wayne-MTS>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 84 11:16:04 EDT
From: Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Where/How to buy used and surplus space equipment

About 2 years ago I read an article in Omni about a person who bought used
and surplus space items from NASA.  Among the items he owned were space
suits, spare satellite parts, and even a complete, unused backup
satellite.  It seems that the way he did this was by combing through
catalogs of government auctions which listed every now and then space
items, and attending those auctions.  He was able to pick up this stuff at
fire-sale prices.  Has anyone heard anything else about this?  Would
anyone know where I could write away to to obtain these catalogs of stuff
the government auctions off?  How does NASA dispose of surplus/obsolete
space artifacts?

    Michael D'Alessandro

------------------------------

Message-ID: <18621@Wayne-MTS>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 84 11:22:32 EDT
From: Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Why did the US let Skylab die?

One thing I've never understood is why the US never tried to save Skylab.
From what I've read, NASA had planned to fly one of the early shuttle
missions to Skylab to attach a new engine to it to boost it to a higher
orbit in order to save it.  This plan was based on the assumption by NASA
that the shuttle was going to be ready in about 1978, which it obviously
wasn't.  However, my question is:  if NASA knew that it couldn't get to
Skylab with the shuttle in time, why didn't they launch an unmanned
vehicle to rendezvous with Skylab to boost it into a higher orbit?

Would there be technical difficulties with such a plan, or did NASA not do
it so they could obtain a *new* space station; instead of having to
refurbish Skylab?  It seemed to me to be such a waste to let such a huge
station be destroyed.  It sure would have been nice to have to work in
concert with the shuttle, until the new space station is launched in the
1990's.

    Michael D'Alessandro

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 84 5:15:46-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Jilted Crew Reassigned

The five crewmembers who were bumped from their flight due
to the combined mission have been reassigned to a shuttle
mission scheduled to blast off on 12 February, 1985.  With
the crew, commanded by astronaut Karol Bobko, will be a
sixth crew member, a French mission specialist.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 84 21:00:37-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!tektronix!tekig1!mikeha @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: RE: Why Space?

     It may not be possible to convince Joe Average  of  the
benefits of continued funding of NASA and research in space,
generally.

     Still, an attempt should be made.  For "ammunition",  I
refer Mr. Brandt to "the dean of space-age fiction".

     Robert Heinlein has made a living of  pointing  out  in
many not-so-subtle ways that the exploration of space is one
of those rare government-sponsored projects that has created
more wealth than it has consumed, one way or the other.

     Apropos (and, most especially  apropos)  Mr.  Average's
preference  for  having  his  medical  care  subsidized, see
"Spinoff" in Heinlein's _E_x_p_a_n_d_e_d  _U_n_i_v_e_r_s_e (c.  1980,  Robt.
Heinlein, published by Ace Books, N.Y., NY)

     The article is primarily an abridgement  of  Heinlein's
testimony before the House Select Committee on Aging and the
House Committee on Science and Technology on the subject  of
"Applications of Space Technology for the Elderly and Handi-
capped."

     Heinlein points out a  number  of  the  life-prolonging
medical  spinoffs  of  space  technology,  rather colorfully
illustrating his points by relating the use of  these  spin-
offs in the case of a medical problem of his own.

     Joe Average might consider what another  ten  years  of
life  is  worth.  No, I don't mean ten years of decrepitude,
but ten healthy years made possible  by  a  technology  that
would not exist but for the space program.

     <from M. Van Handel, Tektronix      mikeha>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #267    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 267

Today's Topics:
			NASA Astronaut candidates
		  Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar
			       Goodbye all
			Ariane 3 launch successful
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 84 8:47:07-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: NASA Astronaut candidates

[]
As requested by several people, from NASA Activites, v15, n6 Jun 84:

NASA Select 17 Astronaut Candidates

NASA has announced 17 astronaut candidates for the Space Shuttle Program.

Seven are pilot candidates and 10 are mission specialist astronaut candidates.
They will report to NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, this summer to
begin a yearlong program of training and evaluation.  Successful candidates
will begin training assignments leading to selection for Space Shuttle flight
crews.

Three of the mission specialist candidates are women and one pilot is Hispanic.
For of the mission speialists are currently employed at the Johnson Space
Center and one is employed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
NASA received 4,934 applications and 128 applicants were interviewed and given
medical examinations at Johnson.

The list follows:

James C. Adamson, Major, US Army, March 3, 1946; Warsaw, NY; Seabrook, TX;
Geneseo Central High School, NY, bachelor's degree in engineering, US
Military Acad., 1969, and master's degree in aeronautics and mechanical
engineering, Princeton Univ., 1977; Flight Controller, Systems Division,
Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX; Mr. and Mrs. Herman Adamson, Geneseo,
NY.

Mark H. Brown, Capt, USAF, Nov. 18, 1951, Valparasio, Ind.; Pearland, Texas;
Valparsio, High School, bachelor's degree in aeronautical and astronautical
engineering, Purdue, Univ., 1973, master's in astronautical engineering,
AF Inst. of Tech., 1980; Pilot F-4 replacement Training Unit,
Homestead AFB; Mr. and Mrs. Richard S. Brown, Valparsio, Ind.

Kenneth D. Cameron, Major USMC,; Nov. 29, 1949, Cleveland, OH; Patuxent
River, Md.; Rocky River High School, Rocky River, Oh, bachelor's and master's
degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, MIT, 1978 and 1979; Project
Officer, Marine Aviation Detachment, Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River
Md.; Mr. and Mrs. Donald B. Cameron, Westport, Conn.

Manley L. Carter, Jr., Comdr., US Navy, August 15, 1947, Macon, Ga;
California, Md; Lanier High School, Macon, Ga., bachelor's degree in
chemistry, Emory University, 1969 and doctor of medicine degree, Emory
University, 1973; Test Pilot Under Instruction, Naval Air Test Center,
Patuxent River, Md; Mr. and Mrs. Manley L. Carter, Sr., Warner Robins, Ga.

John H. Casper, Lt. COl, USAF; July 9 1943, Greenville, SC; Alexandria, VA;
Chamblee High School, GA, bachelor's degree in astronautics and engineering
science, USAF Acad., 1966, master's in astronautics, Purdue, Univ, 1967,
Dep. CHief, Special Projects Office, Headquarters, USAF, Washington DC;
Mr. and Mrs. John Casper, Gainesville, Ga.

Frank L. Culbertson, Jr., Lt. Condr,. US Navy; May 15, 1949, Charleston, SC,
Lexington Park, Md.; Holly Hill High School, SC, Bachelor's degree in
aerospace engineering, US Naval Acad, 1971; Naval Aviation, F-14 Replacement
Air Group, Naval Air Station Oceana, Va.; Dr. and Mrs. Frank L.
Culbertson, Sr., Holly Hill, SC.

Sidney M. Gutierrez, Capt., USAF, June 27, 1951, Albuquerque, NM, Edwards,
CA, Valley High School, Albuquerque, NH, bachelor's degree in aerospace
engineering, US AF Acad., 1973, master;s in management, Webster College,
1977; Test Pilot, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards, AFB, CA; Mr. and
Mrs. Robert A. Gutierrez, Alburquerque, NM.

Lloyd B. Hammond, Jr., Capt., USAF, Jan. 16, 1952, Savannah, Ga., Edwards,
Ca.; Kirkwood High School, Miss., bachelor's degree in engineering mechanics,
USAF Academy, 1973, and master's, Georgia Inst. of Technology, 1974,
Instructor Pilot, USAF Test Pilot School, Edwards AFB; Mr. and Mrs Lloyd B.
Hammond, Sr.

Marsha S. Ivins, April 15, 1951, Maltimore, Md.;
Webster, Texas; Nether Providence High School, Wallingford, Pa.,
and bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering, Univ. of Colorado,
1973; Flight Simulation Engineer, Aircraft Operations Division,
Johnson Space Center, Houston; Mr. and Mrs. Joseph L. Ivins, Wallingford,
Pa.

Mark C. Lee, Capt., USAF, Aug. 14, 1952, Viroqua, Wis.; Layton, Utah;
Viroqua High Scool, Wis.; bachelor's degree in civil engineering,
USAF Academy, 1974, and master's degree in mechanical engineering, MIT,
1980; F-16 test pilot, 388 Tactical Fighter Wing, Hill AFB, Utah;
Mr. and Mrs. Charles M. Lee, Viroqua, Wis.

George D. Low; Feb. 19, 1956, Cleveland; Pasadena, CA; Langley High School,
McLean, Va., bachelor's degree in physics, Washington & Lee Univ., 1978,
bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, Cornell Univ., 1980, and
master's degree in aeronautics and astronautics, Stanford, Univ., 1983;
spacecraft system engineer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA;
Mr. [ed., Just recently deceased] and Mrs. George M. Lowe, NY.

Michael J. McCulley, Lt. Comdr., US Navy; Aug. 4, 1943, San Diego, CA;
Virginia Beach, VA; Livingston Academy, Tenn., bachelor's and master's
degrees in metallurgical engineering, Purdue Univ., 1970; Operations
Officer, Attack Squardron Thirty-Fivre, USS Nimitz, Naval Air Station
Oceana, Va; Mr. and Mrs. Gibson H. McCulley, both deceased.

William M. Shepherd, Lt. Comdr., US Navy; July 26, 1949, Oak Ridge, Tenn.;
Virginia Beach, Va; Arcadia High School, Scottsdale, Ariz., bachelor's
degree in aerospace engineering, US Naval Academy 1971, master's degrees
in mechanical engineering and ocean engineerin, both from MIT, 1978;
Commanding Officer Special Boat Unit TWENTY, Naval Amphibious Base, Little
Creek, Va.; father, the late George R. Shepherd and mother, Barbara
Shepherd, Bethesda, Md.

Ellen L. Shulman, MD, April 27, 1953, Fayetteville, NC, bachelor's degree in
geology, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1974 and doctor of
medicine at Cornell University, 1978; Medical Officer, Medical Sciences
Division, Johnson Space Center, Houston; Dr. and Melvin Shulman, Beechhurst,
NY.

Kathryn C. Thornton, PhD; Aug. 17, 1952, Montgomery, Ala; Charlottesville, Va.;
Sidney Lanier High School, Montgomery, Ala, bachelor's degree in physics,
Auburn, Univ, 1974, master's and doctorate, both in physics, Univ. of VA, 1977
and 1979; Physicist, U.S. Army Foreign Science & Technology Center,
Charlottesville, Va.; William C. Cordell, Hope Hull, Ala. and the late Elsie
Cordell.

Charles L. Veach; Sept. 18, 1944, Chicago; Houston; Punahou School, Honolulu,
HA, and bachelor's degree in engineering management, USAF Academy, 1966;
aeospace engineer & pilot, aircraft operations division, Johnson Space
Center, Houston,; Mr. and Mrs. Marshall E. Veach, Hololulu, HA.

James D. Wetherbee, Lt. U.S. Navy; Nov. 27, 1952, Flushing, NY; Lemoore, CA;
Holy Familer Diocesan High School, South Hungtington, NY and bachelor's degree
in aerospace engineering, University of Notre Dame, 1974; test pilot,
Naval Air Station, Lemoore, CA; Mr. and Mrs. Dana A. Wetherbee, Huntington
Station, NY.

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 4 August 1984 07:30:29 EDT
From: Howard.Gayle@cmu-cs-g.arpa
To: Space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar
Message-ID: <1984.8.4.11.2.32.Howard.Gayle@cmu-cs-g.arpa>

I don't understand why Geostar users will, at least in principle,
pay so much less than Navstar users.  (Note that I am talking
here about direct costs to the user, like hardware and user fees.
I exclude indirect costs like the taxes that pay for the Navstar
satellites.)  A Geostar transceiver
consists of an antenna, a receiver, a processor, a display, and a
transmitter.  A Navstar receiver consists of the same functional units,
but without the transmitter section and its relatively expensive,
high peak power components.  A Navstar receiver contains a
much more complex processor, but this is just silicon, so once
mass production starts, i.e., once the custom VLSI design is
done, this should be negligible.  Geostar will charge a user fee,
but DOD has announced that there will be no user fee for Navstar.
A Navstar receiver will probably have a simpler antenna, since it
will not need to handle transmitter power.  A Geostar transceiver
will probably need an FCC radio station license.
Present military Navstar prototype receivers are, of course, very
expensive, but Aviation Week is already talking about pocket
size receivers.  I expect the Japanese to produce a pocket size
Navstar receiver for well under $1000 (1984 dollars).

I would like to read technical replies to this post, but please
no flames about DOD stupidity, Free Enterprise, etc.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 1984 16:21-PDT
From: dietz%USC-CSE@ECLA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA, arms-d@MIT-MC.ARPA, poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Goodbye all

I'm leaving the network, (sob) so goodbye, everyone.

Paul Dietz
dietz%usc-cse@usc-ecl

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 1984 23:57:04EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: SPACE@MIT-MC

Subject: Ariane 3 launch successful

The Arianespace/European Space Agency successfully lauched the first
Ariane 3 rocket today (Aug 4) at about 10:30 am after a 90 minute hold
due to minor problems according to the British Broadcasting Corp.
This launch placed two satellites in orbit, the Eutelsat ECS-2 and
the French Telecoom 1, both commsats.  Total lauch weight to geosync
orbit of the Ariane 3 is about 2500 kilos.  This makes the Ariane
very competative with the shuttle for geosync orbits at this time.
This is the eighth Ariane launch.  Inspite of the comment made by
someone a few weeks ago in this net the Ariane has never "blown up on the
pad".  It has had 2 failures, one in the booster quite late in the first
stage flight, and once in the third stage.  Actually the failures of the
upper stages on the shuttle, and the success of today's launch has
raised the possibility that the shuttle may have higher insurance rates
placed on launches from it compared to the Ariane.  Not good for the
shuttle as this gives more evidence for those that say the single
launch bosters are better.

                        Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #268    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 268

Today's Topics:
			   Time to Say Goodbye
			     Re: Space tether
			      Re: Apollo 2-6
			Re: How does Geostar work?
		       Justifying the space program
			     Re: Space tether
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 84 6:13:13-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Time to Say Goodbye

I'll be going away to college at the end of August, so it's
time to say farewell (for now anyway) to the net.

I'm not just dropping everything, though.  Gene Spafford,
ihnp4!gatech!spaf, has agreed to take up tl%caretaking
of the List of Active Newsgroups.  He will make the 15
August posting.

Unfortunately, I'll not be able to keep up my reports to
net.columbia.  Don't let it die, though, for I'll be back
during breaks and summers, and maybe I'll even get to squeeze
in an article or two while away.

It's be fun.  Thanx for everything to everyone.
Adam

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 84 7:08:45-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space tether

 > Volume 4, Issue 262 addresses "real" attempts to hang a skyhook from
 > a satellite.  This was the central theme of a science-fiction story
 > I read a year or two ago, which I cannot now find.  I cannot, of course
 > (such is the nature of the universe), remember author or title.
 > Anyone else remember it?

 > The chief engineering problem of the story was the strength of the
 > cable.  They used some newfangled wonder fibre.  Are people now really
 > serious about this?

The Novel was "The Fountains of Paradise" by Arthur C. Clarke.

--> Allen <--
ihnp4!ihuxb!alle

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 84 15:15:40-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Apollo 2-6

> What happened to Apollo missions 2-6?  Were they so upset after the
> disaster of Apollo 1 that they canceled those missions?

The same thing that happened to Gemini 1 and 2:  they were unmanned
tests.  In fact, there may have been some retroactive renumbering
(bletch), because making the Grissom/White/Chaffee mission "Apollo 1"
was a memorial afterthought, not the original intent.  In the normal
course of events, G/W/C would have been Apollo 7 or thereabouts.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 84 15:34:16-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: How does Geostar work?

> Can someone on the net tell us how the Geostar navigation system works?
> The accuracies claimed for it are much higher than those for the military
> Navstar system (less than 1 meter positioning accuracy versus 30 meters).
> However, the Geostar ground units are simpler (they do not need an accurate
> time base) and they use fewer satellites (four versus eighteen).  How can
> they do so much better with so much less?  Technical answers only please,
> not flames about the inferiority of anything done by the government.

The two systems are almost duals of each other, in the mathematical sense
of "precise opposites".  Navstar works by having the user terminal ("ground
unit") time the signals from several different satellites, whose positions
are known accurately.  Geostar works by having the satellites and the
central ground computer facility time the signals from the user terminal.

The Geostar system puts most of the smarts, and most of the cost, in the
satellites and the central ground computers.  Navstar has dumb satellites
and no central ground facility, and consequently needs smart user terminals
with accurate clocks.  Geostar's user terminals are basically just digital
radios for talking to the satellites and sending them pulses to be timed.

The greater accuracy of Geostar is mostly a question of being able to
invest more in accuracy when the investment is centralized, I believe.
They may get some benefit from timing one signal at a time instead of
having to broadcast continuous position-reference signals.  And it
probably helps that they use Clarke-orbit ("geostationary") satellites,
whose positions do not change rapidly.

Geostar would probably need a few more satellites for truly global
coverage; the four-satellite requirement is basically for coverage of
the Americas, I think.  And I suspect that Geostar's accuracy is poor
near the poles, where the satellites are nearly on (or actually below!)
the horizon.  Navstar, being a military system, has to think about
these things, hence large numbers of satellites in non-Clarke orbits.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 84 13:28:41-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Justifying the space program

[]

Justifying the space program using 'spinoffs' does not buy it in Congress.
First, many so called spinoffs, electronic minaturization (sp) a good example,
have been argued down because that would have happened anyway (NASA didn't
really have much to do with it) or that has been argued that "free enterprise"
did the work.  Second, spinoffs are highly unpredictable, extreme case,
justifying chemical warfare research because of possible spinoffs to
cancer research [This work has been done at U of U].  So, I stopped arguing
this track, but I do acknowledge benefits (Tang).

No, Joe Blow on the street needs to see that we are living in the space
age.  For example, the theory of relatively is just seeing "practical" use: we
are starting to think about wire lengths in electronics, perhaps the consumer
of the future might, too.  The space age is now involved with many aspects
of day to day life.  All you need to do to see how vital some of this is:

	1) turn off all weather satellites, especially during storm
	seasons.  Don't forget to tell people that they could be used.
	2) turn off all communication and TV satellites
	3) turn off numerous other navigation and satellites

This might be akin to turning off all traffic lights, but a bit more
removed.  Perhaps, we should not subsidize space so much.

We are heavily involved in the space age: even arms control to an extend.

Direct research such as plantary exploration gives us a comparison
of our planet to others, and directly enlarges our understanding. This
reason is subtle, and almost borders on spinoffs, but it is not a spinoff.

Lastly, the most difficult to fathom reason, we must explore space, because
that is what separates us from the rest of the cosmic 'slime' on spaceship
earth.  [Sagan would have used more elioquent words: 'star stuff']
Our desire for exploration is what separates us from the more primitive
tribes (my favorite are the Sherpas, as I am a climber).  Modern man
got where he is because of his sense of time and the future (planning ahead).
Many other cultures (few left) are unable or unwilling to utilize time.
Modern man has to learn to balance present needs with future desires.
If we let the present dominate our thinking [it is important], then
we fall back down the evolutionary ladder.

I think your (my descendents came East, same difference) Westward migration
and subsequent Alaska and imperialist (to a degree) fortes into other
nations are a reflection of this latter.  Space might give us an
opportunity to continue without killing ourselves.  Let's hope we
can continue without:
	1) destroying the Earth (a spacecraft) and ourselves
	2) ruining other worlds in the process
I have heard social commentators mention '"Japanese" island mentality'
as a positive social force.  Perhaps, we need a bit of "Earth island
mentality," too.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,dual,menlo70,hao}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

p.s. I wish I could be as eloquent as Carl.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 84 18:12:29-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!tesla!mac @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space tether

    The book refered to as including a space tether was based in Sri-Lanka;

    Does that give you a hint?



















    Arthur C. Clarke....

                                         Michael McNamara @ .!cornell!tesla!mac

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Aug-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #269    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 269

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Apollo 2-6
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 84 21:57:13-EDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!astrovax!nels @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Apollo 2-6

According to "Rockets, Missiles and Men in Space" by Willy Ley, there were
three unmanned flights with Apollo hardware before the fire, beginning in
February 1966.  At the time they were designated, in order of launching,
AS-201, AS-203 and AS-202.  During all three, Apollo command and service modules
(CSMs) were launched by a Saturn IB.  Two of the flights were orbital shots;
the other was suborbital.  The next flight was to have been the ill-fated
Apollo 1 (AS-204).  After the fire, AS-201, 203 and 202 became Apollos 1, 3 and 2, respectively.  In October 1967 the first Saturn V sent a CSM into a highly
elliptical orbit and then rammed it back to earth at lunar return speed.  This
flight was called Apollo 4 (AS-501).  Apollo 5 was an unmanned test of the
lunar module (no CSM) in earth orbit using a Saturn IB and Apollo 6 (AS-502)
was another Saturn V shot like Apollo 4.

				Nels Anderson
				Princeton Astrophysics

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #270    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 270

Today's Topics:
		      Very cheap photovoltaic cells
----------------------------------------------------------------------

	id AA00244; Tue, 7 Aug 84 20:23:09 edt
	id AA13994; Tue, 7 Aug 84 20:23:06 edt
Date: 7 Aug 1984 19:56-EDT
From: cu-arpa.dietz@Cornell.ARPA
Subject: Very cheap photovoltaic cells
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <84/08/07 1956.630@Cornell>

The August issue of Spectrum has a short note about a newly invented
process for converting light to electricity.  The process uses an array
of tiny dipoles, 0.18 microns long (~ 1/2 wavelength of light) by 0.01
microns wide.  Incoming light waves cause resonating currents in the
dipoles.  These currents get rectified by diodes to yield DC.

The inventor claims 75-80% efficiency at 1/10 the cost of semiconductor
junction solar cells.  According to the article, no one had previously
been able to get the dipoles thin enough.  X ray techniques have
apparently made it possible (using synchrotron radiation?).

Space enthusiasts will recognize this idea as a rectenna scaled down by
four or five orders of magnitude.  I don't know how the diodes are
made, but it seems clear you don't need large crystals of silicon to
make this work: thin films or polycrystaline Si should work just fine.

If these cells are as cheap as the inventor claims (40x more cost
effective than conventional cells) we could see almost all daytime
electricity coming from them.  This will provide a strong incentive to
develop cheap energy storage (which seems unlikely), to develop very
long transmission lines (which seems impractical, even if
superconducting), or to make the cells work 24 hours a day, either by
placing them in orbit or by putting mirrors in orbit to reflect light
to ground based cells.  The high efficiency also makes laser power
transmission attractive, allowing very small receiving antennas -- but
don't fly into the beam!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Aug-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #271    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 271

Today's Topics:
			      Light Antennae
			   more light antennae
			     Re: Space tether
		     Successful private space venture
		Re: Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar
		    Re: Why did the US let Skylab die?
			  New Soviet Space Walk
		Re: Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar
			   Tethered Generators
		     The Shuttle News Will Continue!
			      Re: Apollo 2-6
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 84 18:37:10 cdt
From: Duncan A. Buell <buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: Space-Enthusiasts%mit-mc.arpa@csnet-relay.csnet

The space program--how do we justify it to Congress?

Beats the hell out of me, and I have been close to the space
program  since  my  father learned rocketry in Huntsville in
1951.  How does Congress justify spending money on the arts?
on  public TV?  How did the Duke of Brunswick justify subsi-
dizing Gauss?

Apart from the obvious (justified or unjustified) desires of
the  military  for  space  ability,  the  people who want to
explore space do it, I suppose, because it's there,  because
it  would  be a denial of some of our more fundamental lusts
to have the technology to "look beyond the ranges"  and  not
do  so.  And Congress pays for it because they can be sucked
in by the same urges.

That, I think, is all there is to it.  That  certainly  does
not  suggest  practical  approaches to going after continued
funding.  Should the turkeys outnumber  the  visionaries  in
Congress,  the  space program can expect lean years--and has
seen some of them.

On  the  other  hand,  maybe  this  does   suggest   funding
approaches.   Don't  try  to  show that it's centsible to go
into space.  Just sell the dream.   Rational  arguments  are
always  in  danger of being refuted by better rational argu-
ments.  A good irrational hunger is a much better bet.

No flames in response to this, please.  I really don't  know
any  sure-fire  justifications  for  going  into  space that
aren't military.  I do know that we'd be less as  a  species
if  we  didn't  succumb  to  some of the urges we have, like
pointing up and wanting to go there.

------------------------------

Date:  8 Aug 1984 1347-PDT
From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL>
Subject: Light Antennae
To: space@MIT-MC

	I don't see why storage should be considered impractical, since it
is already being done on a large scale.

	We could, for example, only use hydro at night or on cloudy days,
doubling or more the amount you get from a given river.  (Less power is
used at night than during the day.)  The fact that an electric car would
usually never need to be recharged (A roof+hood area of 3-4 square meters 
gives about 2KW at noon; if the car has a duty cycle <10%, and most do, it
would never taste an electric outlet!) might make them a winner finally.  
Solar shingles would be a real possibility.  (Note that converting sunlight
to electricity and using resistance heat is more efficient than most solar
collectors, if you believe the 75-80% figure.  Also, the efficiency of a
thermal collector falls proportionally to the insolation (virtually nil on a 
cloudy day), and this wouldn't.

	An article in Technology Review of about 1 1/2 years ago gave about
3-4 cents/KWH as the cost of the home storage unit (Flywheel, Kevlar, ball
bearings, permanent magnet motor/generator, evacuated) and approx 10 cents/
KWH for the collectors.  (This is from memory; correct me if I'm wrong.)

	With the cells so cheap and efficient we can afford to provide enough
to power our load on cloudy days!  

	To summarize, the major uses of energy can adapt well to this source:

ground transport	electric cars with receiver roof
domestic		thermal (600 degree cast iron stores 20 KBTU/cu. ft;
				you need a 4 foot cube to heat a house for
				48 hours)
			electrical (flywheels, batteries, whatever!)
commercial		easier than domestic; less happens at night
heavy industry		store the product!  (Seriously, we would need twice
				as much (say) aluminum smelting capacity to
				meet America's need as we do now (assuming 
				existing plants run at night - do they?) 
				but the major cost of Aluminum is the
				electricity.

	These comments were jotted down very quickly - pardon any inaccuracies.

------------------------------

Date:  8 Aug 1984 1635-PDT
From: Richard M. King <KING@KESTREL>
Subject: more light antennae
To: space@MIT-MC

	I forgot to point out in the last message that at least a third of
our electric energy could be generated in this manner before the utility
would have to "generate negative electricity" by other means (ie. shut down
all of its plants and run storage).  Also, electricity is already being
stored on a large scale (pumped Hydro, etc.) and may soon be more so (BEST).

	Note that the power company has to buy your current at avoided cost,
which is the most expensive price it pays for its power.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 12:00:03-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix241 @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space tether

The chief 'engineering problem' was moving Ceylon south to the equator.

John Testa
UCSD Chem
sdccs6!ix241

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 8:42:54-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Successful private space venture

I see from the SJ Mercury news that the local Redwood City firm
called Starstruck had their first successful 14 second launch of
their rocket off San Diego.  It was a missile placed in the water
and then launched.  Three prior failures had problems such as water
leakage, and frozen values.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 12:51:26-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar

This isn't technical, but it's not a flame either.  Navstar and Geostar
are designed for very different missions.  Navstar is worldwide, Geostar
is North America.  Also, much more fundimental, Navstar is designed to 
fight wars with.  It is designed to survive hostile attack by intelligent,
powerful enemies.  This sort of thing costs a lot of money and has
enormous impact on design.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 12:47:24-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Why did the US let Skylab die?

>One thing I've never understood is why the US never
>tried to save Skylab.  From what I've read, NASA  had
>planned to fly one of the early shuttle missions to Skylab
>to attach a new engine to it to boost it to a higher orbit
>in order to save it.  This plan was based on the assumption
>by NASA that the shuttle was going to be ready in about
>1978, which it obviously wasn't.  However, my question is:
>if NASA knew that it couldn't get to Skylab with the shuttle
>in time, why didn't they launch an unmanned vehicle to
>rendezvous with Skylab to boost it into a higher orbit?
>
>Would there be technical difficulties with such a plan,
>or did NASA not do it so they could obtain a *new* space
>station; instead of having to refurbish Skylab?  It seemed
>to me to be such a waste to let such a huge station be
>destroyed.  It sure would have been nice to have to work
>in concert with the shuttle, until the new space station
>is launched in the 1990's.

There would have been severe technical difficulaties.  Not unsolvable, but
expensive and time consuming.  Building ANY space vehicle takes years,
usually five or more.  Building something that does something new
(unmanned rendezvous and reboost would be new for the U.S.) is that much
harder.  Combine that with tight NASA budgets of the time and it's fairly
obvious why nothing was done.

Also, a note, Skylab wasn't supposed to come down so soon.  The problem
was that the Sun was hotter than expected so the atmosphere expanded
increasing drag.  When Skylab was put up, NASA did three studies to
determin drag up to the shuttle era.  Two studies said little atmospheric
expansion, one study turned out to be accurate.  NASA managers did the
logical thing at the time and believed the two studies.  They just turned
out to be wrong.  At least that's the story I heard.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 1984 23:53:57EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Subject: New Soviet Space Walk

Two of the Soviet Salyut cosmonauts, Vladimir Solovyov and Leonid Kizin,
have just today (Aug 8) spent another five hours in a space walk.  The
purpose of this one was to do more work on the fuel lines of the station
and to take in a piece of the solar panels for return to earth for studies.
This is the sixth space walk for this pair this year, and gives them a total
of 22 hours each in vacuum.  The Russian reports went on to say this gave
more indications of the usefulness of men in building large space structures.
In recent days they have been talking of solar power sats.  That Salyut crew
has just passed the half year mark in space so who knows what the Soviets
have planned for them in the rest of their flight.  The Russians are having
their best year in space ever this year, unfortunately the same cannot be
said for this country.

                   Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 22:52:47-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!dietz @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar

A Navstar ground unit must receive signals from four navstar satellites
simultaneously, so it must have 4 receivers (actually, two frequencies are
transmitted by each satellite, so the unit must receive 8 signals).  A
Geostar ground unit need only have one receiver.  Geostar ground unit must
transmit a powerful microwave pulse, but the average power is very low
(milliwatts), so microwave semiconductors can be used.

There is some contention about the accuracy of the Geostar system.  The
Navstar system uses two different frequency signals from each satellite in
order to compensate for the slowing of microwaves passing through the
ionosphere (a frequency dependent effect).  Geostar could do this also by
having the ground unit transmit two reply pulses at different frequencies,
but I don't know if O'Neill has put this feature in.

The biggest gain for Geostar is the added functionality.  Since signals are
transmitted from ground units, they can be used for communication as well as
position location.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 13:25:40-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihuxt!ivy @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Tethered Generators

Loss of orbital energy (altitude) to stratospheric friction
is a real problem.
Using an orbiting tether as a generator winding,
sweeping through a planet's magnetic field,
and using that to replace the orbital energy lost to friction
is an excellent idea.
Now, having solved the problem of energy lost to friction,
how shall we replace the orbital energy lost (converted) to electricity?

How about a bicycle with a generator on the front wheel,
and an electric motor on the back?
Wiring them into each other won't make up for wind resistance...
without adding a step-up transformer in between!  ;-)

D Iverson

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 12:27:37-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: The Shuttle News Will Continue!

Roger Noe (ihlts!rjnoe) has more than graciously offered
to summarize the shuttle news for me while I am away, so
the summaries will continue even after my departure!  A
big THANK YOU to Roger, please!!

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 15:28:18-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Apollo 2-6

I thought that Apollo 2-6 were unmanned test flights. Lots of changes went into
design between the Gemini and Apollo series. Apollo 7 was the the first to be
manned in the new design. I think!
-- 
				    -------------------------
					Jay Mitchell
					ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym
				    -------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #272    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 272

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Apollo 2-6
		Re: Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar
			  very cheap solar cells
		SPACE Digest V4 #271    Why spacelab died.
	       Re: Justifying space exploration to Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 12:49:24-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Apollo 2-6

I got curious enough about this to check my previous comments in the
best available reference, "Chariots For Apollo", which is (roughly
speaking) the official history of the Apollo spacecraft.  Turns out
the situation was more complex than it looked.

The Grissom/White/Chaffee mission was indeed known as "Apollo 1", but
not 100% officially.  The astronauts had official approval for a shoulder
patch marked "Apollo 1", and this designation also appeared in other
places, but much of NASA continued to refer to the mission by its
internal planning number, AS-204.  Three earlier unmanned tests had
been AS-201 through AS-203.  Just how this would have all turned out
in the absence of the fire, one can only speculate.

What actually did happen was that the first flight after the fire, an
unmanned test, was officially known throughout NASA as "Apollo 4".
(It still had an AS-xxx number, but this was no longer the final name
of the mission.)  Further tests and manned missions went from there.

There was an official decision *not* to retroactively rename the earlier
tests, perhaps partly to avoid the problem of having to call AS-201
"Apollo 1", a name which many people thought should be reserved for the
never-flown AS-204.  So there never (officially) was an "Apollo 2" or
"Apollo 3".

[Bibliographic note:  "Chariots for Apollo" is still available from the
US Govt Printing Office, and is well worth having, as are "Moonport" and
"Steps to Saturn", the corresponding books on Kennedy Space Center and
the Saturn boosters.  Not cheap, and not thin, but good.]
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 84 13:00:17-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar

> I don't understand why Geostar users will, at least in principle,
> pay so much less than Navstar users.  (Note that I am talking
> here about direct costs to the user, like hardware and user fees.
> I exclude indirect costs like the taxes that pay for the Navstar
> satellites.)  A Geostar transceiver
> consists of an antenna, a receiver, a processor, a display, and a
> transmitter.  A Navstar receiver consists of the same functional units,
> but without the transmitter section and its relatively expensive,
> high peak power components.  A Navstar receiver contains a
> much more complex processor, but this is just silicon, so once
> mass production starts, i.e., once the custom VLSI design is
> done, this should be negligible.  Geostar will charge a user fee,
> but DOD has announced that there will be no user fee for Navstar.
> A Navstar receiver will probably have a simpler antenna, since it
> will not need to handle transmitter power.  A Geostar transceiver
> will probably need an FCC radio station license.
> Present military Navstar prototype receivers are, of course, very
> expensive, but Aviation Week is already talking about pocket
> size receivers.  I expect the Japanese to produce a pocket size
> Navstar receiver for well under $1000 (1984 dollars).

As I said in a previous article, which may not have got to you yet,
the answer is simple.  A Geostar transceiver is basically just a
digital radio.  A Navstar receiver needs a complex receiver (it has
to decode time signals very accurately, something Geostar does in
the centralized part of the system), probably a very accurate clock,
and quite a bit of computing power.  This is not free, and not cheap,
despite the overblown claims of Navstar advocates.

The only reason DoD isn't going to charge a user fee for Navstar is
that they don't see any way to collect one, since the Navstar signals
are broadcast transmissions that anyone can pick up.  Geostar is in
a position to charge a fee, since getting your position from it needs
cooperation from the central computer.

A Geostar transceiver shouldn't need an FCC licence any more than a
cellular-mobile telephone needs one.  Both are radio transceivers,
but both get handled in different ways from normal transmitters.

Please note that one reason why Geostar is much more accurate than
Navstar is that the high-accuracy version of the Navstar signals can
be received only if you have the right decryption key, which will be
available only to the US military.  Civilian Navstar users get only
the low-accuracy version.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 1984 14:17:00-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: very cheap solar cells

The talk about the cells costing a tenth what silicon solar cells do must be
bunk.  Current module costs are maybe $5/W, so he is talking $0.50/W, or
$5/wafer.  The cost of silicon cells is primarily the crystalline silicon.
The cost of the antenna cells is the complex lithographic step.  Rectifiers
will probably have to be integrated onto the same wafer, so an alignment
problem is created, and it looks a lot like you're making an integrated
circuit.  Note that according to the article, a prototype won't be available
until next year, so the process must be rather difficult.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 1984  18:16 EDT
Message-ID: <MINSKY.12038157842.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
To:   Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #271    Why spacelab died.

At the time it became clear that spacelab would fall in less than two
years, I wandered around various NASA centers to see what could be
done.  Not only was the shuttle late but the remote (telepresence)
maneuvering vehicle project was essentially unfunded.  But I also got
an impression of general unenthusiasm for an emergency rescue effort.
True, the thing was worth more than a billion in replacement costs.
But I got the feeling in several places that people would rather make
a new better one than work on refitting and re-engineering the old one.

No one would actually admit to this, but that's the impression I got.

------------------------------

Date:  9-Aug-84 14:30 PDT
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Justifying space exploration to Congress
To: space@MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2.ARPA]TYM-KIRK-577JH>

What if a very hard study showed that greater relative funding of space 
exploration over other activities increased our viability, at least as a nation.
 Such a study may be doable even by just the collaboration of those on this 
list.  If it turned out that a significant increase in viability would result, 
would it have any impact on congress? 

 -- kirk

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

11-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #273    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 273

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Successful private space venture
			 Re: Tethered Generators
			     GPS and GEOSTAR
			 Re: Tethered Generators
			Shuttle Liftoff Scheduled
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 84 9:32:47-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Successful private space venture

In article <ames.455> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>I see from the SJ Mercury news that the local Redwood City firm
>called Starstruck had their first successful 14 second launch of
>their rocket off San Diego.  It was a missile placed in the water
>and then launched.  Three prior failures had problems such as water
>leakage, and frozen values.

I should think frozen values would be more of a problem to NASA than
Starstruck.

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 84 8:58:43-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Tethered Generators

[7 August 1984]

     The way you make up frictional drag losses in LEO with a conductive
tether is to use a solar array to force current up the tether.  By reversing
the 'generator effect', you now have a motor.  The system now gains
orbital energy at the expense of electricity.

     Force on a current-carrying wire in a magnetic field is

          IL x B
 
where I=current in Amperes, L=length of wire(meters),x= cross product (math
function that tells which way force is directed), and B is magnetic field in
Teslas.  In order to have a one way current, you have to collect electrons
at one end (a large sheet of aluminum), and get rid of them at the other
(an electron gun).  Losses in the system are parasitic power to run the
electron gun (10-20%), and I*I*R resistance losses in the wire.

     Although this propulsion system only works well in the ionosphere,
it gets lots better thrust per watt than ion propulsion, and consumes
no fuel to boot.  It can also be scaled arbitrarily small, i.e.
1 Ampere, 100 meter wire, television type electron gun, = 1/300 newton.

Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 1984 09:36:55-EDT
From: Kim.Constantikes at CMU-RI-SENSOR
Subject: GPS and GEOSTAR

	The hardware requirements for a GPS reciever depend much
upon the desired precision and user code access. It's true
that two frequencies are avialable, but need not both be used.
>From "Update on Civil GPS", T.A. Stansell,Jr. ( MAGNAVOX ):

		SIGNALS
	____________________________________________________________
	| L1 = 1575 Mhz | C/A code @ 1.023 Mhz | P code @ 10.23 Mhz|
	____________________________________________________________
	| L2 = 1227 Mhz |                      | P code @ 10.23 Mhz|
	____________________________________________________________

ie, two carriers, each carrier with two subcarriers, each subcarrier
with a different user access security.

	Figures for precision and accuracy change depending on 
a number of factors, not the least of which is the equipment
manufacturer. The following numbers are MAGNAVOX's, I can't 
vouch for the veracity:

	1) Classified, Multichannel, Two Freq, P code => ~10 meter RMS
	   ( 3d )
	2) Classified, Single channel, One Freq, C/A code => ~20 meter RMS
	   ( 3d )
	3) Unclassified, Civilian Reciever => ~50 meters

The article is not clear about what constitutes " Uclassified Cvilian "
access.

	The system has been designed so that any user ( world wide )
can recieve signals from 4 satellites at any time ( when fully 
implemented ). This does not imply that 4 satellites are needed
for a 3d fix, of course. Three satellites will suffice, but at
a reduced precision ( I have no idea what the reduction is ).

	Moving to opinions ( perhaps a bit stronger than that ):
The aviation community that I have contact with generally expresses
great concern over a ATC system that depends upon the reliability
of one ( or two ) ground stations ( GEOSTAR ) . The entire 
ATC system can very easily be put out of commission, deliberately
or by accident. GPS is substantially less vunerable to system wide
failures.In fact, the current argument over whether to implement
the MLS landing system or to use GPS for approaches centers about
the same idea.... localize possible failures so that a massive
failure has limited effect. It looks like MLS will win on this point.

	There is a wealth of literature on the details of GPS, in 
it's different configurations and resulting precisions that
range from ~10 cm for a 24 hour fix to the numbers above for the high
bandwidth measurement. People willing to read can contact me for some
pointers, altho I AM NOT AN AUTHORITY on the system. 

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 84 12:29:07-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: menlo70!sri-unix!parallel!andrew (Andrew Knutsen) @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Tethered Generators

	If there was energy lost due to stratospheric friction,
Id be more concerned with atmosperic heating than slowing down
the day.  I dont think it would take more than a few seconds of
increased revolutional period to boil us all to vapor...

	What a pleasant thought eh? Such are the pitfalls of
large scale projects.

Andrew

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 84 20:14:23-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Shuttle Liftoff Scheduled

NASA today scheduled the liftoff of the combined shuttle flight,
setting launch for 0835 EDT on 29 August, and landing at EAFB
on 4 September.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #274    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 274

Today's Topics:
		 Solar cells using dipole antenna arrays
				 several
			       More of same
			     Discovery on Pad
			  Shuttle Watching Tips
		       Discovery Misaligned on Pad
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 84 12:16:00-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!davekn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Solar cells using dipole antenna arrays

     A couple of articles concerning this subject have appeared in this
group, thus my comments are sent here.  The reference is a short (1/3
page) news article in the latest Spectrum describing a patent for a
solar cell technology using an array of .18 micron long by .01 micron
wide dipole antennas and rectifiers for converting light into DC
electricity.  Claimed efficiency is 75 to 80%.

     I believe this to be a hoax.  First, even with the lithography
dimensions mentioned in the article, the transit time of electrons
across a diode junction is much more than the 1 femto-second or so
needed to rectify light frequencies.  Second, the intensity of average
sunlight would produce about 30 microvolts across each dipole.  This
is much too small to overcome the forward drop of any diodes.  If the
sunlight is concentrated by 10,000 times (to 1000 watts per square
centimeter), the voltage raises to 3 millivolts - still much too small.
Since sunlight is not coherent, the voltage of several dipoles cannot
be added to improve this situation.  Third, said lithography is just
becoming possible, and would not be economical for large arrays for at
least another 10 years.

                               David Knierim           8/10/84

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 1984 16:20:37-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: several

The skyhook SF story was most likely the novel by Arthur C. Clarke. I don't
have my libary handy in my office and I don't remember the title. Something
of Paradise I think. I do seem to remember I survey of the real skyhook
studies in the back of the novel.

The only public technical info on the Geostar system that I know of was
published in two different articles in the AOPA Pilot. Both were within the
last 3 years. Anyone interested in the details should latch on to a pilot
friend and copy these articles. I might add that the design has been
improved considerably since then, as they have actually done their pilot
test. What these improvements are, I have no idea. Friends at SSI get
understandably tight lipped when it comes to details like that...

The reason for the cheapness is that the system smarts are centralized.
Military systems do not require the navigating object to respond and give
away it's position. This technical complication makes the satellite more
complex and makes the receiver enormously complex and ridiculously
expensive. Geostar basically uses very simple time-coded signals to
triangulate the location of an object. The actual calculations are done on
large, (multiply redundant), central computers. The satellites are simple
high power transmitters with big receivers antennas, and the aircraft
carries a simple transponder/display device.

The key to the cheapness of the transponder is spreading the market to
include trucks, cars, boats, hikers, etc, so that mass production cuts the
cost even more. I doubt that the basic unit is much more complex than an
ELT.

Billing is quite simple, because anybody can buy a list of all currently
active 'N' numbers and the owner addresses on floppy diskettes. I'm not sure
how they intend to bill earthworms.

In one swell foop, this system makes the ELT (and all it's long history of
false alarms) obsolete, undersells the military efforts to become a
commercial sales outfit, annihilates large portions of the National Airspace
Plan (NASP), brings blind landing/takeoff capabilities within the reach of
the merely well-to-do and in general gets rid of loads and loads of very
very expensive avionics required for IFR flight. Of course the FAA will
probably try to ignore it for as long as possible, because even though the
administrations have changed, Lynn J Helms tied the agencies destiny and
reputation to the above mentioned budgetary disaster (NASP), and they are
unlikely to admit it publicly until forced to do so. They will probably
salve their wounded pride by keeping the requirement for VOR-DME technology,
although hopefully it will lay the MLS controversy to bed. We'll just have
to see what happens when AOPA gets through working them over...

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 1984 17:08:59-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: More of same

Item #1:

The solar electric car may well be an idea whose time is coming. I can name
two other recent MAJOR contributing breakthroughs:

	1) Polyacetylene batteries
	2) The new magnet materials

The batteries should be available fairly soon; I think Allied Electronics is
supposed to market them. They have about an order of magnitude imporvement
over lead-acid in kw-hr/lb, and are at least as rechargeable.

The new magnetic material is about double (?) the field strength of the
current best available, and is not expected to be terribly expensive. It is
expected to lead to improved starter motors. I suspect it may also improve
good old electric motors for the wheels.

I do wonder if anyone has a solution to the low end torque problem; maybe a
flywheel? I do enjoy taking out a sportscar and laying rubber in the first
three gears...

We'll know it's really here to stay when an elcetric car beats an Offie at
Indy.


Item 2:
The russians may finally be considering serious use of women astronauts, but
I can't help feeling a nagging doubt when I look at the originally published
NASA launch schedule for this year and notice that an american women was
scheduled for a spacewalk in August, and Sally Ride was scheduled to go up
again. Funny thing that the Russian's did both so shortly before those
original dates...

#Item 3
I wonder if it has crossed anyone else's mind that if the Russians are
indeed going for a full year, then April of this year may just be one of the
most significant dates in the history of the earth:

	The last day in history when human life was not present in space.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 84 6:35:42-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery on Pad

The Discovery was rolled back to the launch pad yesterday
and bolted in place for its 29 August launch.

------------------------------

Date: 11 August 1984 2123-EDT
From: Jim Crowley at CMU-CS-A
To: Bboard.Maintainer@CMU-CS-A
Subject: Shuttle Watching Tips
Attention: space bboard

By a fortunate coincidence I expect to be in the Cape Canaveral
area on Aug 29. Does anyone out in Net-land have any suggestions as
to the best way for a private citizen to view a shuttle launch?
    -Crowley@cmua

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 84 21:05:47-EDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery Misaligned on Pad

NASA today discovered that the mobile launch platform on
which the Discovery sits was placed about three inces
off center on the launch pad yesterday.  The misalignment
left the mobile platform well within its tolerance limits,
but the huge tractor tansporter was rolled back to the pad
today, and the mobile platform and shuttle along with it
were realigned.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #275    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
		 A message on behalf of Ben Bova and NSI.
			   re: # of satellites
			    Re: Light Antennae
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender:  SAI-relay@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Date:  Sun, 12 Aug 84 22:15 EDT
From:  Bernoff.SoftArts@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject:  A message on behalf of Ben Bova and NSI.
To:  space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840813021518.041185@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
*from:  BERNOFF (Joshua D. Bernoff)
Local:  space@mit-mc, cc:BERNOFF:sent.po
Original-Date:  12 AUG 1984 20:04:52

I am a friend of Mr. Bova's and I have been sending him
excerpts from the material on this net that I thought would be
of interest to him. He is very active in the space movement
(please see his book "The High Road", subtitled ". . . to
survive on earth, we must expand into space," a cogently argued
treatise written in such a way that even politicians can
understand it).

Mr. Bova is also President the National Space Institue, a
worthwhile organization that has been asked to testify before
congress more than any other space public interest
organization. (NSI was founded by Wernher von Braun.)

This message asks you to join NSI. As its prime purposes, NSI
keeps its members up-to-date on space exploration activities
and represents the interests of people like us in Congress. As
the NRA has demonstrated, organizations of this type have
clout, and are a force to be reckoned with. NSI is one way the
people on this list could make themselves known and powerful AS
A GROUP.

The people reading this are, from my observation, highly
intelligent, enthusiastic, and motivated. They are also highly
individualistic and diverse, unlikely to join groups, clubs, or
other granfaloons. Individually, this is a positive thing, but
it means we're less likely to be listened and our interests are
not well represented. NSI provides a way to channel some of our
efforts in ways that can do the most good. Dammit, what happens
in U.S. space efforts is probably the most important part of
many of our futures, and I see this as an effective way to
actually affect those futures for the better.

At the risk of sounding like a late night UHF TV commercial, call:

(202) 484-1111

or write:

     National Space Institue
     West Wing Suite #203
     600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
     Washington, DC 20024

to get more information. Feel free to mention Ben Bova's name.
If we all flame together, maybe we'll light a fire under
somebody!

Thanks,
          Josh

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 84 15:51:19-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!sohail @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: re: # of satellites

According to Desmond King-Hele's book "Observing Earth Satellites",
there are roughly 5000 (five thousand) significant man-made objects
in earth orbit. Watching these objects cross the sky every moonless night
an hour after sunset is one of my favorite pastimes. The Ruskies were kind
enough to send up a booster 6-8 meters in length , with every 'Cosmos' 
satellite. These boosters, painted white, usually go into orbit with 
the payload for 2 weeks to 20 years. In contrast, most of the United
States launches were very tidy about putting thier booster trash in
ballistic arcs or very shortlived orbits. (Maybe someone from NASA could
enlighten us on the validity of my last sentence)
The pretty white, tumbling, spent boosters make much better backyard 
targets then the small black silicon covered functional 
devices that are gyro-stabilized.

		I remain
			Cliff Cordes

		...hao!noao!terak!cliff

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 84 14:52:30-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Light Antennae

> 	I don't see why storage should be considered impractical, since it
> is already being done on a large scale.

Not on anywhere near a large enough scale, and it's very difficult and
expensive.  We still have no really good and efficient way of storing
electricity.

> 	We could, for example, only use hydro at night or on cloudy days,
> doubling or more the amount you get from a given river.  (Less power is
> used at night than during the day.)

Hydro power (and its relative, pumped storage) is about the only bright
spot in energy storage.  But both are relatively expensive and, more
important, applicable only in certain places.

> The fact that an electric car would
> usually never need to be recharged (A roof+hood area of 3-4 square meters 
> gives about 2KW at noon; if the car has a duty cycle <10%, and most do, it
> would never taste an electric outlet!) might make them a winner finally.  

The problem with electric cars is not recharging, but battery capacity.
The light-antenna scheme wouldn't do anything about this; what's needed
is better battery technology, and it's being very slow in coming.

> 	An article in Technology Review of about 1 1/2 years ago gave about
> 3-4 cents/KWH as the cost of the home storage unit (Flywheel, Kevlar, ball
> bearings, permanent magnet motor/generator, evacuated) and approx 10 cents/
> KWH for the collectors.  (This is from memory; correct me if I'm wrong.)

I can't comment on whether the numbers are right; the problem is that
nobody has ever (to my knowledge) actually built such a thing.  This is
all speculation, not production equipment.

> ground transport	electric cars with receiver roof

Only given much better batteries.

> domestic		thermal (600 degree cast iron stores 20 KBTU/cu. ft;
> 				you need a 4 foot cube to heat a house for
> 				48 hours)

Plus insulation, plus heat-exchange arrangements...  Not trivial, and
again this is not production hardware yet.

>			electrical (flywheels, batteries, whatever!)

"Whatever" is definitely the word for it.  Lots of ideas, but limited
choice when one comes to viable, proven hardware.  Despite years of
effort, too.

> commercial		easier than domestic; less happens at night

Don't forget that commercial buildings, and for that matter apartment
buildings, have much less surface area for the amount of power they use
than ordinary houses.  This may be troublesome.

> heavy industry		store the product!  (Seriously, we would need twice
> 				as much (say) aluminum smelting capacity to
> 				meet America's need as we do now (assuming 
> 				existing plants run at night - do they?) 
> 				but the major cost of Aluminum is the
> 				electricity.

I'm not sure... but I strongly suspect that a fair bit of the really
heavy industry is running 24 hours/day already, to get maximum production
out of very expensive capital investments.  The major incremental cost of
aluminum definitely is the power, but don't forget capital costs.  I have
no idea how they compare in the aluminum industry, but I know they are
very important in some industries.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket -- the light-antenna notion will be
a big thing, if it's practical -- but don't underestimate the problems
involved in energy storage.  At present the technology really isn't
up to application on a national scale.

Don't forget, also, that the energy storage system and/or the non-solar
backup power sources *have* to be configured for the worst case, not
the average case.  Clouds may not hurt light antennas as badly as they
hurt more ordinary solar power, but they'll still cut the output a lot,
and at the worst possible time too (i.e. very cold weather).
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #276    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 276

Today's Topics:
			      Re: Apollo 2-6
			 The Government in Space
			   Keeping space clean
			Why Space? -- Your Answers
			 Re: Tethered Generators
				 Mondale
			      24 hr industry
	  Re: More of same (electric motors and low end torque)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 84 17:08:19-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Apollo 2-6

People have asked how to get "Chariots for Apollo" and the other books
I mentioned, and it seems to be of sufficiently wide interest to post it.

"C. for A." is a detailed history of the Apollo spacecraft; the others cover
the Saturn boosters and the KSC launch facilities.  These are very thorough
and very detailed; the thinnest of them is over 500 pages.  They are full
of fascinating tidbits (like the vacuum-chamber rehearsal of the Apollo 11
lunar-surface procedures that was aborted when Armstrong reported, "Houston,
this is Apollo 11.  We can't get the hatch open.").  Highly recommended.

The books are softcover only, but cost much less than I remembered.  I
ordered a bunch of other things at the same time, and must have gotten
the prices confused.

They are NASA publications, orderable from:

	Superintendent of Documents
	U.S. Government Printing Office
	Washington, DC 20402

The three books in question, with USGPO stock numbers and prices (as of
about a year ago) are:

Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft.
	S/N 033-000-00768-0	$12.00

Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations.
	S/N 033-000-00740-0	$13.00

Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles.
	S/N 033-000-00794-0	$12.00

Checks and money orders should be payable to "Superintendent of Documents".
They take Visa and M/C.  Foreign customers: no checks, add 25% for mailing.
Allow 4 weeks.  Phone orders at (202)783-3238, 8-4 Eastern Time.

You might want to ask for some of their Subject Bibliographies, which are
lists of publications on specific topics.  The one I ordered from is
SB-297, "Space, Rockets, and Satellites".  I'm not sure these are free,
but I don't know how much they'd cost; I didn't get my copy of SB-297 by mail.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 84 02:28:56 EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: The Government in Space
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA, poli-sci@RUTGERS.ARPA

    From:  Bernoff.SoftArts@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
    Subject:  A message on behalf of Ben Bova and NSI.
    *from:  BERNOFF (Joshua D. Bernoff)
    ...
    Mr. Bova is also President the National Space Institue, a 
    worthwhile organization that has been asked to testify before 
    congress more than any other space public interest organization. 
    (NSI was founded by Wernher von Braun.)
    ...
    This message asks you to join NSI. As its prime purposes, NSI
    keeps its members up-to-date on space exploration activities
    and represents the interests of people like us in Congress. As
    the NRA has demonstrated, organizations of this type have
    clout, and are a force to be reckoned with. NSI is one way the
    people on this list could make themselves known and powerful AS
    A GROUP.
    ... Dammit, what happens
    in U.S. space efforts is probably the most important part of
    many of our futures.

    Thanks,
	      Josh

The NRA hasn't done so hot.  What other rights in the Bill of Rights
are so universally spit upon as the Second Amendment?

But trivialities aside, I'd like to register a dissenting opinion
to some of the implications above.  Essentially, the future of
mankind in space depends on breaking the government stranglehold
on space activity.  Those working to involve the government more
heavily in space are working to have an Amtrak, a Post Office, or
a Dept. of Education in control of what would otherwise been the
greatest adventure of the human race.

The only thing that the government SHOULD be doing in space is the
only thing it ISN'T:  aggressively protecting the rights of its
citizens.  Instead, paranoid of any miniscule power they, the citizens,
attain ("formidable to tyrants only"), the government restricts,
regulates, and wraps in red tape any private endeavor, but what is
worse, creates and maintains an atmosphere of uncertainty about
both its own efforts (NASA's highly subsidized offerings would be
instantly hauled into court as predatory price cutting it it were
a private company), and its restrictions on others'.

I once asked Charles Sheffield what was wrong with the nuclear rocket
(NERVA style); why wasn't anybody using them?  Well, he replied, they
were known to be feasible and would probably be considerably more 
economical than chemical ones, but were illegal, both by law and
by treaty.  Now, there's no law of nature that says that space 
exploration has to be cheap enough for any significant fraction of
the people to be able to do it--but if there is a way, it is nuclear
power or something better, not the "Cecil B. DeMille" method whereby
the government accomplishes one grand thing in a lifetime using the
efforts of millions of slaves.  

Governments are great at being Ozimandias, but make lousy truck drivers.
Government-run enterprises, and those under close government control,
show a moribund tenacity to old ways that would be the doom of any
space expansion effort.  --And that's assuming it's successful;  that's
assuming that people are so convinced we need space that they'll put
up with the horribly high costs involved, the way they put up with the
Post Office.  My bet is that Nasa will continue to blow in the political
wind, going in fits and starts, running hot and cold depending who's
in favor, who's in power, whether 49 or 51 percent of congressmen woke
up on the right side of the bed this morning.

The corner used rocket lot next to the local spaceport--this image could
be reality within a century.  First we must have a political environment
in which it is possible to have the corner used airplane lot next to the 
local airport.  Instead it costs about $2000 just to get a pilot's
*license*.  If space is run by the government, you can just throw all
those old dreams out the window.  Although it's next to impossible, a
political space supporter could hope to put together a coalition of
interests similar to the "military-industrial complex".  Although in the
quarter-century since that phrase was coined, DoD has spent upwards of
a trillion dollars, what has it *accomplished*?

Space enthusiasts, like many others before them, have been suckered in by
the "quick-buck" theory of government:  Spend your time and money
convincing the government to do what you want, and you'll get a 
"multiplier effect", being able to accomplish more than if you had
applied your efforts directly to your end.  It worked for the railroads
from 1880 to the 1950's; for the airlines from the 1930's to 1980.
It still works for the farmers as a sector, though most the small farmers
it was supposed to help are bust, and agri-corporations get the payoffs.
It has worked for defense contractors since the 30's in a big way.
More recently this gold mine has been discovered by everybody from 
the aged to the zoologists.  What all this has to do with space is
that like any resource, competition soon brings its cost into line
with its benefits.  How are you doing in the political arena now?
Tomorrow will bring more, not less, clamoring fools with some plausible
theory about how the "public good" and their gain coincide.

I hate to see otherwise intelligent, decent people throw away their 
integrity, and indeed their ultimate chance for success, for the
seductive short-term promise of coercive gain.  And I hate even more
for them to ruin my own chances for independent success, in the process.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 84 9:32:53-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Keeping space clean

The comment was made that the US is more "tidy" in keeping spent boosters,
etc, out of orbit than is the Soviet Union. This is correct.  With all of
the objects in orbit being tracked by NORAD, they want to minimize the
number as much as possible. On a low orbit mission, the upper stage is
maneuvered into an elliptical orbit with a low perigee after the payload
is separated, so that the launcher (which has a very large area/mass
ratio to start with) will decay within several years.  For example,
the Delta second stage on the Landsat-5/UoSAT-Oscar-11 launch was dropped
into a 500 x 700 km orbit after the payloads were deposited in 700 km
circular orbits.

On geostationary launches, the initial elliptical transfer orbit generally
has a very low perigee (e.g., 200 km for the Ariane). This serves the dual
purpose of shortening the lifetime of the launcher upper stage and reducing
the energy required to reach transfer orbit.  Ariane 3rd stages have been
reentering in about 3 years; I don't know about STS PAMs, but they will
probably also reenter fairly quickly due to the low starting perigee of
300 km or so (the circular altitude of the shuttle).

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 84 11:10:56-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!wd9get @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Why Space? -- Your Answers

Thanks for all the many replys to my query about arguments for why
we should venture into space. Here are the replys I received so
far. If any of these bring up another good point, or you have an
alternitive point of view, please mail it to me. I'm always glad to
hear new arguments.

--Keith E. Brandt
  pur-ee!wd9get


>From inuxc!fred Tue Jul 31 10:10:40 1984

	My favorite argument runs like this: The Earth has 
finite resources. If as a race we restrict ourselved to only 
Earths resources we are forced to play a zero sum game, i.e.
every time I win it someone else must be losing. This type 
of situation is a prime cause of much unrest in the world and
in fact is a prime cause of wars. 
	The move into space and the use of extratresstial
resources breaks us out of the zero sum game. There is enough
material and energy out there that if I win, it is not at the
cost of someone else, they can win too.
	Joe Blow on the street is not going to understand this but
he should at least understand that we are running out of fundamental
resources on the planet and that space exploration is likely to 
help correct those shortages.



				Fred


>From ucbvax!mcgeer@ucbchip.Berkeley.ARPA Tue Jul 31 20:56:00 1984

	Here are two good reasons:
	
(1) In direct benefits alone (weather forecasting, mineral discoveries,
communications), the space program has more than paid for itself (all in,
Mercury to the Shuttle, the cost of the program has been about $50 billion.
Better weather prediction has been worth conservatively ten times that, just
counting better crop yields, less damage from hurricanes, and so forth.
Mining discoveries are worth easily $500 billion as well).  When spinoff
benefits - chips, doppler ultrasound, velcro, all manner of materials, and
so forth - are counted, the program has paid off a hundredfold over our
investment.

(2) Is it merely our lot to trudge this earth between birth and the grave,
wondering where our next meal is coming from, keeping our mind and our eyes
firmly upon the mud that we tread?  Or should we, in these niggling few
years that a cruel nature allots us, strive, seek, find and never yield?
The space program is man's answer to the  ultimate challenge of the
universe, and to our highest calling.  It seems to me that $25 for each of
us is not too large a price to pay to wander among the stars, instead of
trudging in the muck.

						Rick.


>From ihnp4!vax135!ukc!dgd Wed Aug  1 19:37:48 1984

 Probably not an argument to convince your voters (or maybe it is!):

 You can afford it as the most economically powerful nation. Alas for
 us poor Brits who must hang onto other peoples  coat tails! 

>From decvax!mcnc!unc-c!dya Thu Aug  2 02:17:45 1984

' 
   Well, I'd tell Joe Average that the CT scanner, NMR, advances in pharm-
aceuticals, etc. were direct benefits of the intense research conducted during
the space programme. That's why he is * AROUND * to contemplate having his
medicare bills paid.  As an example, pneumoencephalography was once a common
diagnostic procedure that had a significant mortality and morbidity to it which
is rarely, if ever performed when there is access to CT or NMR.  The computational
power required to reconstruct diagnostic CT quality images is a direct result
of the problems with real time processing of space telemetry data.

     Communications satellites are of inestimable value. Literally BILLIONS
(that's with a "B") of dollars have been saved with weather satellites, land
usage mapping, pollution studies, etc.  There can be no value placed on the
good done by improved communications amongst the people of the world. In
many countries (such as India) communications satellites are used not for 
beaming HBO to your local cable company, but rather for education to stamp
out basic societal ills such as substandard living conditions and overpopulation.
This, I might add, is often a gift from the U.S....we furnished India with
ATS-6 after its mission life was over in the U.S. The satellite is still in
use.  

     The problems of constructing rocket motors, such as the dynamics of
gas flow through nozzles (as a highly simple example), have led to basic
theoretical breakthroughs in engineering that directly benefit the masses.
Exhaust emission control in motor vehicles directly benefited from the
tremendous progress in fluids and combustion science. Pollution from 
vehicles is about 1 % of that from pre-emissions engines (1966 for the real
world, 1963 for California).  

     Not to mention materials, advanced mechanical engineering techniques
like finite element analysis, organic chemistry, lubrication, reliability
engineering (No one would use a home computer with an MTBF of the Burroughs
B5700 or Illiac-IV), semiconductors, etc.  

     I have heard that the ROI on government investment in the aerospace
programme returns 10 times as much money in collected corporate and personal
taxes over a 10 year period.  We'd still be watching round tube Zeniths
and couldn't conceive of doing "this" without the space programme. Medicare,
on the other hand, is a bad investment, being a rip-off.

     ..because individuals who do not exhibit healthy living are often the
ones who need it most.  I would support a limit on Medicare benefits to anyone
with a disease which is attributable to cigarette smoking or chronic alcohol
abuse.  If the money from lost productivity due to environmentally produced
self-inflicted illness were saved, we could have one heck of a space 
programme...but that's another story.

-dya-


>From ucbvax!THOMPSON@USC-ECLC.ARPA Thu Aug  2 03:58:25 1984

If i pay Joe Average's medicare bills, i will make his life a little
better. If i spend the money on space, i make my children's lives
better. No contest.

-mark			<thompson@eclc>
ps. If your friend Joe will pay my share of welfare, medicare and
social security, i will pay his share of NASA's budget.
-------

>From ucbvax!REM@MIT-MC.ARPA Thu Aug  2 03:58:50 1984

Eventually we must leave this whole solar system if we expect to
survive at all. But even sooner we must expand beyond Earth to have
good chance of surviving the next planetwide disaster such as massive
bombardment with comets or nuclear war or really bad epidemic
(possibly caused by germ warfare out of control). Given that fact, why
wait until the last minute when we don't know ahead of time when that
last minute may be? It may be tomorrow and we may already have waited
too long. It may be 20 years from now and we'll just barely make it if
we spend our whole GNP on it starting now. It may be 50 years from now
and we'll make it if we proceed at full normal speed without letting
up. We don't know, and if we wait to find out before we start
developing habitat in space it'll surely be too late. Let's develop
the capability to survive now, then later if it turns out
Earth-disaster isn't immediate and space-life isn't really lots of fun
we can sit on our laurels with space-life as our "lifeboat" when the
disaster does approach.

With massive proportions of our national budget dedicated to a single
attempt to survive, by massive military buildup in the hope that MAD
will save us from the USSR and all other possible causes of our demise
will not strike any time soon, isn't it reasonable to spend some money
on another attempt to survive, by expanding into space, in case MAD
doesn't work or any of the other kinds of disasters surprizes us?


>From ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!ames!al Thu Aug  2 04:34:32 1984

Here are some things we get now, after only 20 years of work in the field:

Communications:
	o Live broadcasts around the world (e.g., Olympics)
	o Inter-continental telephone
	o Direct broadcast TV (just starting)
	o Video conferencing - used for business and education

Earth observation:
	o Weather prediction
	o Pollution monitoring
	o Arms control
	o Prevent nasty military surprises (Pearl Harbor would be impossible
	  with today's spy satellites)
	o Resource surveys (e.g., crop prediction)
	o Resource location (e.g., oil and gas formations)

Science
	o Planetary pictures and close up inspection
	o All kinds of astronomy - stellar, galactic, solar, infra-red, etc.
	o Materials science

Exitement

Here's what we will undoubtedly get within a decade or two:

Materials
	o Improved computer chips
	o New drugs, e.g., possibly a cure for diabetes
	o Stronger materials
	o Better understanding of materials processes leading to improved
	  ground production.

Tourism
	o A chance for fairly rich folks to orbit. In the longer term, the
	  cost might come down to present trip to Europe style vacations.

Retirement
	o Many of the problems of aging would be allieviated by removing
	  gravity.  A low or zero G retirement community might be viable
	  soon after the year 2000 if we step on it.

More of the same for everything listed under right now.


But most of all, in the very long term (several decades) , we get real
estate.  And lots of it.  It has been estimated that the three largest
asteroids contain sufficient material to construct space colonies with a
livable area equal to several thousand times the entire surface area of
Earth - including oceans and inhospitable mountains, desert and jungle.
What's more, every inch of that territory can be totally cherried out (I
reveal my Southern California upbringing).

The main issue in convincing people of the worth of the space program is to
relieve them of their inaccurate idea of the cost.  To illustrait, note that
6 to 8 days of DOD or social program operations is equal, in cost, to a
year of NASA, or the entire space station budget (roughly).



>From inuxc!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!keves Tue Aug  7 23:05:19 1984

Ok. If anyone out there reads SF, you have probably come across most
of the reasons for space travel. I can think of a few off hand, but
I wont go into details.

1. Population growth on Earth.
2. Life off Earth. Technology and wars possible. We always seem to
   need wars. 
3. Fun and adventure. (More Heinlein oriented)
4. Mineral Wealth of Asteroids and Planets.
5. Better factory conditions for producing flawless "stuff".
6. Evolution of Man.
7. Expansion of Man's empire.
8. Gain in knowledge about just about everthing.
9. Immediate gain in technology. IE. Pocket Calculators,etc...

And Most Importantly,

The SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE.

			Hope it helps
-- 
		"A is A" - Ayn Rand

Name:     Brian Keves			USnail:   UCSD Computer Center
Usenet:	  ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!keves		  C-010
          ...!sdcsvax!sdcattb!za62		  La Jolla, Ca.  92093




>From inuxc!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!tekig1!mikeha Thu Aug  2 23:00:37 1984
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-ee.UUCP


     It may not be possible to convince Joe Average  of  the
benefits of continued funding of NASA and research in space,
generally.


     Still, an attempt should be made.  For "ammunition",  I
refer Mr. Brandt to "the dean of space-age fiction".


     Robert Heinlein has made a living of  pointing  out  in
many not-so-subtle ways that the exploration of space is one
of those rare government-sponsored projects that has created
more wealth than it has consumed, one way or the other.


     Apropos (and, most especially  apropos)  Mr.  Average's
preference  for  having  his  medical  care  subsidized, see
"Spinoff" in Heinlein's _E_x_p_a_n_d_e_d  _U_n_i_v_e_r_s_e (c.  1980,  Robt.
Heinlein, published by Ace Books, N.Y., NY)


     The article is primarily an abridgement  of  Heinlein's
testimony before the House Select Committee on Aging and the
House Committee on Science and Technology on the subject  of
"Applications of Space Technology for the Elderly and Handi-
capped."


     Heinlein points out a  number  of  the  life-prolonging
medical  spinoffs  of  space  technology,  rather colorfully
illustrating his points by relating the use of  these  spin-
offs in the case of a medical problem of his own.


     Joe Average might consider what another  ten  years  of
life  is  worth.  No, I don't mean ten years of decrepitude,
but ten healthy years made possible  by  a  technology  that
would not exist but for the space program.


     <from M. Van Handel, Tektronix      mikeha>


>From ihnp4!qubix!msc Sun Aug  5 15:57:37 1984

Because the world's economy is based on continual expansion.  This isn't
going to change.  The only way for this to continue is if we expand off
this planet.  Also we can move dirty industries into space and think about
space colonies since the population keeps expanding.

To summarize,  it's the only way the people of this planet can continue
the way they they have been going for hundreds (thousands?) of years.

	Mark

>From inuxc!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!ames!eugene Sun Aug  5 15:28:41 1984

Justifying the space program using 'spinoffs' does not buy it in Congress.
First, many so called spinoffs, electronic minaturization (sp) a good example,
have been argued down because that would have happened anyway (NASA didn't
really have much to do with it) or that has been argued that "free enterprise"
did the work.  Second, spinoffs are highly unpredictable, extreme case,
justifying chemical warfare research because of possible spinoffs to
cancer research [This work has been done at U of U].  So, I stopped arguing
this track, but I do acknowledge benefits (Tang).

No, Joe Blow on the street needs to see that we are living in the space
age.  For example, the theory of relatively is just seeing "practical" use: we
are starting to think about wire lengths in electronics, perhaps the consumer
of the future might, too.  The space age is now involved with many aspects
of day to day life.  All you need to do to see how vital some of this is:

	1) turn off all weather satellites, especially during storm
	seasons.  Don't forget to tell people that they could be used.
	2) turn off all communication and TV satellites
	3) turn off numerous other navigation and satellites

This might be akin to turning off all traffic lights, but a bit more
removed.  Perhaps, we should not subsidize space so much.

We are heavily involved in the space age: even arms control to an extend.

Direct research such as plantary exploration gives us a comparison
of our planet to others, and directly enlarges our understanding. This
reason is subtle, and almost borders on spinoffs, but it is not a spinoff.

Lastly, the most difficult to fathom reason, we must explore space, because
that is what separates us from the rest of the cosmic 'slime' on spaceship
earth.  [Sagan would have used more elioquent words: 'star stuff']
Our desire for exploration is what separates us from the more primitive
tribes (my favorite are the Sherpas, as I am a climber).  Modern man
got where he is because of his sense of time and the future (planning ahead).
Many other cultures (few left) are unable or unwilling to utilize time.
Modern man has to learn to balance present needs with future desires.
If we let the present dominate our thinking [it is important], then
we fall back down the evolutionary ladder.

I think your (my descendents came East, same difference) Westward migration
and subsequent Alaska and imperialist (to a degree) fortes into other
nations are a reflection of this latter.  Space might give us an
opportunity to continue without killing ourselves.  Let's hope we
can continue without:
	1) destroying the Earth (a spacecraft) and ourselves
	2) ruining other worlds in the process
I have heard social commentators mention '"Japanese" island mentality'
as a positive social force.  Perhaps, we need a bit of "Earth island
mentality," too.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,dual,menlo70,hao}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

p.s. I wish I could be as eloquent as Carl.


>From ihnp4!dual!amd!decwrl!sun!tj Wed Aug  8 03:58:24 1984

One very convencing reason that I use a lot is that the Human
race will not be able to survive otherwise. If we do not get
off this planet and reduce the risk of being able to wipe out the
race in one blow, then...

		Cal Thixton
		Sun Microsystems

p.s. where is Luke when you need him?


>From ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!pyuxww!pyuxn!u1100a!abnjh!estate Fri Aug 10 23:34:24 1984

"Because It's There!"



Sorry, my fingers got away for a minute, but their back now.

Good Reasons:

1.  Incredable advances in medicine.
2.  Incredable advances in technology (silicon chips etc.)
3.  A reasonable place from which to monitor the Earth.
4.  A new place to dump our wastes.
5.  It's fun.
6.  The creation of previously unheard of alloys.

etc...

And not only that, but if we survive long enough we might be able to
convince the government to have a war up there instead of down here!
And, if that fails, maybe we can all go up there and let them have a
war down here!

(Visions From The Orcrest Stone)
Carl D.



>From inuxc!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Tue Aug  7 18:37:10 1984

From:  Duncan A. Buell <buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>

The space program--how do we justify it to Congress?

Beats the hell out of me, and I have been close to the space
program  since  my  father learned rocketry in Huntsville in
1951.  How does Congress justify spending money on the arts?
on  public TV?  How did the Duke of Brunswick justify subsi-
dizing Gauss?

Apart from the obvious (justified or unjustified) desires of
the  military  for  space  ability,  the  people who want to
explore space do it, I suppose, because it's there,  because
it  would  be a denial of some of our more fundamental lusts
to have the technology to "look beyond the ranges"  and  not
do  so.  And Congress pays for it because they can be sucked
in by the same urges.

That, I think, is all there is to it.  That  certainly  does
not  suggest  practical  approaches to going after continued
funding.  Should the turkeys outnumber  the  visionaries  in
Congress,  the  space program can expect lean years--and has
seen some of them.

On  the  other  hand,  maybe  this  does   suggest   funding
approaches.   Don't  try  to  show that it's centsible to go
into space.  Just sell the dream.   Rational  arguments  are
always  in  danger of being refuted by better rational argu-
ments.  A good irrational hunger is a much better bet.

No flames in response to this, please.  I really don't  know
any  sure-fire  justifications  for  going  into  space that
aren't military.  I do know that we'd be less as  a  species
if  we  didn't  succumb  to  some of the urges we have, like
pointing up and wanting to go there.


>From inuxc!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA Thu Aug  9 16:30:00 1984

From:  Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>

What if a very hard study showed that greater relative funding of space
exploration over other activities increased our viability, at least as a
nation.  Such a study may be doable even by just the collaboration of
those on this list.  If it turned out that a significant increase in
viability would result, would it have any impact on congress?

 -- kirk

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 84 10:23:20-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix241 @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Tethered Generators

David Brin has used this idea in a short story that appeared in 
Analog magazine in Oct or Nov 1983.  The idea has also been discussed at
the California Space Institute over the last couple of years.

John Testa
UCSD Chem
sdccs6!ix241

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 1984 14:14:43-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Mondale

Did you hear about Mondale's recent trip to Huntsville?

	He promised his audience that he would "not disband NASA".

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 1984 14:40:07-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: 24 hr industry

As a native Pittsburgher, used to seeing the bright glow of bessemers and
pouring lighting up the night sky, I can absolutely assure you that heavy
industry is a 24 hour a day effort, IF demand is up. If demand is low, even
given energy costs, it is cheaper to run in daylight because I believe the
night shift has higher pay. And tends to work less.

I believe the battery technology is just about at the level required for the
electric car. The Polyacetylene (and related materials) I mentioned earlier
is FAR superior to lead acid. THe only real question is temperature
characteristics. Output tends to drop of drastically with temperature, as
anyone from these cold northern climes knows all to well. Researchers feel
they can come up with polymers that will exhibit good temperature/output
characteristics as well.

The work was done at Penn State University, and has been published in a
number of journals. It was also mentioned in the Britannica yearbook of
science for either 1981 or 1982. What is also interesting is the material
may also be a sort of polymer semiconductor, maybe even for solar cell use.
Production of plastic films can be quite cheap. Think of a battery material
made of something like saran wrap...

--------------------------------
PS: Say hello to Ben for me, and tell him Jim Porto said hello. Jim was
quite helpful to us here at Pgh L5.


					Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 84 8:56:14-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!noao!astrovax!wls @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: More of same (electric motors and low end torque)

My father had many electric motor patents to his name.  The last project my he
was working on before he died last month was an electric motor which used
a custom VLSI chip to operate the motor at an optimal point at various load
and speed conditions.  Thus one could make a much smaller motor of the same
power.  I am not sure but I think it was basically an induction type motor
and the circuitry delivered an AC with (at least) the frequency tweaked for
optimal operation.  I am not sure what other parameters the circuitry adjusted.
Work on this motor continues as AMETEK/Lamb Electric, in Kent, Ohio.
-- 
Bill Sebok			Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #277    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 277

Today's Topics:
	  Re: More of same (electric motors and low end torque)
		       RE: The Government in Space
		       RE: The Government in Space
		 NASA Activities  TOC July 1984 v 15, n 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 84 22:53:18-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!clyde!watmath!wateng!ksbszabo @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: More of same (electric motors and low end torque)

	....I wonder when the low end torque problem will be addressed...

Low end torque is one thing an electric motor should have lots of.
A series wound motor (like one in your electric drill) create highest
torque when stalled. An induction motor ( clocks, pumps, anything
that is basically A.C. only ) generate very little low end torque,
with maximum torque occurring at ~90% of no-load rpm's.

I remember an article in a Popular Science of a few year ago.
This fellow had an electric car with a gas turbine that recharged
the batteries whenever they needed it. One of the things that
impressed the reporter type the most was the LOUD screech, blue
smoke and the black left on the driveway when the inventor
pulled out..... (hopefully the blue smoke was not from the windings!).

			Kevin
-- 
	Kevin Szabo  watmath!wateng!ksbszabo (Elec Eng, U of Waterloo)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 1984 1525 PST
From: Bruce Bon <BON@JPL-ROBOTICS.ARPA>
Subject: RE: The Government in Space
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: BON@JPL-ROBOTICS.ARPA

There is at least some truth in what JoSH says regarding the "quick-buck"
theory of government.

I believe that the current Earth-bound status quo is metastable -- i.e.
it will take a fairly big push to overcome the status quo, but after
that then the settlement of space will come naturally, inevitably.  My
most optimistic estimate of the push required amounts to at least
$100 billion!  I don't see the necessary funds coming forth from the
private sector under any reasonable scenario within the next 50 years.

Part of the consequence of this assessment (which I hope is pessimistic!)
is that if I am to see the settlement of space, the government must do
it!  Since what happens after I die has little meaning to me, I will
use the "quick-buck" theory to get what I want -- I am selfish!!

Beyond my own selfishness, there is a serious possibility that before
we can expand into space, we (the human race) will obliterate our ability
to do so.  For this reason, I really do believe that the "public good"
and my personal gain coincide.

If I could live a thousand years and was assured that World War III
would not occur, I probably would agree with JoSH's conclusion.  Since
neither is necessarily true, I will continue to support government
funding for space development.

					Bruce Bon
					Bon@JPL-Robotics
------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 1984 1525 PST
From: Bruce Bon <BON@JPL-ROBOTICS.ARPA>
Subject: RE: The Government in Space
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: BON@JPL-ROBOTICS.ARPA

There is at least some truth in what JoSH says regarding the "quick-buck"
theory of government.

I believe that the current Earth-bound status quo is metastable -- i.e.
it will take a fairly big push to overcome the status quo, but after
that then the settlement of space will come naturally, inevitably.  My
most optimistic estimate of the push required amounts to at least
$100 billion!  I don't see the necessary funds coming forth from the
private sector under any reasonable scenario within the next 50 years.

Part of the consequence of this assessment (which I hope is pessimistic!)
is that if I am to see the settlement of space, the government must do
it!  Since what happens after I die has little meaning to me, I will
use the "quick-buck" theory to get what I want -- I am selfish!!

Beyond my own selfishness, there is a serious possibility that before
we can expand into space, we (the human race) will obliterate our ability
to do so.  For this reason, I really do believe that the "public good"
and my personal gain coincide.

If I could live a thousand years and was assured that World War III
would not occur, I probably would agree with JoSH's conclusion.  Since
neither is necessarily true, I will continue to support government
funding for space development.

					Bruce Bon
					Bon@JPL-Robotics
------

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 84 15:07:11-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: NASA Activities  TOC July 1984 v 15, n 7

[]
Administrators Column - Quality Circles
President Features Space Station at London Economic Summit
Spacelab 3 and 2 Payload Specialists Named
New NASA Educational Program for Science and Math [Young Astronauts Youth
Organization]
New Publications
What's New in NASA Television and Radio Programming
NASA to Participate in 32nd Annual EAA Convention and Sport Aviation Exhibition
Auto Technology Feasible for Aircraft Applications
Log of Apollo 11
Crew Members Named for Future Space Shuttle Flights
Crew Member Added to Shuttle Mission 41-G
NASA Works to Improve Aerial Application of Chemicals
Agency Sponsered Development Opportunities
1984 Launch Activity

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #278    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 278

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Re: Space tether
			 speed of satellite query
			  Re: NASA Publications
		  Shuttle Satellite Retrieval Scheduled
		       Re: The Government in Space
			 Smallish habitat in LEO
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 84 21:57:30-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!dwp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Re: Space tether

There is a new(??) novel out that covers the "tethered satellite"
approach very well, it's "The Fall of Anansi", by Pournelle and
G-somebody.  The plot was a shuttle carrying a load of wonder-fiber
from an L-5 factory is disabled by sabotage in low-earth orbit, and
they use the wonder-fiber and some snazzy physics to get down.  More
than this is a spoiler.
					David Pachura
			{harpo,decvax!cca!ima,esquire,ihnp4}!inmet!dwp

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 84 9:34:44-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: speed of satellite query

I saw a curious sight last weekend which I'd like explained as I am not one
to believe in UFO's. I was staring at the sky at about midnight. Nice and
dark so I had a terrific view. All of a sudden I noticed one of the stars on 
the eastern horizon moving rather quickly. It traveled in a straight line
and disappeared over the western horizon in about two minutes, three at most.
Now the question is, what did I see? I was not aware that satellites move
so quickly in orbit. It was not a plane(no noise, no other lights other than
a white speck as indicated by high powered binoculars). It was not a shooting
star because they travel faster and tend to burn up rather quickly. It 
definitely appeared to be rather large because it was giving off a reflection
yet it also appeared to be in orbit. Can anyone help?

Robert

PS. It was about 10-15 degrees to the south from directly overhead.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 1984 12:41:45-EDT
From: Paul.Fussell at CMU-CS-H
Subject: Re: NASA Publications

The nice person at the USGPO said the serial number for one of the
previously posted books was slightly incorrect.  The correct entry:

Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles.
	S/N 033-000-00794-9	$12.00

(last digit of the SN changes from 0 to 9.)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 84  2310 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Shuttle Satellite Retrieval Scheduled
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

a004  2149  16 Aug 84
AM-Shuttle-Satellite Retrieval,390
Shuttle Crew To Retrieve Satellite Placed In Wrong Orbit
By HOWARD BENEDICT
AP Aerospace Writer
    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A space shuttle flight in November will
attempt to retrieve an Indonesian communications satellite that fired
into the wrong orbit last February, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration announced Thursday.
    Astronaut Joseph Allen, maneuvering with a rocket-powered back pack,
will leave the shuttle, attach himself to the satellite with a
latching pole and hold the payload steady so it can be grasped by the
shuttle's robot arm.
    The satellite, Palapa B2, will be berthed in the cargo bay and
returned to Earth for repair and resale by two insurance
organizations, Merritt Syndicates Ltd., London, and International
Technology Underwriters (Intec), Washington, D.C.
    The Indoneisian government has signed over all recovery and salvage
rights for Palapa B2 to Merritt and Intec, its principal insurance
underwriters. Indonesia received a $75 million insurance payment for
the loss of the satellite.
    Palapa B2 and Western Union's Westar 6 communications satellite were
released from the cargo bay of space shuttle Challenger last
February, but both were injected into useless orbits when rocket
nozzles failed as onboard motors fired to boost them toward stationary
orbits 22,300 miles high.
    Western Union received a $105 million insurance payment and is
negotiating an agreement with Merritt Syndicate that could lead to a
retrieval of Westar 6 on the same November shuttle mission.
    Indonesia and Western Union each paid Hughes Communications
International $35 million to $40 million for the satellites. They also
took out insurance for launch costs and loss of business in case of
failure.
    Refurbishment and resale of Palapa B2 and possibly Westar 6 would
help offset the payments made by the insurance companies.
    Under the Palapa B2 agreement announced Thursday, the insurance
underwriters will pay NASA the costs for the retrieval, with the price
not to exceed $4.8 million.
    Palapa B2 is an an orbit ranging from 700 to 800 miles high, and it
would have to be lowered to an altitude of 200 miles to be within the
range of space shuttle Discovery. That would be done by ground
commands to the satellite's steering jets.
    The flight would be the second for Discovery, now awaiting an Aug.
29 liftoff of its twice-delayed maiden flight. Commanding the
retrieval mission in November will be astronaut Fred Hauck.
    
ap-ny-08-17 0049EDT
***************

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 84 19:30:29-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: The Government in Space

Many writers to the net, including the one I'm responding to, claim that
government cannot develop space.  One wonders, in that case, how we went
in only 25 years from nothing at all to:
	o A half dozen moon landings (manned).
	o Two Mars landings.
	o Several Venus landings (USSR)
	o Several space stations (Skylab and Salyuts)
	o A reuseable space plane (Shuttle)
	o Three visits to Saturn and Jupiter
	o Visits to Mercury
	o An in space infra-red map of the heavens (IRAS)
	o Regular and frequent manned missions to low Earth orbit.
with strictly government projects.

I believe that the time has come for private enterprise to enter space, but
it is unproductive and inaccurate to denigrate the contribution that 
government has and will continue to make to space development.

Also, as private firms get real experience in space I think you may find
that they may not out perform NASA as much as some believe.
For example, the recent 
Starstruct launch - all of 3 seconds of perfect flight followed by another
11 seconds with a failed valve - cost (according to Space Calendar) 3-4 times
as much as expected and and took 3-4 times as long as expected.

Many a flame could be avoided by good hard data and real hands on
experiance.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 84 19:37:15-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!al @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Smallish habitat in LEO

I recently read a two page paper that claimed that a smallish space station
with a large window pointed towards the Sun and rotated could supply
air movement, thermal characteristics, and water movements necessary for
a nice habitat.  How about cutting off the end of an external tank, putting
in a window, rotating it at 1 rpm, fixing up the interior and living in
it?  Sound like a good place to retire (you won't need your cane with that
low gravity)?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Aug-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #279    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 279

Today's Topics:
		 Mock Countdown Delayed, Then Successful
			   Re: Re: Space tether
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 84 20:58:44-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Mock Countdown Delayed, Then Successful

A mock countdown was delayed today by three hours when an
engine computer refused to receive a program from ground
computers.  After the trouble had been solved, the countdown
continued, ending with a simulated abort mimicking the engine
cutoff abort in June.  NASA said that the particular abort
is a standard part of all simulated countdowns, and that is
was just a coincidence that it mirrored the June abort.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 84 13:54:48-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix241 @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Re: Space tether

Gah!!  It is _The Descent of Anansi_ by Larry Niven and Steve Barnes!!
Jerry Pournelle has several novels co-authored with Niven.  I think
another is going to be out later this year.

John Testa
UCSD Chem
sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix241

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #280    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 280

Today's Topics:
			Illegality of NERVA's??!!
		       Satellite Rescue in November
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
	     Very Cheap Solar Cells, Polyacetylene Batteries
			       Re: several
		       Re: speed of satellite query
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 84 8:01:50-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Illegality of NERVA's??!!

   In a recent article it was mentioned (sorry, I didn't save the article)
that even though NERVA-type nuclear rockets are feasible and economical,
they are somehow illegal.  Could someone post something more specific
about that??  Maybe we can find out whose bright idea it was to strip us
of this technology, and then we can perform a retroactive abortion on him!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message from the mental maze that calls itself:
                                 
                                       ERIC STROBEL
                                 
UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET:       els @ pur-phy.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 84 4:53:17-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Satellite Rescue in November

Palapa B2 will be the object of the second shuttle satellite
rescue attempt during the November flight of the Discovery.
NASA announced yesterday that it had signed an agreement with
the two insurance companies which took over ownership of the
satellite upon paying $75 million to the Indonesian government
to return the satellite to Earth in November.  Astronaut Joseph
Allen will fly a MMU to the satellite, grapple it, and hold it
steady while the shuttle crew grabs it with the RMS.

NASA is still talking with the insurance companies that now own
Westar 6, the other ill-fated satellite of Challenger's mission
earlier this year, about possibly retrieving it.

------------------------------

	id AA15639; Sat, 18 Aug 84 14:34:30 pdt
	id AA06825; Sat, 18 Aug 84 14:34:28 pdt
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 84 14:37:04 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an h19-u) <mcgeer%ucbchip@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8408182137.572@ucbchip.ARPA>
	id AA00572; Sat, 18 Aug 84 14:37:04 pdt
To: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els@Berkeley, space@Mit-Mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
Cc: 

	If I am not mistaken, the space treaty bans nuclear explosions in
space.  Whether this provision includes NERVA-type rockets, I don't know.
It certainly bans Project Orion.

						Rick.

------------------------------

	id AA05690; Sat, 18 Aug 84 20:55:08 edt
	id AA08586; Sat, 18 Aug 84 20:54:37 edt
Date: 18 Aug 1984 20:34-EDT
From: cu-arpa.dietz@Cornell.ARPA
Subject: Very Cheap Solar Cells, Polyacetylene Batteries
To: space@mit-mc
Message-Id: <84/08/18 2034.100@Cornell>

Perhaps a better way to make very efficient photovoltaic cells would be
to use linear organic conductors, such as polyacetylene.  In these
polymers conductivity along the polymer axis can be orders of
magnitude higher than across it.

I propose attaching charged sidechains to the polymer so the electric
field along the polymer varies in a sawtooth pattern:

-
               ....              ....
           ....    .         ....    .
       ....         .    ....         .
   ....              ....              .. etc.
+

A moderate right-to-left eletric field will flatten the shallow parts
of this curve, causing current to flow.  The same field with polarities
reversed will generate a smaller current, since electrons will have to
tunnel through the steep parts.  The polymer will act as a rectifier.

Organic conducting polymers can be grown electrochemically, so it may
be possible to plate out solar cells from a solution of monomers.

3M has a space shuttle experiment lined up to investigate growing
organic polymer films in zero-G.  These cells would probably not be too
useful in space, though, because polyacetylene loses conductivity
rapidly when exposed to radiation (since one break destroys an entire
chain).

Polyacetylene battery:  I thought these things had major problems with
lifetime -- the polyacetylene electrodes break down too quickly.

(Please do not respond to this account -- it may disappear soon.)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 84 20:40:55-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!cca!ima!haddock!stevel @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: several

Geostar and ELT are not the same or even comparable systems.

Geostar tells you where you are if you ask it.

ELT tells other people where you are when it thinks you are in
trouble.

ELT works when you are lying unconcious after a crash. Geostar
probably will be broken and if it does work you won't be awake to
ask it where you are and how far you have to walk to reach
civilazation when you wake up.

A great concept is a crash hardend, i.e. expensive,
Geostar/ELT device that tells the Geostar main computer that
something has happened.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 84 17:49:41-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!sunny @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: speed of satellite query

Holly Martians, Batman!

	It was just YAU (Yet Another UFO).  No big deal.  If NorAD computers
are programmed to ignore them, then we can too.

	UFOs are real:  the Air Force Project Blue Book doesn't exist.
-- 
{ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #281    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
			 Re: re: # of satellites
		      Re: speed of satellites query
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 84 21:17:32-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!cca!ima!ism780!martin @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: re: # of satellites

I believe you can get the current number of orbiting payloads and/or junk
by calling the Space Defense Center in Cheyene Mountain.  I don't think
the number of payloads is classified.

When I was a programmer in the USAF working at the SDC, a friend and I once
put the coordinates of his garage roof into the Look Angle computation
program.  Out came look angles for all the satellites (the unclassified ones,
of course) oriented to his garage.  That night we set up a small telescope
up there and were able to find most of the ones we had listed quite easily.

You might be able to get similar information for your garage.

		martin smith, INTERACTIVE Systems

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 84 11:31:42-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!cliff @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: speed of satellites query

<take it, I don't care>
Yup, what you probably saw was a satellite. Based on your description
of brightness and speed it was probably 400km - 800km high and in a low
inclination orbit. The highest inclination possible is 90 degrees or polar.
Determining inclination really requires two seperated observations on the
same orbit. Next shuttle launch watch how fast the crew goes across North
America. 'bout nine minutes. At 320km altitude the orbit time is 
less then 90 minutes. (please don't flame my math I left my battery operated
brain at home today so we're talking ballpark)

What I find interesting is your time of observation, midnight. The trigometry
get a little thick but that bird was sunlit from directly over the pole. This
same object at the same position, relative to you, would probably not be 
visible in the winter. 

I usually see the best satellites about 60-90 minutes
after sunset. Any later than that and the ones still in the sun are so high
you need binoculars to spot them. They also have a slower apparent motion
so they don't catch your eye as well. A geostationary satellite
has a real slow apparent motion :-). If you can see one of those babies please
donate your eyes to Kitt Peak.

My best satellite story involved a newspaper blurp saying that STS 2 would be
visible at 4:51 am over Phoenix. They were in a white side down attitude doing
some kind of heating structure tests. I turned on the TV because one of 
the normally blank cable channels was displaying the raw NASA feed. (I also
watched the generic launch without the network boobs stepping all over CAPCOM)
The houston display showed the shuttle halfway between Honolulu and L.A. at
4:44. So I went outside and looked to the southwest. BOOM! It came out of the
shadow and was the brightest object in the moonless sky. In three or four
minutes I lost it in the northeast stars and ran inside. That sucker was over
Chicago! I still get goosebumps from that one.

		I remain
			Cliff Cordes
			...hao!noao!terak!cliff

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #282    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 282

Today's Topics:
		    NASA Shuttle pictures on Satt. TV
			     NASA Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender: Isdale.es@XEROX.ARPA
Date: 20 Aug 84 13:01:14 PDT (Monday)
Subject:  NASA Shuttle pictures on Satt. TV
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
From: Jerry Isdale<Isdale.es@XEROX.ARPA>

Would someone please repost the data necessary to get the NASA pictures on
a home satt. dish? When this data was last posted, I had no need for it. 
Now I have access to a dish and would like to see the next shuttle pictures.

Thanks in advance
~ Jerry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 84 10:49:27-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: NASA Activities

[Line eater quote: "funny, in my environment, I have yet to meet a friendly
user"]

Several people has requested info on obtaining NASA Activities.  I wish it
were free, but:  It is a monthly publication for employees of the agency.
Subscription by Superintendent of Documents,
		US GPO
		Washington DC 20402

Subscription rates are $23 / year domestic and $28.75 foreign.

Barbara E. Selby
Editor, Code LFD-2
NASA HQ
Washington, DC 20546

--eugene miya
  NASA ARC

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

22-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #283    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 283

Today's Topics:
			   Back to the moon?  
			Re: Very Cheap Solar Cells
		"Status of the repaired satellite? - (nf)"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 84  2029 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Back to the moon?  
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n086  1802  21 Aug 84
AM-LUNAR
Moon Could Be Big 'Gas Station' in the Sky
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    LA JOLLA, Calif. - A panel of scientists and engineers Tuesday
reported to the space agency that it ''makes sense'' for future space
operations to exploit materials found on the moon and in asteroids
rather than rely on materials from Earth.
    The panel's oral recommendation to officials of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, to be followed by a written
report, came after 10 weeks of debate. The panel members disagreed
over whether a permanent moon base should be established to mine
oxygen for rocket fuel.
    The panel was one of several sponsored by the space agency to study
the future of space exploration. A second study group, which met in
April at Los Alamos, N.M., says it will recommend in October that the
United States establish a permanent moon base in the next decade. A
NASA group is also studying the feasibility of a moon base.
    Some participants in the study here disagreed with the panel's
recommendation, saying that all the resources needed to support space
exploration are abundant on Earth. All that is needed, these
dissidents said, is to find cheaper ways to deliver Earth's resources
into orbit.
    According to Stan Sadin, deputy director of program development at
NASA, the space agency financed the $62,000 study to ''help us decide
where we're going'' after 1992, when a space station authorized by
President Reagan is scheduled to become operational.
    The study was co-sponsored by the American Society for Engineering
and hosted by the California Space Institute, a part of the
University of California system located in La Jolla.
    The 20 participants, more than half of whom had no previous
connection with NASA, included a physician, behavioral scientist,
architect, chemist, management specialist and law professor, as well
as several geologists, space scientists and engineers. Dozens of
space experts testified before the group throughout the study.
    The analogy of conquering a new frontier was dominant throughout the
''summer study,'' Sadin said, referring to the idea that initial
reconnaissance is followed by stages of exploration, which, in turn,
are followed by exploitation.
    The study began with two basic assumptions, said David McKay, a
geologist at the Johnson Space Center who led the overall exercise.
One assumption, he said, is of a permanent, growing human presence in
space. The other is that humans in space will inevitably want to
become more self-sufficient in terms of materials, supplies,
management and operations.
    ''Pioneers used local wood and stone to make shelter, roads and
wagons,'' McKay said. ''We will use material in space to supply
shelter and transportation.''
    Tuesday's space program, he pointed out, is virtually dependent on
Earth. ''Can we learn how to constrict the umbilical cord to Earth?''
he asked.
    Those in favor of using space resources point out that the moon, by
composition, is half oxygen, which could be extracted, according to
the former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, to fuel rockets. Liquid hydrogen
mixed with liquid oxygen in a basic propellant.
    Metals and bulk soil can also be mined to build shelters, Aldrin
said. Since the moon's gravitational field is a sixth the strength of
Earth's, he added, it would be cheaper and easier to satisfy a large
fraction of our space needs with lunar materials.
    In this view, the moon should become a gigantic ''gas station'' in
the sky. Asteroids are viewed as similarly valuable. One small
asteroid can apparently yield a billion to 10 billion tons of water.
    The reason to go to the moon, said James Burke, a space expert at
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is that ''it can help us transcend our
problems.''
    ''A lunar base deserves national support,'' he said, ''because if it
manages to divert money away from the weapons race, everyone is
better off.''
    Other study participants disagreed. ''A lunar base is a dead-end,''
said Rocco Fazzolare, an energy expert at the University of Arizona.
And William Lewis, of Clemson University, said, ''It's silly to put
Manhattan on the moon.''
    ''We can make oxygen on Earth for pennies,'' Fazzolare said. ''We're
a water planet. I think we should concentrate on building a better
transportation system to deliver what we want in space.
    ''The shuttle is like a little scout. It comfortably carries a few
people at a time. We need a big 18-wheeler, we need a big dumb
booster.''
    Also, he said, the moon does not have an abundant source of
hydrogen, which is also required for rocket fuel. If liquid hydrogen
made on Earth has to be carried into space to be mixed with oxygen
extracted from the moon, he said, ''we're wasting our time.''
    There may be philosophical reasons to go to the moon, Fazzolare
said, but ''we should go there to scout things out, not to build a
huge lunar station.''
    ''From a national security viewpoint we should go and that is
rationale enough,'' he added.
    The Soviet Union appears to be developing large booster rockets and
experimenting with long sorties in space, said . Sadin. ''There are
indications they are interested in the moon,'' he added.
    A study participant who is an expert on space law, Nathan Goldman,
of the University of Texas, said the United States held that no one
can own the moon. ''But whoever gets there first,'' he said, ''will
have a big say in how it is used.''
    

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 84 11:09:35-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Very Cheap Solar Cells

< The robot doesn't seem too energetic since it got a tan >

Has anyone looked into organic solar collection?  Plants do a real
fine job of collecting and storing solar energy;  does anyone know
how efficient they are (not 100% by any means, since they are usually
sensitive in a fairly narrow bandwidth of yellow-green) ??

An organic compound engineered to translate sunlight into ATP and
another that turned ATP into electricity would be an interesting
way to power a car. . .

OK, I know, this is all just a bit beyond current state-of-the-art.
But not too far, I suspect.

Hutch

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 84 9:30:39-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!daemon!bobp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: "Status of the repaired satellite? - (nf)"

	Since the U.S. repaired the satellite during the last shuttle
excursion I haven't heard what its current status is. Is the satellite
functioning again?

tektronix!bobp
bobp@tektronix
bobp.tektronix@csnet-relay

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Aug-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #284    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 284

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Why Space? -- Your Answers
			Problems at Vandenberg AFB
	      Re: "Status of the repaired satellite? - (nf)"
		     CORRECTION to SMM repair article
			Re: Very Cheap Solar Cells
			Re: Very Cheap Solar Cells
	      Re: "Status of the repaired satellite? - (nf)"
		       Efficiency of photosynthesis
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
		       Re: The Government in Space
	      Re: "Status of the repaired satellite? - (nf)"
		    VAFB Launch Site Termed Defective
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 84 12:01:10-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!bsa @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Why Space? -- Your Answers

[The world is a Klein bottle]

I justify space in two major ways:  (1) if Ragnarok (WWIII, the Nightfall War,
etc.) ever occurs, we'll survive as a species; and (2) if we do NOT try, we are
admitting that the universe is too much for us.  Historically speaking, this is
equivalent to racial suicide even without war -- we would stagnate into obli-
vion.  I will not accept this fate; I am a wolf, not a sheep (cf. BEYOND THIS
HORIZON).

Same author, different note:  The afterword to "Spinoff" in EXPANDED UNIVERSE
says this about funding attempts:

       "No, to most citizens of the United States the entire space
	program plus all its spinoffs is not worth even 5c per day;
	the polls (and letters to Congress) plainly show it.  And
	they won't believe that 5c figure even if you do the arith-
	metic right in front of their eyes.  They will still think
	of it as 'all that money' being 'wasted' on 'a few rocks'."

Sometimes I grow weary of public ignorance.  It takes a dream to escape this;
perhaps this explains the popularity of the biggest argument I know for space
exploration, dating from September 8, 1966:  an argument that begins with the
phrase "SPACE:  The Final Frontier"...

--bsa
-- 
  Brandon Allbery: decvax!cwruecmp{!atvax}!ncoast!bsa: R0176@CSUOHIO.BITNET
   					       ^ Note name change!
	 6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, OH 44131 <> (216) 524-1416

"The more they overthink the plumbin', the easier 'tis tae stop up the drain."

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 84 21:14:58-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-elmer!goun @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Problems at Vandenberg AFB

CNN reported tonight that there are problems at the space shuttle launch
site under construction at Vandenberg AFB.  One inspector called the site, 
"An accident waiting to happen."  Another said that quality has taken a back
seat to the pressures of the construction schedule.

The space shuttle orbiter Discovery is scheduled to lift off from Vandenberg
in the Fall of 1985.

					-- Roger Goun

ARPA:    goun%elmer.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
UUCP:    {allegra, decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-elmer!goun

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 84 9:06:04-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!hao!woods @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: "Status of the repaired satellite? - (nf)"

   If you are referring to the Solar Maximum Mission satellite, then I can
tell you exactly, since we analyze practically all the data from that 
satellite here at HAO. For some of us, that repair literally saved our jobs.
   The major repair to the satellite involved fixing the damaged attitude 
control system of the satellite itself (as opposed to the instruments on
board the satellite). This repair can only be described as a complete success.
Of the 7 scientific data-gathering devices on board, 5 of them are functioning
perfectly, a sixth (UVSP) is functioning in a degraded mode due to a 
microprocessor problem which has nothing to do with what was repaired on the 
shuttle, and the last is not working in spite of the fact that the main power 
supply was replaced during the shuttle mission. It was hoped that this would 
fix a problem that they had been having with it, but it did not.
  Overall the repair mission was successful. The scientists here seem very
happy with the data now being received (we don't receive it here, they get
it at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD., and ship it here on
mag tapes for analysis and display). If you want more information, feel
free to write to me or Andy Stanger (hao!stanger).

--Greg
-- 
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
       		        !hao!woods
   
     "... the heat come 'round and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day..."

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 84 12:21:07-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!hao!woods @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: CORRECTION to SMM repair article

  I have been informed that I overstated how much of the SMM data we see here
at HAO. It is only one of the instruments on board that we analyze most of
the data from. *Some* data from the others does eventually end up here.
I stand corrected.

--Greg
-- 
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
       		        !hao!woods
   
     "... the heat come 'round and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day..."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 84 10:39:04 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbchip@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8408221739.2100@ucbchip.ARPA>
To: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch@Berkeley, space@Mit-Mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Very Cheap Solar Cells

	There's a short discussion of plant efficiencies in Pournelle's "A
Step Farther Out".  I loaned my copy out, so I don't have it with me, but as
I recall the figures he used were certainly under 10%, and (I'm pretty sure)
under 5%.  The great thing, though, is that we can probably use genetic
engineering to double plant efficiencies.  Plants also store energy well.

						Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 84 16:19 PDT
From: Woody.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Very Cheap Solar Cells
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Woody.pasa@XEROX.ARPA

> Has anyone looked into organic solar collection?  Plants do a real
> fine job of collecting and storing solar energy; does anyone know
> how efficient they are (not 100% by any means, since they are usually
> sensitive in a fairly narrow bandwidth of yellow-green) ??

Plants are around 15-20% (as far as my memory tells me; it's been a
long time since my biology), and no-one really has a definite idea 
exactly how a plant manages to convert light to ATP.  There's a lot
of theories, but nothing really concrete.

Photosynthesis is a fairly complex chain of events which occure in 
most plants, and some of the theories do suggest a sort of compound
which gain an electrical potential (which is then converted into
the chemical potential needed to convert ADP to ATP).  It may be
possible to create a process which converts this molecular electrical
potential into something useful, but that's many, many years off. 
(Even if the electrical potential of P700 and related catalysts in 
photosynthesis does exist, even if the chemical process can be 
imitated, even if the efficiency of the plants can be achieved,
even...)

It's easier to burn alcohol.

  - From the scattered remains of
         Bill Woody

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 84 15:32:44-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!jcp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: "Status of the repaired satellite? - (nf)"

I have seen articles in 'Aviation Week' that indicate that the Solar
Max is back in operation again with all but one instrument working.
(NASA did not attempt to repair this instrument, it was believed
damaged).  In fact, one of the largest Solar Flares since 1978
occurred just 3 days after the satellite was recommissioned.
Imagery from that flare appeared in Aviation Week.

				-JCP-

------------------------------

Date: 22 August 1984 23:10-EDT
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Efficiency of photosynthesis
To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC

Photosynthesis can be quite efficient. Under ideal conditions, ratios
of energy of combustion of plant products to incident solar energy of
0.3 have been achieved. Rubber plants can make latex at an efficiency
of about 15% (from I. Tinoco, K. Sauer, and J. C. Wang, Physical
Chemistry, p. 324). On the other hand, I recall (although I couldn't
find the source) that many plants have much lower efficiencies of
carbon fixation (around 1 to 2%).

Bob Bruccoleri

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 84 11:59:30-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!

   Who said anything about nuclear explosions???  NERVA was to use a reactor
to have fuel burn, achieving an exhaust temperature much higher than ordinary
rockets, thus giving a larger specific impulse.  I don't remember the details
and I hope that someone might post a brief summary of the NERVA project and
the alleged illegality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message from the mental maze that calls itself:                                    
                                       ERIC STROBEL

UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET:       els @ pur-phy.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 84 16:24:27-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: The Government in Space

> Many writers to the net, including the one I'm responding to, claim that
> government cannot develop space.  One wonders, in that case, how we went
> in only 25 years from nothing at all to:
> 	o A half dozen moon landings (manned).
> 	...
> 	o A reuseable space plane (Shuttle)
> 	...
> 	o Regular and frequent manned missions to low Earth orbit.
> with strictly government projects.

While I, for one, agree that the government has made useful contributions,
this should not be confused with the notion that the government is the
*best* organization for developing space.  The specific cases I have picked
from your list are examples of how the government has botched the details
while getting the basics right:

* A half dozen moon landings, manned.  With no followup.  None.  Mankind no
longer has the capability to land on the moon; it was thrown away after
those six missions.  It will have to be rebuilt nearly from scratch.  The
last two flight-ready Saturn 5 boosters, which could have launched Apollos
18 and 19, are now rusting tourist exhibits.  ARGHHH!!!!!!!!

* A reuseable space plane.  Well, sort of reuseable.  If the engines turn
out to work as well as NASA hopes, despite poor early results.  Of course,
the thing is five times as large as it needs to be, and as a result the
orbiter fleet is about a fifth the size it ought to be.  And it's so
expensive that expendable boosters are still hot competition.

* Regular and frequent manned missions to low Earth orbit.  True during
the heyday of NASA.  Starting to be true again.  How many were there
between 1970 and 1980?

I am not saying that these things weren't worthwhile; they were.  But
uncritical worship of the way the government has gone into space is
grossly inappropriate -- they have botched almost as many things as they
have gotten right.

> Also, as private firms get real experience in space I think you may find
> that they may not out perform NASA as much as some believe.
> For example, the recent 
> Starstruct launch - all of 3 seconds of perfect flight followed by another
> 11 seconds with a failed valve - cost (according to Space Calendar) 3-4 times
> as much as expected and and took 3-4 times as long as expected.

Remember Project Ranger?  Six straight failures?  Of course, NASA was young
then...  Give others a chance to get past their teething troubles before
you judge them.
-- 
"The trouble with a just economy is, who runs the Bureau of Economic Justice?"

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 84 10:08:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: "Status of the repaired satellite? - (nf)"

I assume you are referring to Solar Max.  It is functioning
perfectly.  In fact, not one week after being repaired, it
recorded one of the biggest solar flares on record.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 84 5:08:57-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: VAFB Launch Site Termed Defective

An Air Force investigation has reported that sever defects
at the VAFB launch site for the space shuttle will create
a ''one-in-five'' chance of the shuttle blowing up upon
liftoff.  Included in the report are citings of water in
cables, bad welding, and sand and other contaminants in
oxygen storage areas.  The report accused the Air Force
and Martin Marietta Corporation, the prime contracter for
the site, of providing no quality control.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #285    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 285

Today's Topics:
	  Tiny dipoles & femto-diodes (Solar energy conversion)
		   Launch schedule from NASA Act. TOC.
		     Re: Shuttle Satellite Broadcasts
			     Vandenberg delay
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
    Passengers needed to Discovery Launch from Indianapolis or Atlanta
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 1984 08:51:08-EDT
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Tiny dipoles & femto-diodes (Solar energy conversion)

I called the company in question (Phototherm) and spoke to the person who
is the inventor's business mgr (and wife). She refused to tell me how
much energy was deliverable by the device, or by an aggregation of such
devices, and said that to get such information (I did not ask for any
details of processes or anything else reasonably construed as secret),
I would have to ante up $25,000. Yup, that's twenty-five thousand dollars.
It rather makes one sceptical, especially when she referred to its possible
strategic uses. My snake-oil alarm has begun  to sound, although I'd dearly
love the device to be feasible.
   David   sde@mitre-bedford

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 84 8:46:34-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Launch schedule from NASA Act. TOC.

The following table is reproduced from the last NASA Activites.  The
information is subject to change.  I am unable to reprdouce Astro. Candidate
information due to lack of time.  My responsibilities are impacting the
time I can spend on this and other news groups.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA
  {hplabs,hao,dual}!ames!aurora!eugene

Space Shuttle Launches
Aug. 29	41-F	Discovery (OV-103)	KSC	Payload (below)
						SPARTAN-1
Oct. 1	41-G	Challenger (OV-099)	KSC	OSTA-3; ERBS
Nov. 2	51-A	Discovery (OV-103)	KSC	Payload: MSL-1, Telesat-H, GAS
Dec. 9	51-C	Discovery (OV-103)	KSC	Payload: DOD mission

Satellite Deployments from the Shuttle
June 23	Syncom IV-1	UUS		41-D	Hughes communiations
Aug. 29	SBS-D		PAM-D		41-F	Sat. Bus. Syst. commercial comm.
Aug. 30	Syncom IV-2	UUS		41-F	Hughes communications
Aug. 31	Telestar 3-C	PAM-D		41-F	AT&T communications
Oct. 1	ERBS		RMS		41-G	Earth Radiation Budget Sat.
Nov. 2	Telesat-H	PAM-D		51-A	Canadian communications

Expendable Launches
Aug. 2	AMPTE		Delta		ESMC	Active Magnetospheric Particle
						Tracer Explorer, space physics
						NASA coop with WG.
Sept.	NATO-IIID	Delta		ESMC	NATO Comm.
Nov.	Intelsat VA-C	Atlas Centaur	ESMC	Intelsat intl comm.
Dec.	San Macro D/L	Scout		SMR	Intl. coop with Italy
4 Qtr	AF-16 (ITV-1)	Scout		WFF	USAF

Launch Sites: ESMC - Eastern Space and Missile Range, KSC - Kennedy Space
Center, SMR - San Marco Range, Indian Ocean; WFF Wallops FLight Facility,
Wallops, Is, Va; WSMC - Western Space and Missile Center, VAFB, Ca.
UUS - unique upper stage, PAM-D Payload Assist Module; RMS, Remote
Manipulator System.

------------------------------

Sender: Isdale.es@XEROX.ARPA
Date: 23 Aug 84 09:49:14 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Satellite Broadcasts
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Isdale.es@XEROX.ARPA
From: Jerry <Isdale.es@XEROX.ARPA>

In response to my request for information, Craig Anderson (who sent the
earlier information) sent this update. I thought the Digest readers
would be interested:

~ Jerry

------------------------------------------------------------

RCA will be transmitting a courtesy feed of NASA's shuttle video/audio
transmissions on SATCOM F4, Transponder #24, DownLink Frequency 4180.0
MHz, 83 degrees west longitude.  SATCOM F4 is a common satellite used by
cable companies as it also carries The Playboy Channel, SportsVision,
ESPN, etc., so they may already be using it.

The broadcast should begin about 6 hours before launch, and there will
be a signal present 24 hours a day, switching between shuttle
video/audio (when they're transmitting), Mission Control, or a set of
color bars with a character generator.

NASA's main satellite for shuttle transmissions has changed from SATCOM
F1R to RCA AMERICOM SATCOM F5 (Aurora), Transponder #13, DownLink
Frequency 3954.5 MHz, 143 degress west longitude.  This is our
western-most satellite and is pointed towards Alaska, so most cable
companies in the continental U.S. probably won't be able to receive an
acceptable signal.  The transmission is also in a special format (video
and data), which is the reason for tuning to the lower downlink
frequency to receive video/audio only and ignore the data.

Also, a schedule of all shuttle video activities can be obtained
beginning about 3 days prior to launch by calling 713-280-8711 with a
computer and modem.  Hope this helps.

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299
------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 1984 17:24:43-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: Vandenberg delay

On NBC last night, some investigators estimated that repairing all of the
problems would delay completion of the facility by a year or more.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 84 17:15:49 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8408240015.AA23785@ucbkim.ARPA>
Phone: (415) 236-8262
To: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els@Berkeley, space@Mit-Mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!

	Who said anything about nuclear explosions???  NERVA was to use a
	reactor to have fuel burn, achieving an exhaust temperature much
	higher than ordinary rockets, thus giving a larger specific impulse.

That's why the legality of NERVA is questionable.  Project Orion, which does
(did?) involve nuclear explosions, is clearly illegal.   I understand that
the treaty language is sufficiently vague that nuclear reactors, as well as
explosions, may be illegal.

							Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 84 6:19:59-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxg!rowley @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Passengers needed to Discovery Launch from Indianapolis or Atlanta

NEED PASSENGERS TO DISCOVERY LAUNCH

We are planning on renting a plane to fly to Florida from Indianapolis to
watch the launch of Discovery.

The scheduled departure is Tuesday August 28 and returning the morning of
Friday August 31 (we will probably spend a day seeing the sights).

The approximate costs will be:

round trip air fair	~$160 if 4 people go or 4/3 that if we only 3 people go.
				(we currently have three people)
rental car		 $30 dollars per day plus 20 cents per mile

We also have a viewing area pass that will get us into the viewing area
about 2 miles from the pad.

we would also consider passengers in the Atlanta or Athens Georgia area and
you airfare would be in proportion to your time in the plane (about half).

					Dave Rowley
					(317) 845-6377  work
					(317) 843-1129  home

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

25-Aug-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #286    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 286

Today's Topics:
			  British Space Shuttle
			     Working for NASA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 1984 21:46:30-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: British Space Shuttle

A report on CNN tonight from ITN (private British TV) described a British
Aerospace/Rolls Royce plan to build a space shuttle called HOTOL.  The
fully-reusable shuttle is powered by three liquid-fuel engines, fuel type
unspecified.  The shuttle would take off horizontally on a tracked sled into
a 200mi orbit.  The sled's purpose is to support the weight of a
fully-fuelled shuttle.  Leftover fuel is used to make a rocket-powered
runway landing on conventional gear.  Has anyone heard anything else about
this?  The artist's conception was a lifting-body type vehicle.  I don't
recall any specifics on payload, but my impression is that it is smaller
than the US shuttle.  The initial design is unmanned.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 84 10:49:24-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Working for NASA

*

Some time ago, one of the folks who works for NASA posted a 
description of how to go about applying for work there.
If somebody has that article saved away, I'd like to
get a copy of it, if possie. Mail would me
most appropriate, rather than a newsgroup posting, I think.
Many thanks!

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

26-Aug-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #287    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 287

Today's Topics:
			  British Space Shuttle
			 Re: Suttle lift off?????
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 25 August 1984 11:25:21 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
To: space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: British Space Shuttle
Message-ID: <1984.8.25.15.24.35.Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa>

A report on CNN tonight from ITN (private British TV) described a British
Aerospace/Rolls Royce plan to build a space shuttle called HOTOL.  The
fully-reusable shuttle is powered by three liquid-fuel engines, fuel type
unspecified.  The shuttle would take off horizontally on a tracked sled into
a 200mi orbit.  The sled's purpose is to support the weight of a
fully-fuelled shuttle.  Leftover fuel is used to make a rocket-powered
runway landing on conventional gear.  Has anyone heard anything else about
this?  The artist's conception was a lifting-body type vehicle.  I don't
recall any specifics on payload, but my impression is that it is smaller
than the US shuttle.  The initial design is unmanned.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 84 13:25:44-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!gamma!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Suttle lift off?????

The shuttle is scheduled to lift off on the 29th
at 0835 EDT.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 84 14:18:48-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!cmaz504 @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!

If nuclear reactors are illegal in space why do some of the Soviet satellites 
use them? Wasn't the one that came down in Canada nuclear powered?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #288    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 288

Today's Topics:
			Re:  SPACE Digest V4 #287
				   ELT
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 26 Aug 84 15:37:13 EDT
From:     Joe Pistritto <jcp@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
To:       Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V4 #287

Nuclear reactors AREN'T illegal in space, (although discourage, precisely
because of Cosmos 957).  Nuclear WEAPONS are illegal in space, (actually,
all 'weapons of mass destruction' but that's commonly interpreted as
nuclear only).

							-JCP_

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 1984 18:18:43-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: ELT

An ELT is a device to locate an aircraft that has gone down. If an aircraft
has been actively identifying it's current position at short intervals, ala
Geostar, the primary function of the ELT has been superseded: narrowing the
search zone to a reasonably narrow region. Given the accuracy of GEOSTAR
(meters) knowledge of location at the moment of impact is solely dependant
upon the individual aircraft polling rates. There is no need for the
annoyingly failure prone ELT in an aircraft so equiped. And if the standard
polling rates aren't fast enough for you, I'll bet that Geostar Corp would
be willing to sell you any CEP of impact you are willing to pay for. I think
I'd feel quite safe if my 3-d position, direction and velocity were known
to within five minutes prior to impact. (median 2.5min or approx 5 mile ground
track assuming wind=0 and no drastic course changes during interval) If you
don't like my numbers, I'll just increase the polling rate...

Also, anyone who has interesting information on the upcoming Discovery
launch, experiments, payloads, scheduling, or any any useful trivia I might
use on a radio appearance this Wed. Please mail directly, as I may be too
busy to check the BB... I have a considerable amount of info, but I figure
someone out there knows things I don't about this flight. For example, does
anyone know for sure if Walker is going to wear his L5 patch?

				amon@cmu-ri-fas.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Fri 24 Aug 84 10:40:09-EDT
From: Martin J Mahoney <US.MJM%CU20B@COLUMBIA>
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
To: mcgeer%ucbkim@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Cc: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els@UCB-VAX.ARPA, space@MIT-MC.ARPA,
        US.MJM%CU20B@COLUMBIA

Nuclear reactors are probably not illegal.  Remember a few years back when the
Russian satalite crashed in the northern part of Canada, the satalite had a 
nuclear reactor and it was feared that the fuel would not burn up compleatly
on re-entry and it might contanimate its landing zone.
At the time it was stated that most of the Russian satalites used nuclear 
reactors for their power because they do not have the capability to use solar
power  as the US does.

Martin J. Mahoney
Columbia University
 Center for Computing Activities

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Aug-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #289    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 289

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
		 Teacher to be first Shuttle passenger  
		      Re: Problems at Vandenberg AFB
			 Re: Suttle lift off?????
			 NERVA/reactors in space
			  VAFB Shuttle watching
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 84 10:03:35 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8408271703.AA15531@ucbkim.ARPA>
Phone: (415) 236-8262
To: US.MJM%CU20B@COLUMBIA
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
Cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA, pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els@Berkeley

	You are, of course, correct, espescially since it's a point of pride
to the Soviets that they've never *explicitly* violated any treaty that
they've signed.  So why are NERVA's at least dubious?  Anybody?

					Rick.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 84  2336 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Teacher to be first Shuttle passenger  
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n089  1828  27 Aug 84
AM-SHUTTLE-CIVILIAN
First ''Citizen-Passenger'' Will Be A Teacher
By PHILIP M. BOFFEY
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - President Reagan announced on Monday that an elementary
or secondary schoolteacher would be chosen as the first ''citizen
passenger'' to fly into space aboard the space shuttle.
    His announcement temporarily dashed the hopes of thousands of other
citizens, including artists, writers, journalists, entertainers,
celebrities, and students, who have flooded the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration in recent years with requests that they be
flown into space.
    But they and others from occupations that lost out this time may yet
get their chance. The space agency said it expected to take the
teacher aloft in late 1985 or early 1986 and thereafter would fly
from two to four private citizens a year on shuttle missions.
    The citizen passengers are intended to serve as the eyes and ears of
the public, observing the wonders of space flight and later
communicating what they observe in understandable and more exciting
terms than those generally used by astronauts, who are chosen more
for technical skills than for communications ability.
    James M. Beggs, administrator of the space agency, said it had
decided to choose an educator because teachers are good
communicators, have a life-long effect on their students and can
inspire young people to become interested in space, science, and
mathematics and to excel.
    Beggs said his agency was under no political pressure to choose a
teacher in this election year when both parties are seeking the
support of articulate and organized teachers' groups. He said the
agency gave the president several options but ranked educators at the
top of the list.
    While the agency was stressing what teachers could do as
communicators for the country, the president, in a speech to teachers
and administrators from outstanding secondary schools, was stressing
what his space decision would do for the image of teachers.
    ''It has been a goal of our space shuttle program to some day carry
citizen passengers into space,'' he said. ''Until now, we had not
decided who the first citizen passenger would be.''
    ''But today,'' he added, ''I am directing NASA to begin a search in
all of our elementary and secondary schools and to choose, as the
first citizen passenger in the history of our space program, one of
America's finest: a teacher.''
    At the NASA news conference, Beggs said that, as the program
matured, passengers would be selected ''from all areas of American
life'' and eventually, perhaps, from foreign countries as well.
    The physical and psychological requirements for the citizen
passengers are not expected to be onerous. Beggs said the space
shuttle has a ''benign, shirt-sleeved environment'' that ''allows a
reasonably healthy person to fly there with nothing more than
relatively rudimentary training and the desire to do so.''
    The passengers must be free of disease or injury that would
interfere with performing the mission, escaping in an emergency, or
using the equipment. In addition, they must have vision correctable
to 20-40 in their better eye, be able to hear a whispered voice at
three feet, although a hearing aid is permissible, and have blood
pressure readings of less than 160 over 100, a level that doctors
define as moderate hypertension.
    The competition will be open to anyone teaching full time at the
secondary or elementary level in a public, private, or parochial
school in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the outlying
American territories, as well as in the Defense Department's overseas
schools for dependents. The applicants must be U.S. citizens.
    The space agency said it would send out an announcement in early
October listing the requirements and procedures for applicants. Any
applications sent before then will not be accepted. The application
period will run from Nov. 1 until Jan. 1. Recorded status reports on
the program are available by calling (202) 453-8644.
    Agency officials said they expected as many as 80,000 applications
from among the nation's two million schoolteachers. The applicants
will have to submit a proposal describing their qualifications and
explain how they would use their experience in space.
    The applications will go through an initial screening at the space
agency and then further screening by panels of educators in each
state. Two candidates will be selected from each state or other
jurisdiction. The group of more than 100 educators will be winnowed
down to 10 by a national panel. The winner and an alternate would
ultimately be selected by the agency.
    The passengers would be expected to go through perhaps eight weeks
of training before their flight, at the Johnson Space Center in Texas
and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. On the mission, they will be
asked to perform normal housekeeping, including operating the food
and hygiene systems and hatches. The educator will probably also be
involved in student experiments or other scientific work aboard. But
the educator need not be a teacher of science or mathematics.
    After returning to Earth, the passenger will have to spend a year
performing communications and education missions for NASA, just as
astronauts now spend substantial time addressing citizen's groups.
    ''We don't expect them to keep it to themselves,'' said Beggs.
''They'd better be aware they're going to be a hot property for us.''
    Beggs said it was the agency's intention to let the individual
''market his experience for profit.'' He said that, once an
individual had satisfied obligations to the agency, ''if there are
profit opportunities for him, good luck, and God bless him.''
    

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 84 1:11:13-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!brian @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Problems at Vandenberg AFB

   I understand that a shuttle launch complex is being built at Vandenberg AFB 
in California. Does anybody know if us West Coasters will be able to go watch
the launches from a reasonable distance, or will the military nature of the
missions cause the schedules and launches to remain secret?

			Brian M. Godfrey
			Sequent Computer Systems
			!ogcvax!sequent!brian

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 84 12:37:42-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!oliveb!olivee!oliven!hawk @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Suttle lift off?????

How can you call something that makes that much noise "Suttle"?  :-)
-- 
   rick                                     (Rick Hawkins @ Olivetti ATC)
[hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 1984 00:44:15 PDT
Subject: NERVA/reactors in space
From: Dave Dyer <DDYER@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but...

I believe that nuclear powered sattelites are powered by short lived
isotope decay, which is converted to electricity by thermocouple.
Full scale reactors are too big and too heavy for satellites,
not to mention too tricky to operate without constant supervision.

...and...

The objection to NERVA is that its normal exhaust gas would be radioactive, 
and that a crash would spread uncounted zillions of curies on the
earth below.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 84 10:53:39-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!tekred!normb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: VAFB Shuttle watching

When I worked at VAFB some years ago, the Air Force launched
quite a number of "secret" payloads. The nearest town, Lompoc,
had a front row seat to most of these, (and also watched a
number of interesting destructs), despite the classified nature
of the shots. It got to point that the local barmaid could tell
you the launch time, window, the pad, etc. Because of the spread
out nature of the base, people were starting to climb fences
to get a closer look at the fun, and some were getting as close
as a mile or so.
The Air Force was getting nervous at the thought of someone getting
hurt, (and I'm sure the liability angle was also of concern)
and as a result, established viewing areas, complete with a 
sound system. Because of the "progress for peace" nature of the
shuttle, I'm sure people will be allowed to watch the launch from
these areas. If the the complex is the one we used to call SLC-10,
there are off-base ares that are good. If anyone is interested,
send a mail item, and I'll provide detailed directions, rather
than use net time.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Aug-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #290    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 290

Today's Topics:
		 Teacher to be first Shuttle passenger  
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
			     NASA TV SCHEDULE
			Re: VAFB Shuttle watching
			      SHUTTLE VIDEO
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 1984  10:35 EDT
Message-ID: <OAF.12043054819.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: OAF%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
To:   Ron Goldman <ARG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA, prog-d%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Teacher to be first Shuttle passenger  

How about an ex-air traffic controller instead?  After all, those
people have demonstrated early loyalty to Reagan, willingness and
ability to handle stress, ability to pass regular and exhaustive
medical tests, and interest in matters aeronautical and astronautical.

Best of all, most of them have time on their hands, with which to
study up for the job, courtesy of Mr. Reagan himself.

Oded

------------------------------

Message-Id: <8408281644.AA05617@YALE-BULLDOG.YALE.ARPA>
Date:    Tue, 28 Aug 84 11:10:47 EDT
From: John R Ellis <Ellis@YALE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA

    From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>

    You are, of course, correct, espescially since it's a point of pride
    to the Soviets that they've never *explicitly* violated any treaty
    that they've signed.

Sigh.  I suppose by your definition the Soviets never "explicitly" violated
the Helsinki agreements?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 84 12:27:08 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8408281927.AA29943@ucbkim.ARPA>
Phone: (415) 236-8262
To: Ellis@YALE.ARPA, Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA

	Ahem.  I don't like them any better than you do; I never said they
never violated the *spirit* of the accords that they sign, merely that their
spokesmen have pointed out, ad nauseam, that the Soviet Union has never
explicitly, clearly, violated the *letter* of an agreement that they've
signed.  This is a considerable point of pride with the Soviet government.

					Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 84 21:05 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: NASA TV SCHEDULE
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Anderson.ES@XEROX.ARPA
ReplyTo: Anderson

Following is NASA's TV schedule for the shuttle Discovery's maiden
flight.  The flight has been postponed again, this time 24 hours, so the
launch is now set at 0835 CDT on Thursday, August 30.  Since liftoff is
still at the same scheduled time, I would assume all other times will
remain the same and only the day of each event will be pushed back by
one.  I would not normally send such a large file (15.6KB) to a
distribution list, but it contains much useful information, and I think
everyone would be interested in seeing it before liftoff.  If I was in
error for sending such a large file, I apoligize.  Enjoy.

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
41-D TV PLAN VALID AUG 28 1230Z T1235Z
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AUGUST 28
CDT	GMT		T-1 DAY BRIEFINGS
~~~	~~~	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
08:00  13:00		SBS BRIEFING FROM KSC

08:30  13:30		SYNCOM BRIEFING FROM KSC

09:00  14:00		TELESTAR BRIEFING FROM KSC

09:30  14:30		OAST-1 BRIEFING FROM MSFC

10:00  15:00		CFES BRIEFING FROM KSC

12:30  17:30		PRE-LAUNCH PRESS CONFERENCE FROM KSC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAUNCH DAY (AUGUST 29)
CDT	GMT	MET	OPERATION-EVENT-REMARKS		RESPONSIBLE
~~~	~~~	~~~	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
01:30  05:30 -0:07:05	CONFIGURE RCA DOMSAT TO SEND	GSFC/STDN
			STDN TV FROM MILA AND BEGIN	HOUSTON-TV
			MILA PRE-PASS STDN STATION
			VALIDATION. (MIL-JSC)

02:15  06:15 -0:06:20	COMPLETE MILA STDN STATION	GSFC/STDN
			VALIDATION.				HOUSTON-TV

03:45  07:45 -0:04:50	BEGIN NASA SELECT TELEVISION	KSC-NF-TV
			PROGRAMMING FROM KSC VIA	KSC-CD&SC
			RCA DOMSAT.

05:00  09:00 -0:03:35	KSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		KSC-CD&SC
			OFF RCA DOMSAT.

05:00  09:00 -0:03:35	BEGIN WEATHER BRIEFING FROM	HOUSTON-TV
			JSC TO KSC VIA RCA DOMSAT.

05:30  09:30 -0:03:05	KSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		KSC-CD&SC
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

06:30  10:30 -0:02:05	ACTIVATE AT&T, JSC TO KSC		AT&T
			FOR SUPPORT VIDEO.

07:00  11:00 -0:01:35	BEGIN WEATHER BRIEFING FROM	KSC-NF-TV
			KSC TO JSC VIA RCA DOMSAT.

08:35  12:35  0:00:00	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
			~~~~				~~~~
			~~~~	LAUNCH OF 41-D	~~~~
			~~~~				~~~~
			~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

09:15  13:15  0:00:40	DISCONTINUE NASA SELECT		KSC-CD&SC
			TELEVISION PROGRAMMING
			FROM KSC VIA RCA DOMSAT.

09:15  13:15  0:00:40	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

09:20  13:20  0:00:45	BEGIN OTV LAUNCH VIDEO		KSC-NF-TV
			FROM KSC.

09:30  13:30  0:00:55	DISCONTINUE SUPPORT VIDEO		AT&T
			FROM JSC TO KSC VIA AT&T.

10:00  14:00  0:01:25	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

12:15  16:15  0:03:40	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

13:04  17:04  0:04:29	AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV01 PAYLOAD BAY VIEWS. (ORBIT 4)

13:12  17:12  0:04:37	LOS HAWAII.

13:12  17:12  0:04:37	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

13:25  17:25  0:04:50	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF PAYLOAD BAY VIEWS.

14:00  18:00  0:05:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			GARY COEN-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

16:05  20:05  0:07:30	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

16:16  20:16  0:07:41	AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK		HOUSTON-TV
			OF TV03 SBS PRE-DEPLOY
			ACTIVITIES.  (ORBIT 6)

16:24  20:24  0:07:49	LOS HAWAII.

16:24  20:24  0:07:49	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

16:33  20:33  0:07:58	SBS DEPLOY. (ORBIT 6)
			-NOT TELEVISED LIVE-

16:40  20:40  0:08:05	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK OF	JSC-BLDG 8
			SBS PRE-DEPLOY ACTIVITIES.

17:41  21:41  0:09:06	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

17:52  21:52  0:09:17	AOS HAWAII FOR VTR DUMP OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV03 SBS DEPLOY. (ORBIT 7)

18:00  22:00  0:09:25	LOS HAWAII.

18:00  22:00  0:09:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

18:10  22:10  0:09:35	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF SBS DEPLOY.

20:35  00:35  0:12:00	BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

21:00  01:00  0:12:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			JOHN COX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

22:00  02:00  0:13:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AUGUST 30
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
03:30  08:30  0:19:55	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

03:35  08:35  0:20:00	CREW WAKE UP.

04:00  09:00  0:20:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			ALAN BRISCOE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

05:00  10:00  0:21:25	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

05:27  10:27  0:21:52	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

07:43  12:43  1:00:08	AOS MILA FOR DOWNLINK OF		HOUSTON-TV
			TV03 SYNCOM IV PRE-DEPLOY
			ACTIVITIES. (ORBIT 17)

07:53  12:53  1:00:18	LOS MILA.

07:53  12:53  1:00:18	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

08:07  13:07  1:00:32	SYNCOM IV DEPLOY (ORBIT 17)
			-NOT TELEVISED LIVE-

08:15  13:15  1:00:40	BEGIN 10 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF SYNCOM IV PRE-DEPLOY.

09:02  14:02  1:01:27	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

09:12  14:12  1:01:37	AOS GOLDSTONE FOR VTR DUMP OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV03 SYNCOM IV DEPLOY. (ORbIT 18)

09:19  14:19  1:01:44	LOS GOLDSTONE.

09:19  14:19  1:01:44	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

09:30  14:30  1:01:55	BEGIN 7 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF SYNCOM DEPLOY.

12:00  17:00  1:04:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			RANDY STONE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

13:39  18:39  1:06:04	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

13:50  18:50  1:06:15	AOS HAWAII FOR VTR DUMP OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV05 OAST VTR CHECKOUT. (ORBIT 21)

13:58  18:58  1:06:23	LOS HAWAII.

13:58  18:58  1:06:23	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

14:10  19:10  1:06:35	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF OAST VTR CHECKOUT.

19:35  00:35  1:12:00	BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

20:00  01:00  1:12:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			JOHN COX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

21:00  02:00  1:13:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AUGUST 31
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
03:00  08:00  1:19:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

03:35  08:35  1:20:00	CREW WAKE UP.

04:00  09:00  1:20:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			ALAN BRISCOE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

06:00  11:00  1:22:25	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

07:10  12:10  1:23:35	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

07:55  12:55  2:00:20	AOS MILA FOR DOWNLINK OF		HOUSTON-TV
			TV03 TELSTAR PRE-DEPLOY
			ACTIVITIES. (ORBIT 33)

08:05  13:05  2:00:30	LOS MILA.

08:05  13:05  2:00:30	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

08:17  13:17  2:00:42	TELSTAR DEPLOY (ORBIT 33)
			-NOT TELEVISED LIVE-

08:25  13:25  2:00:50	BEGIN 10 MINUTE PLAYBACK OF	JSC-BLDG 8
			TELSTAR PRE-DEPLOY ACTIVITIES.

08:38  13:38  2:01:03	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

09:24  14:24  2:01:49	AOS GOLDSTONE FOR VTR DUMP OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV03 TELSTAR DEPLOY. (ORBIT 34)

09:31  14:31  2:01:56	LOS GOLDSTONE.

09:31  14:31  2:01:56	AOS MILA FOR VTR DUMP OF		HOUSTON-TV
			TV03 TELSTAR DEPLOY. (ORBIT 34)
			(30 SECOND KEYHOLE)

09:40  14:40  2:02:05	LOS MILA.

09:40  14:40  2:02:05	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

09:50  14:50  2:02:15	BEGIN 15 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF TELSTAR DEPLOY.

10:15  15:15  2:02:40	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT. NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

10:15  15:15  2:02:40	MSFC SWITCH NASA SELECT		MSFC-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

10:15  15:15  2:02:40	HOSC OPERATIONS FROM MSFC.	MSFC-TV
			(OCCURING FOR 5 MINUTES BETWEEN
			MET 2:02:40 AND 2:03:00)

10:35  15:35  2:03:00	MSFC SWITCH NASA SELECT		MSFC-TV
			OFF RCA DOMSAT.

10:35  15:35  2:03:00	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

11:30  16:30  2:03:55	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			RANDY STONE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

11:55  16:55  2:04:20	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

12:25  17:25  2:04:50	AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV06 OAST OPERATIONS (FIRST
			EXTENSION). (ORBIT 36)

12:33  17:33  2:04:58	LOS HAWAII.

12:33  17:33  2:04:58	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

12:45  17:45  2:05:10	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF OAST OPERATIONS.

18:05  23:05  2:10:30	BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

19:00  00:00  2:11:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			JOHN COX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

20:00  01:00  2:12:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SEPTEMBER 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
02:00  07:00  2:18:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

02:05  07:05  2:18:30	CREW WAKE UP.

03:00  08:00  2:19:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			ALAN BRISCOE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

03:30  08:30  2:19:55	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

03:55  08:55  2:20:20	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

05:00  10:00  2:21:25	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

06:12  11:12  2:22:37	AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV06 OAST OPERATIONS. (PERF
			TEST-ORBIT 48)

06:16  11:16  2:22:41	LOS HAWAII.

06:21  11:21  2:22:46	AOS GOLDSTONE FOR DOWNLINK OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV06 OAST OPERATIONS. (PERF
			TEST-ORBIT 48) (30 SEC KEYHOLE)

06:25  11:25  2:22:50	LOS GOLDSTONE.

06:27  11:27  2:22:52	AOS MILA FOR DOWNLINK OF		HOUSTON-TV
			TV06 OAST OPERATIONS. (PERF
			TEST-ORBJSC-BLDG 8
			OF OAST OPERATIONS.

06:36  11:36  2:23:01	LOS MILA.

06:36  11:36  2:23:01	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

11:00  16:00  3:03:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			RANDY STONE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

17:35  22:35  3:10:00	BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

19:00  00:00  3:11:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			JOHN COX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

20:00  01:00  3:12:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SEPTEMBER 2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
01:00  06:00  3:17:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

01:35  06:35  3:18:00	CREW WAKE UP.

03:00  08:00  3:19:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			ALAN BRISCOE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

06:00  11:00  3:22:25	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

06:45  11:45  3:23:10	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

08:15  13:15  4:00:40	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			MULTILOCATION CHANGE		JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			RANDY STONE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

10:00  15:00  4:02:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			RANDY STONE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

12:00  17:00  4:04:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

12:40  17:40  4:05:05	AOS HAWAII FOR VTR DUMP OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV08 CFES OPERATIONS. (ORBIT 68)

12:48  17:48  4:05:13	LOS HAWAII.

12:48  17:48  4:05:13	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

13:00  18:00  4:05:25	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF CFES OPERATIONS.

13:30  18:30  4:05:55	41-G CREW PRESS CONFERENCE	JSC-PAO
			FROM JSC.

16:35  21:35  4:09:00	BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

17:00  22:00  4:09:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			JOHN COX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

18:00  23:00  4:10:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SEPTEMBER 3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
00:00  05:00  4:16:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

00:35  05:35  4:17:00	CREW WAKE UP.

01:00  06:00  4:17:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			ALAN BRISCOE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

03:00  08:00  4:19:25	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

03:35  08:35  4:20:00	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

04:30  09:30  4:20:55	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

05:06  10:06  4:21:31	AOS MILA FOR VTR DUMP OF		HOUSTON-TV
			TV15 STUDENT EXPERIMENT.
			(ORBIT 79)

05:14  10:14  4:21:39	LOS MILA.

05:14  10:14  4:21:39	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

05:25  10:25  4:21:50	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF STUDENT EXPERIMENT.

05:38  10:38  4:22:03	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			RCA DOMSAT. NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

06:23  11:23  4:22:48	AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV13 CREW PRESS CONFERENCE.
			(ORBIT 80)

06:31  11:31  4:22:56	LOS HAWAII.

06:34  11:34  4:22:59	AOS GOLDSTONE FOR DOWNLINK OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV13 CREW PRESS CONFERENCE.
			(ORBIT 80) (30 SEC KEYHOLE)

06:40  11:40  4:23:05	LOS GOLDSTONE.

06:41  11:41  4:23:06	AOS MILA FOR DOWNLINK OF		HOUSTON-TV
			TV13 CREW PRESS CONFERENCE.
			(ORBIT 80)

06:51  11:51  4:23:16	LOS MILA.

06:51  11:51  4:23:16	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

07:00  12:00  4:23:25	BEGIN 23 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF CREW PRESS CONFERENCE.

09:00  14:00  5:01:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			RANDY STONE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

16:35  21:35  5:09:00	BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

17:00  22:00  5:09:25	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			JOHN COX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

18:00  23:00  5:10:25	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LANDING DAY (SEPTEMBER 4)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
22:30  05:30  5:16:55	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT		HOUSTON-TV
			ONTO RCA DOMSAT.

22:35  05:35  5:17:00	CREW WAKE UP.

23:30  06:30  5:17:55	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			ALAN BRISCOE-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

04:00  11:00  5:22:25	SCHEDULE OF DAYS TELEVISION	JSC-PAO
			EVENTS

04:30  11:30  5:22:55	ACTIVATE AT&T, JSC TO DFRF	AT&T
			FOR SUPPORT VIDEO.

05:30  12:30  5:23:55	JSC SWITCH NASA SELECT OFF		HOUSTON-TV
			OF RCA DOMSAT.  NASA SELECT
			AVAILABLE TO USERS AT JSC.

05:30  12:30  5:23:55	BEGIN NASA SELECT TELEVISION	DRYDEN-TV
			PROGRAMMING FROM DFRF VIA
			RCA DOMSAT.

06:34  13:34  6:00:59	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
			~~~~	     LANDING	~~~~
			~~~~		OF		~~~~
			~~~~	       41-D		~~~~
			~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

07:30  14:30  6:01:55	DISCONTINUE SUPPORT VIDEO		AT&T
			FROM JSC TO DFRF VIA AT&T.

07:35  14:35  6:02:00	POST LANDING BRIEFING.		DFRF-PAO

09:00  16:00  6:03:25	TERMINATE NASA SELECT		DRYDEN-TV
			PROGRAMMING FROM DFRF VIA
			RCA DOMSAT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LANDING +1 (SEPTEMBER 5)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
09:30  16:30		BEGIN NASA SELECT TELEVISION	DRYDEN-TV
			PROGRAMMING FROM DFRF VIA
			RCA DOMSAT.

10:00  17:00		ORBITER STATUS BRIEFING		DRYDEN-TV
			FROM DFRF.

11:00  18:00		TERMINATE NASA SELECT		DRYDEN-TV
			TELEVISION PROGRAMMING FROM
			DFRF VIA RCA DOMSAT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 84 21:22 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: VAFB Shuttle watching
To: hplabs!tektronix!tekred!normb@UCB-VAX.ARPA
cc: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

I'm interested in your information regarding the VAFB launches.  Thanks.

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 84 21:34 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: SHUTTLE VIDEO
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Anderson.ES@XEROX.ARPA
ReplyTo: Anderson

For those people living in Southern California, Century Cable will be
broadcasting the Discovery video on local access cable channel 3 from 5
P.M. until 6 A.M. PDT each day of the mission.

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Aug-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #291    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 291

Today's Topics:
		   Seeing launches from the West Coast
		   Re: Re: Shuttle Satellite Broadcasts
	      Query:  TV Coverage Of Shuttle in SF Bay Area?
			Soviet ocean surveillance
			     pointer to NASA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 84 9:27:38-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Seeing launches from the West Coast

[leq: "Can he make it? You bet he can Mr. President!!.." Buck Turgidson]

In response to the question on visibility of launches, I can give
three perspectives.

1) When I was a kid growing up in Los Angeles (over 100 air miles
from the Western Launch Site at VAFB) I can remember seeing numerous
evening Minuteman launches: contrails, ascending booster flame,
and that funny circular cloud associated with the cover blowing off
the silo: most impressive at sunset (lasted 15 minutes [cloud that is]).
So, the sunset launches of the shuttle will be quite impressive.

2) Later, I helped launch a satellite at VAFB (A civilian oceanography
satellite).  Normally civilians are not allowed at any launch at VAFB.
There might be exceptions in the near future, there were in the past.
You can get to within 3 miles of some launch pads.

3) I took the Coast train back to Santa Barbara (My old alma mater.)
recently.  The train goes right past the Shuttle launch pad, not 500
yards or so.  You can see it any time.  The area is surrounded
by steep slopes, not conducive to spectators (probably due to
crowding of other launch sites at VAFB).  I wondering about the day,
I might take the train and ride pass the Shuttle.  The train may become
a new Shuttle viewing attraction.

I have heard the best way to watch the Shuttle is from a private plane
outside the restricted zone.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 84 22:32:00-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!ajs @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle Satellite Broadcasts

> Also, a schedule of all shuttle video activities can be obtained
> beginning about 3 days prior to launch by calling 713-280-8711 with a
> computer and modem.  Hope this helps.

Good  stuff!  I tried  it and  got  more  than I  expected.  You  should
mention, though, that before you dial, you must set your terminal to 300
baud (at  least, I had to),  and you  might  want to turn on hard  copy,
save-to-file, or whatever, before connecting.

What kind agency is the provider of this provender?

Alan Silverstein

------------------------------

Date: 29-Aug-84 10:19 PDT
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems Div. - McDnD  <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: Query:  TV Coverage Of Shuttle in SF Bay Area?
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2.ARPA]TYM-WBD-5C1LJ>

Does anyone know if any cable companies will be covering the NASA TV Shuttle 
broadcasts in the San Francisco Bay Area?  Thanks,  --Bi<<

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 1984 2339-PDT
From: LEE at SU-STAR
Subject: Soviet ocean surveillance
To: SPACE%MIT-MC at SCORE
Reply-To: LEE at SU-STAR

The Soviets certainly have a solar array power technology comparable to
that of the US. It would seem that the motivation for using nuclear power
is their payload. The use of radar, in which they lag several years behind
the Western state of the art, probably imposes size and power requirements
of a serious nature on these satellites. The array surface needed to
supply power in the multi-Kw range probably results in bad ballistic
coefficients. At their low orbit (174X162 st. miles) this means high decay
rates. Why launch a new satellite every week when you can get a 60-70 day
useful life out of them by just replacing the "wings" with RTG's?  (NOT
fission reactors as some members of the media claim!)

This series of RORSats ( of which the infamous Cosmos 954 was a member)
are typically of roughly cylindrical configuration, about 14 meters in
length and 2 meters in diameter. The RTG unit occupies 6 m of its length
and allows the radar sensor to have enough power to locate ships in any
weather conditions.

Note that those Soviet reconaissance satellites which operate in higher
orbits usually are powered by solar arrays.

				Emilio P. Calius
				Stanford U.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 84 11:12:10-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!martin @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: pointer to NASA

In the past, I have seen addresses where one could write to NASA to obtain
a catalog of photographs taken on the space missions.  I would like to
send for a catalog, but can no longer find the address. Can anyone help me?

Thanks.

John Martin
...!decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!martin

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

31-Aug-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #292    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 292

Today's Topics:
		 Soviet Nuclear Powered Radar Satellites
			    Discovery Launched
			     NASA TV SCHEDULE
			 NASA photo availability
			       Jobs at NASA
			      Space Toilets
		       Re: NASA Broadcasts on CATV
			Re: Very Cheap Solar Cells
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 07:57:11 EDT
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Soviet Nuclear Powered Radar Satellites
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought th Soviet nuclear radar satellites
use a nuclear reactor fueled with pure U-235, generating electricity
by thermionic emission.

Doesn't the US have a (dormant) SNAP reactor in earth orbit?

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 10:24:48 PDT (Thu)
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Discovery Launched
From: "Tim Shimeall" <tim@uci-750a>

Discovery launched beautifully this morning.  ABC and CBS didn't provide
much (if any) real-time coverage of the launch, but NBC was pretty good.
Bryant Gumble got a few points in my book when he said "Let's quit talking
now and listen. [To the NASA commentary]" and then kept quite until after
the SRB seperation.
			Tim

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 84 13:38 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: NASA TV SCHEDULE
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Anderson.ES@XEROX.ARPA
ReplyTo: Anderson

Following is an updated schedule of Discovery's first day of activities.
I've listed only the major events.  Most of these events are televised
live by CNN or can be monitored on 2 meter radio if rebroadcasted in
your area.

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
41-D TV PLAN VALID AUG 30 1309Z T1242Z
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAUNCH DAY (AUGUST 30)
EDT	GMT	MET	OPERATION-EVENT-REMARKS		RESPONSIBLE
~~~	~~~	~~~	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
08:42  12:42  0:00:00	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
			~~~~				~~~~
			~~~~	LAUNCH OF 41-D	~~~~
			~~~~				~~~~
			~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

13:11  17:11  0:04:29	AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV01 PAYLOAD BAY VIEWS. (ORBIT 4)

13:19  17:19  0:04:37	LOS HAWAII.

13:32  17:32  0:04:50	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF PAYLOAD BAY VIEWS.

14:00  18:00  0:05:18	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			GARY COEN-FLIGHT DIRECTOR

16:23  20:23  0:07:41	AOS HAWAII FOR DOWNLINK		HOUSTON-TV
			OF TV03 SBS PRE-DEPLOY
			ACTIVITIES.  (ORBIT 6)

16:31  20:31  0:07:49	LOS HAWAII.

16:40  20:40  0:07:58	SBS DEPLOY. (ORBIT 6)
			-NOT TELEVISED LIVE-

16:47  20:47  0:08:05	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK OF	JSC-BLDG 8
			SBS PRE-DEPLOY ACTIVITIES.

17:59  21:59  0:09:17	AOS HAWAII FOR VTR DUMP OF	HOUSTON-TV
			TV03 SBS DEPLOY. (ORBIT 7)

18:07  22:07  0:09:25	LOS HAWAII.

18:17  22:17  0:09:35	BEGIN 8 MINUTE PLAYBACK		JSC-BLDG 8
			OF SBS DEPLOY.

20:42  00:42  0:12:00	BEGIN CREW SLEEP PERIOD.

21:00  01:00  0:12:18	BEGIN MULTILOCATION CHANGE	JSC-PAO
			OF SHIFT PRESS CONFERENCE.
			JOHN COX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END OF MESSAGE

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 10:43:18-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: NASA photo availability

[leq: "Where's my sonic screwdriver?"]

You can get photos from NASA, depending on what you want and need.
If you just want PR photos, you can write to any NASA Center and the
PR people will dump tons of stuff, brochures, etc. [I did it in 10th grade].

If you need specific images, depending on your purpose and form.....
pick up the phone book and call around:

	NASA Goddard Space Center, Greenbelt, MD  Unmanned earth missions
	Jet Propulsion Lab/Caltech, Pasadena, CA  Unmanned deep space mission
	NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX    Manned missions
	NASA Marshall Space Center, Huntsville, AL  Manned missions

Specific missions require you contact the people involved.  If you want
Landsat images, in machine readable form, you should contact the EROS data
Center, tapes will cost you.  Deep Space data can be obtained from the
Regional Planetary Data Center at JPL.  I know of several university
institutes like the one at Brown.

At our Center (Ames), we have a photo archive which people can paw thru
(Too many photos, I went thru it recently for work purposes).

--eugene miya
  NASA

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 84 12:14:12-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!bonnie!clyde!watmath!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Jobs at NASA

*
I'd like to thank everyone that sent me the back-articles
concerning how to go about applying to NASA for jobs.
I have about 3 or  of these articles saved away myself, now;
if anybody else would like this information, le me know,
and I'll mail you a copy.
-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 84 11:31:24-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!petsd!petfe!gmv @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Space Toilets

<>
I'l fairly new to the net, so forgive me if this has been asked before,
but with all the noise about malfunctions on the STS, the toilet seems
to be THE component that fails most often. All this noise has piqued
my curiosity.

HOW does one handle certain, ahem, bodily functions in space?
I would think that lack of gravity would pose some interesting problems,
since you-know-what DOESN'T flow downhill in space.
Also, what do the astronauts do when the toilet breaks? Does having 'the
right stuff' include the ability to 'hold it' for 2 million miles (egads!
remember all those l-o-n-g car trips as a kid? :-))?

(Note for the fainthearted: if you feel the responses to the above
would not constitute family viewing on the net, skip any articles
that refer to the dreaded killer Space Toilet).
 -----
George Verbosh, Perkin-Elmer, 106 Apple St., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
...{vax135, pesnta}!petsd!petfe!gmv

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 84 11:07:29-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!petsd!petfe!gmv @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: NASA Broadcasts on CATV

<>
Based upon some exposure I had about 4 years ago, the video channel
for the shuttle missions is indeed 1/2 width and is carried on
one of the RCA SATCOM's.
SATCOM is the carrier for HBO, SHOWTIME et al.
and should be accessible to your local cable company (if they have
the proper down-converter).
I don't know what it takes to convert from 1/2
channel to the NTSC video the CATV company feeds into the system.

I'd sure like to see my CATV carry shuttle video/audio (my wife isn't
so sure).

--------
George Verbosh, Perkin-Elmer, 106 Apple St., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
...{vax135, pesnta}!petsd!petfe!gmv

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 84 5:11:18-EDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ukc!qtlon!istbt!andy @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Very Cheap Solar Cells

[everyone else seems to be wary...]

hutch@shark.UUCP writes:
> Has anyone looked into organic solar collection?  Plants do a real
> fine job of collecting and storing solar energy;  does anyone know
> how efficient they are (not 100% by any means, since they are usually
> sensitive in a fairly narrow bandwidth of yellow-green) ??
> 
> An organic compound engineered to translate sunlight into ATP and
> another that turned ATP into electricity would be an interesting
> way to power a car. . .

What colour are your plants in Oregon Hutch? Ours are green and yellow
because they DO NOT absorb green and yellow light. You must have an interesting
garden!

The majority of the spectrum is absorbed except those wavelengths around
550 nm (green), 600 nm and 640 nm (yellow). However the efficiency is not
great (I'm not sure of the exact figure).

Photosynthesis is a two-stage process; the light stage is the photo-chemical
reaction with sunlight that splits water and provides the free hydrogen
for the second (dark) stage to turn into carbohydrates. The first stage
produces ATP anyway to power the second stage (nature did the engineering
already!).

The light stage produces faster than the dark stage can cope with so periods
of darkness are actually beneficial to the process.

However, a problem with the utilisation of this process is its extreme
sensitivity to temperature and the fact that because enzymes are involved
any temperatures above about 40 Centigrade will kill it due to protein
denaturing.

	Andy Greener		Imperial Software Technology
				London, England

				...!vax135!ukc!qtlon!ist!andy
				...!vax135!ukc!qtlon!ist!istbt!andy

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

01-Sep-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #293    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 293

Today's Topics:
			   VAFB Shuttle Launch
	       US backing out of rescue satellite project? 
			    Re: Space Toilets
		  Discovery's 1st stage performance low?
		Re: Discovery's 1st stage performance low?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 12:17:38-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!tekred!normb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: VAFB Shuttle Launch

Since offering to provide some info about viewing areas re
the shuttle launch from VAFB, I've received so many requests
via mail that I'll respond here.

I called NASA at VAFB (surprised my 10 year old number was still
valid) and was informed that the AF will not open the on-base
viewing areas to the public. They also plan to close some roads
leading to the base. That hardly seemed fair, so I called the
Lompoc mayor's office. Lompoc plans to provide viewing areas
at Ken Adams Park on the edge of town. Bear in mind that Lompoc
has a population of about 30k, and is located in a small valley
adjacent to VAFB. People will be able to see the launch quite
well, except for the first 30 seconds or so. Should shake the
area a'bunch, if the launches of the TAT (Thrust Assisted Thor)
are any indication.

If you plan to attend, bear in mind that these towns are fairly
small, and have limited accommodations. In terms of range from
VAFB, Lompoc is closest (about 6 miles from the pad), than
Buellton/Solvang (15 miles), Santa Maria(25-28 miles), Santa
Barbara(~50), San Luis Obispo(~60 miles). Lompoc and Santa Maria
will fill up fast with launch and press personnel. I'd shoot for
Santa Barbara. Better access to Lompoc, good road, etc. Someone
suggested a private plane, which is a good idea, except the ocean
approach will be restricted. The train, which someone pointed out,
goes right past the launch areas, however the launch will be scheduled
around the train schedule, or they will hold the train.

If you're really sneaky, submit an application to any of the
companies on base, and schedule your interview for launch day. 
You can bet that the personnel folks will be watching the launch,
and from a good vantage point.

                                   Norm @ Tek/Redmond

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84  1333 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: US backing out of rescue satellite project? 
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n013  0707  31 Aug 84
BC-RESCUE
By PHILIP M. BOFFEY
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    WASHINGTON - The Reagan Administration's budget office is trying to
cut in half the American commitment to an international satellite
rescue program.
    The program uses American and Soviet satellites to carry French and
Canadian equipment that can pick up distress calls from planes,
ships, or marooned explorers. It has resulted in the saving of 247
lives in two years.
    The future of the program, thus far deemed experimental, is to be
discussed at a meeting in Leningrad in October, leading to intense
behind-the-scenes jockeying among American agencies to determine what
the government's negotiating posture will be.
    David A. Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget,
has recently urged Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige to commit only
one American weather satellite to the rescue program instead of two.
    Stockman's request, conveyed in a July 26 letter that has just
become public, expresses no antipathy toward the rescue program
itself but notes that the administration has been trying for years to
get rid of one of its two polar-orbiting weather satellites to save
money. Those provide the best coverage of the earth's surface.
    The plan is meeting strong resistance in the Commerce Department,
the Air Force, and other agencies concerned that the rescue program
would be harmed and that an American cutback would allow the Soviet
Union, which currently supplies three satellites to the program, to
reap a propaganda victory.
    Rep. James H. Scheuer, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Science
subcommittee with jurisdiction over weather satellites, charged today
that ''the inflexible position of OMB not only compromises the lives
and safety of Americans but also jeopardizes the reliability of our
commitments to our allies.''
    The stiffest opposition appears to be emerging from elements of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Commerce
Department agency responsible for weather satellites. In a background
paper, NOAA warned that if the United States cut its participation,
''people would die who would have survived.''
    The background paper proclaims the program ''a total success'' that
has saved 247 lives, 177 in North America. Most rescues were
attributable to the Soviet satellites, according to the paper.
Ironically, not a single Soviet citizen has been among those saved.
    
    
nyt-08-31-84 1003edt
**********

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 8:35:27-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!teklds!azure!billp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

------------
There is a very detailed article about the design and operation of the
shuttle toilets in the Sep. 18, 1972 issue of "Design News".
It is very informative and explains how all the problems were solved,
especially how to connect to a female.
The price at that time was quoted as $238,000 a piece.

	Bill Pfeifer
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 20:16:56-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!pyle @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery's 1st stage performance low?

Just after SRB separation on Discovery's launch, Capcom informed the
shuttle crew: "First stage - nominal."  Shortly thereafter, Capcom came
back with a revised evaluation that first stage performance was "low."
Interestingly, the CNN people didn't pick up on this and nothing else
was exchanged between the crew and ground (at least nothing that CNN
aired) on the subject.

What is considered in this evaluation?  Was the SSME and/or SRB thrust
too low?  For that matter, how much is "low?"

Keith Pyle

UUCP: . . .{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,kpno,gatech}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!pyle
ARPA: pyle@ut-ngp

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84 23:23:59-EDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!jcp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Discovery's 1st stage performance low?

The 'SRB Performance Low' call you heard has occurred on almost every
shuttle mission, and represents the Solids not achieving nominal
thrust parameters.  Due to the way solid rocket engines work, their
performance is much more variable than equivalent liquids.  The Discovery
automatically compensates for low SRB performance by boosting thrust
on the Space Shuttle Main Engines, or moving the throttle-back point
slightly, (the region of maximum dynamic pressure).  Typical 'low' values
are 3 to 7 percent below nominal, I believe.  Sufficient reserve fuel
is always carried to compensate for low solid performance, as the
shuttle must reach a fairly precise 'window in space' at the time
of Main Engine shutdown in order to the OMS system, (which is much smaller
than the SSMEs) to execute the orbit circularization burn successfully.
None of the shuttle flights have had their orbital parameters significantly
affected by low 1st stage performance.

Most of this I learned from articles on the subject in Aviation Week

							-JCP-

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

02-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #294    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 294

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Space Toilets
			      Pgh L5 meeting
			   small star database
		     Discovery flight postponed again
		    Re: Public at Vandenberg launches
			    Re: Space Toilets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 31 Aug 84 09:32:11-PDT
From: Bill Park <PARK@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Space Toilets
ReSent-to: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA

In any good bookstore, the large-format paperback ... 

Joels, K. M., Kennedy, G.P., and Larkin, D., @i{The Space Shuttle
Operator's Manual}, New York, Ballantine Books (1982).

... see Chapter 2.17, "Personal Hygiene and Waste Management"

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 1984 21:04:12-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Pgh L5 meeting

Mark Cromie of the NASA Industrial Applications Center will address the next
Pittsburgh L5 general meeting. NIAC, located on the campus of the University
of Pittsburgh, was organized to dispense NASA technology for the adoption by
industry. Mr Cromie will discuss the center, it's purpose, and how
technologies can be applied.

	Who:	Mark Cromie, NIAC
	When:	Wednesday, 9/5/84 20:00
	Where:	Porter Hall 126B, CMU

------------------------------

Date:     Sun,  2 Sep 84 00:39:20 CDT
From: Mike Caplinger <mike@rice.ARPA>
Subject:  small star database
To: space@mit-mc.ARPA, physics@sri-unix.ARPA, sky-fans@mit-xx.ARPA
Message-Id:  <mike.97@Iapetus.rice>

I'm looking for somebody with access to either the SAO or SKYMAP
machine-readable star catalogs.  For some time, there's been a need for
a small machine-readable catalog; I know of many people who would be
interested.  What I propose to do is find someone with all the tapes.
I'll write a program to cull out a few thousand entries, and make this
small database accessable via anonymous FTP.

If anyone has either catalog, let me know.  I will also need information
on the format of the data, and which language/system will be most
convenient.  Please respond to me personally, and I'll announce the
availability of the database if I have any luck.

	- Mike

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 84 22:58:27-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery flight postponed again

NASA announced late Tuesday evening that the first flight of the space
shuttle Discovery had been postponed for the third time in two months.
Launch has been rescheduled for 8:36 a.m. EDT Thursday, August 30.

Tuesday afternoon, technicians discovered problems with an onboard electronic
device called the master events controller (MEC).  The MEC commands the
separation of boosters and fuel tanks and begins the firing of the boosters
and the detonation of the explosive bolts that hold the shuttle to the
launch pad.

Twice before, the crew of six had entered the shuttle, only to have the
launch scrubbed.  A computer failure stopped the countdown at T-9 minutes
June 25 and the next day a faulty valve in one of the main engines caused an
abort just seconds before the solid rockets were to have been ignited.
This time, the crew was asleep when NASA officials made the decision less
than 12 hours before the scheduled liftoff.  Loading the shuttle's huge
external tank with supercold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen had not
yet begun.

The weather for Thursday morning looked good for a launch, forecasters said.
--
Roger Noe			uucp: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84 14:23:01-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ulysses!smb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Public at Vandenberg launches

I expect that there will also be non-classified launches at Vandenburg,
for any payload that needs to be in a polar orbit.  There are already
weather satellites and the like in such orbits.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84 16:34:02-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!atkins @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

Please, please. I'm dying to know. How does a space toilet work,
and how does it fit to a lady???????

If you all think it's that offensive, rotate it.

Brian Atkins   ...{hao, allegra, ucbvax, amd}!nbires!atkins

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

03-Sep-84  0406	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #295    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 295

Today's Topics:
			   Discovery lifts off
		      Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
		     Re: Dreaded Killer Space Toilets
		       Space Shuttle News Reference
		    Re: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!
				Candidates
			      Re: Candidates
		    Re: Public at Vandenberg launches
		       Dreaded Killer Space Toilets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 7:20:26-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery lifts off

Space shuttle Discovery lifted off from Kennedy Space Center today at
08:41:50 EDT.  The planned 10-minute hold at T-9 minutes was extended
by almost 7 minutes to allow two aircraft to exit the intended solid
rocket booster impact area.  Discovery, although the lightest of the
three orbiter vehicles, will be carrying a more massive payload into
orbit than any shuttle mission to date.  The first satellite deployment
for Discovery is scheduled for later this afternoon.
--
Roger Noe				ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 11:45:53-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!

Another reason why the Russians like nuclear reactors so much for their
spacecraft is that you can generate enormous amounts of power in a small
space, unlike solar cells.  This comes in handy for high powered active
radars which scan the oceans for things like American navy ships.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 15:13:31-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Dreaded Killer Space Toilets

>	the toilet seems to be THE component that fails most often

Probably true, mainly because it's something that media people can understand.
Therefore they don't hesitate to inform us whenever the potty's broken.  It
isn't new to the shuttle program, though.  I think they also had problems
aboard Skylab.

>	HOW does one handle certain, ahem, bodily functions in space?
>	I would think that [microgravity] would pose some interesting problems
>	Also, what do the astronauts do when the toilet breaks?
>	George Verbosh, Perkin-Elmer, 106 Apple St., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

Gosh, George, I think Miss Manners should be the one to whom you address these
questions.  But since she isn't on the net (to my knowledge), I think I'll
answer.  The commode works by air flow.  Fans move the, uh, right stuff into
revolving blades where it gets pureed and saved until the orbiter lands.
Then it is removed, much like in jetliners.  Have you ever wondered what those
dozen or so trucks are doing around the orbiter shortly after landing, but
before the astronauts are allowed to egress?  That's right, disposing of some
deadly vapors.  You can probably imagine what six adults can do in a week.
If you can, you should seek help.  (OK, some of those noxious fumes are
actually from hydrazine.)  One of the problems with the commodes was that the
fans were too powerful, and this caused the, ahem, right stuff to return into
the cabin (where it became the wrong stuff).  Definitely a case of the shit
hitting the fan.  (Sorry, I just couldn't pass up that one.)

Elimination of liquids is accomplished by suction also.  The astronaut places
a receptacle (which fits either body type) over the appropriate appendage.
The receptacle is connected to a hose, which sucks away the liquid.  Now,
I know what you're thinking and I really don't think the suction is strong
enough to be - shall we say - interesting.  Anyway, the liquid is periodically
vented to space (not during an EVA, I hope) where it makes pretty crystals.

Speaking of things periodical, you might be interested in a story I heard
about accomodations for the first U.S. women astronauts.  NASA decided that
each female astronaut would have a certain number (no, I don't remember, but
I can look it up) of tampons in her government-issued personal gear.  It took
the astronaut candidates themselves (as I heard it) to notice that when you
opened the box to use one, all the tampons would float away.  Needless to say,
this would not be desirable.  So they had tampons manufactured all on one
long string.  When the astronaut needs to use one, she cuts one off the end
with her scissors.  I suppose that women who wish to use pads rather than
tampons simply can't be astronauts.  Anyway, back to the main subject.

If the commode fails, the astronauts return to the method used on other space
flights.  NASA has a long, technical name for this, complete with acronym,
that is something like Personally Handled Elimination of Waste (PHEW).  No, I
really forgot what the name was but I do know essentially what the method is.
Large baggies.  Can you imagine what fun teenagers could have on Halloween
with those?
-- 
"It's only by NOT taking the human race seriously that I retain what
    fragments of my once considerable mental powers I still possess."
Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 18:46:34-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihnp1!jnorris @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Space Shuttle News Reference

Someone mentioned a news reference by Rockwell for the shuttle.
Can someone tell me the title and how to obtain a copy.

				Thanks in advance,
					jmn

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 16:08:40-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Re: Illegality of NERVA's??!!

My understanding was that the NERVA program was cancelled for political
rather than technical reasons.  Even though it was primarily intended 
for use outside of the atmosphere, the idea of having to blow up a rocket
on a launch abort with a BIG nuclear reactor aboard was just a little
too much for average, faint-hearted politician to take.  This is also the
reason you don't see much serious discussion about disposing of nuclear
wastes in space (aside from cost considerations).

NERVA is probably the most cost-effective/time-effective kind of space
propulsion within the technical means today, but I bet you won't see
it fly in our lifetime; politics, anti-nuke reactionaries, and crippling
international treaties will see to that.  
-- 
						Douglas H. Price
						Analysts International Corp.
						@ AT&T Bell Laboratories
						..!ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp

------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 84 13:34:49-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!neudeck @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Candidates

        I need to know what the positions of both Ronald
Reagan and Walter Mondale are concerning the space program.
I already have a general impression of what they might be, but
I need a policy statement of some kind with specific
information concerning the shuttle, interplanetary and
scientific missions, involvement of private industry,
support of NASA funding, and so on.  I can't find anything
on Mondale's position, so if anyone out there has any idea,
please pass it on.

			Thanks in advance,
				Phil Neudeck
				Purdue EE

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84 8:19:16-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houxe!drutx!druxm!cac @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Candidates

There is an article in this months DISCOVERY magazine that
discusses the candidates position on science programs.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84 7:17:09-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!mhuxm!rhib @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Public at Vandenberg launches

According to press reports of a few months ago, all launches at
Vandenberg AFB will be off-limits to the public due to the classified
nature of most payloads originating from there, as well as the
general security needed at this air base.
If recent press about VAFB construction deficiencies is correct, I
wonder whether NASA will have to place KSC off-limits for some launches
which could be rescheduled there from VAFB.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84 8:58:30-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!microsoft!fluke!inc @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Dreaded Killer Space Toilets

I've often wondered, too. I seem to recall an article many years ago that
described the liquid waste system for males as sort of a condom with a
rubber tube but have no idea of how the valves or pumps would operate. 

As to solids -- my word! I can sort of picture the collector, but can't
imagine it would be very comfortable. Perhaps it's only inserted when needed?

And even with this speculation, I still can't think of how a female liquid
system would operate. Complicated.

Can someone in the know provide the straight poop? I don't think there's
really a need to rotate or be worried about senstitivities -- this is all in
the interest of science, right?

As an aside -- at an Air Show last year, I saw the SR-71, and plainly recall
a plate on the underbelly which was about 25 x 25 cm attached with 6 screws
and plainly labeled, "Pilot Waste Removal". 

-- 
Gary Benson ms232e -*- John Fluke Mfg Co -*- Box C9090 -*- Everett WA 98206 USA
{microsoft,allegra,ssc-vax,sun,sb1}{decvax,ihnp4,tektronix!uw-beaver}!fluke!inc
duetotheshortageofrobotsallourworkersarehumanandmayreactunpredictablywhenabused

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

04-Sep-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #296    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 296

Today's Topics:
			      solar "sails"
			    dead space toilet
			     Toilet Solution
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 September 1984 09:56-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: solar "sails"
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC

The term "solar sail" has meant a lightweight film of material
stretched across the path of light to reflect or absorb some of it to
provide momentum directly by the momentum of the incoming light (if
light is absorbed, you get 100% of the momentum, if reflected you get
up to 200% depending on angle of reflction relative to incoming
light). But recently NASA has been using the term "solar sail" to mean
a large array of photovoltaic cells mounted on a surface that
extendsfrom the STS orbiter. What twit at NASA is responsible?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 1984 11:52:22-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: dead space toilet

The shuttle's urine exhaust port is blocked by a huge chunk of ice, putting
the toilet out of commission.  There is talk about using the arm to knock
off the ice, but not for a while.  In the meantime, they're supposed to go
back to baggies.  But what is Judy Resnick supposed to do?  Does she use a
little funnel or vacuum cleaner or something?  I bet she'd really love to
take a space walk right now.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 1984 21:55:28-EDT
From: Hank.Walker at CMU-CS-UNH
Subject: Toilet Solution

On the news they said that only the liquid waste system was dead, and the
toilet was still usable for solid waste.  The men will use the baggies, but
Judy Resnick will still use the toilet.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

05-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #297    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 297

Today's Topics:
			      space toilets
			      Space Toilets
			    Re: Space Toilets
			     UFOs and the FAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 1984 09:53:45-EDT
From: Peter.Su at CMU-CS-GANDALF
Subject: space toilets

Here's a post that is not mine:

Date: 3 Sep 84 19:17:46 EDT
From: DR1K@CMU-CC-TF
To: hugo@CMU-CS-GANDALF
Subject: Space Toilets

Thought you all might be interested in this, from Ben Bova's introduction
to _Callahan's Crosstime Saloon_, by Spider Robinson...

"I remember getting a newspaper cliping from Spider which showed a NASA
drawing of the design for a toilet to be used under zero-gravity
conditions in the Skylab satellite.  (NASA has problems that thee and me
can't even guess at.)  The cutaway drawing of this engineering marvel
showed that there was a rotating blade inside the toilet bowl, to 
'seperate the liquid from the solid wastes,' as NASA's engineers 
euphemistically put it.

"Spider, in his scrawly handwriting, had scribbled across the top of
the cliping a brief note, followed by an arrow that pointed unerringly
to the bowl and the seperator blade. The note said, 'Ben: Near as I
can figure it, the shit is supposed to hit the fan...'"

Dave Lewis
dl02@cmu-cc-td
				Bye,
				Pete

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 84 13:05:46 PDT (Tuesday)
From: GMeredith.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Space Toilets
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: GMeredith.es@XEROX.ARPA

I am relieved to learn of the workings of the Space Toilet.

The incident on the shuttle over the weekend left me somewhat concerned
and speculating about orbital characteristics of ejected substances and
specifically about orbital decay.  You see, if the boil-off of ice
formed from the liquid material should be able to  shield the solid
waste during reentry...

Guy

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 84 14:18:40 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Message-Id: <8409042118.AA12820@ucbkim.ARPA>
Phone: (415) 236-8262
To: GMeredith.es@XEROX.ARPA, Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

	Happens from 747's all the time.  See, as Spider Robinson pointed
out in Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, you don't need to go to war to get hit
with an icy bm...

						Rick.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 84 16:12:20 PDT
From: David Alpern <ALPERN%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: Space@mit-mc.arpa, CURIOS: ;
Subject: UFOs and the FAA

For the benefit of those of you who don't receive the NY Times, the
following was in an article a week or so back about UFO sitings:
 
     "Why would we care about a U.F.O.?" said Louis Achitoff, a
     spokesman for the eastern region of the F.A.A., in an interview.
     "If the pilot's up there with a clearance and at the right
     altitude, we don't care what planet he comes from."
 
I wonder if NORAD would agree.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

06-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #298    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 298

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Space Toilets
			   MISSION 41G SCHEDULE
		      Space Shuttle Network Coverage
			    Re: Space Toilets
			      Space Toilets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 84 8:40:22-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!zehntel!zinfandel!berry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

A possibly apocryphal tale concerns a clipping describing the Space Toilet
that Larry Niven sent to Jerry Pournelle (or maybe vice versa, or maybe
two entirely different people, it was a long time ago) with the part
labelled "Liquid/Solid Separation Impeller" circled with the notation
"Jerry: as near as I can figure, the fuvg is SUPPOSED to hit the fan!"

My apologies to the two gentlemen involved if I have misattributed the story.

-- 
Berry Kercheval		Zehntel Inc.	(ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry)
(415)932-6900

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 84 11:53 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: MISSION 41G SCHEDULE
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Anderson.ES@XEROX.ARPA
ReplyTo: Anderson

STS mission 41G (Challenger) is scheduled to liftoff from KSC on Monday,
10-1-84 at 7 A.M. EST (before sunrise).  It will be an eight day mission
scheduled to land at KSC on Tuesday, 10-16-84 at 12:21 P.M. EST.  It
will be the largest crew ever sent into space - 7 people - of which 2
are women (another first).

Discovery is scheduled to begin its next mission (41H) from KSC on
11-2-84.

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 84 13:52:27-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!alan @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Space Shuttle Network Coverage

Being a classoc night person, i woke up a little late for the last
launch; i turned on the TV at 5:44 PDT, only to see the parting logo
from ABC's coverage. NBC and CBS had already turned to their regular
broadcasts.

Later that day i learned that the launc had been postponed from its
scheduled 5:35 launch by 7 minutes.  According to my calculations, the
launch occured at 5:42 . From this i conclude that not one of the
networks gave more than 2 minutes of air time to the flight once the
engines started!  What's going on with those guys?

	sdcrdcf!alan

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 84 11:43:23-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!alan @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

So the toilet is stopped up. So what do you expect? There's a woman on
board, isn't there?

	:-) sdcrdcf!alan :-)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 84 21:15:38-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!rch @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Space Toilets

According to someone who should know, here's the poop on
female waste disposal:

"female waste disposal is accomplished via a plastic/impermeable
synthetic material which encloses the female perineum and is
secured by strong adhesive to the skin; the apex of the
collection unit is drained by a tube which can be open or closed
- when open, the unit drains into a large central collection
unit;  this is a modification of a technique used to collect
urine from female infants in whom a urinary tract infection
is suspected."

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

07-Sep-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #299    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 299

Today's Topics:
			       Ice in space
			 LAUNCH / RE-ENTRY VIDEO
			    Space Shuttle Camp
			  mondale space position
		       Re: NASA Broadcasts on CATV
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 84 10:57:40-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!vince @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Ice in space

Something stikes me very strange about the waste water vents on the
Discovery being blocked by ice.  How is it possible for ice to exist
(for any length of time) in a vacume?  I have not consulted my
Thermodynamics book for the specifics, but as I recall, water should
immediately vaporize in a vacume.  Even if it did collect into a mass
of ice, I should think that sublimation would cause it to disappear in
short order.  What's going on here?  Are we getting the straight poop?

Craig Johnson
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!vince

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Sep 84 16:48 PDT
From: ANDERSON.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: LAUNCH / RE-ENTRY VIDEO
To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Anderson.ES@XEROX.ARPA

I was just thinking the other day about this question and wondered if
anyone on the net has an answer.

Why is it that we never see any pictures of the shuttle astronauts,
cockpit, or views out the windows during launch, re-entry, and landing
(even pre-launch & post-landing)?  I'm sure it would be technically
possible.  I would think that they could at least set up a movie camera
or videotape inside if live pictures couldn't get through due to all the
interference.

I do seem to recall at least one view (years ago?) of an astronaut's
contorted face during launch and a brief view of a fireball outside a
cockpit window (can't remember which spacecraft).  And of course there
were the beautiful shots of the Apollo Saturn 5B stage seperations, but
no inside shots.  How come?

Craig Anderson <Anderson.ES@Xerox.ARPA>
Xerox Corp.
213-536-7299

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 1984 19:57-EDT
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@NRL-AIC>
Subject: Space Shuttle Camp
To: SPACE at MIT-MC

Forwarded from the Stanford BBOARD...

    Date: Mon 3 Sep 84 22:56:34-PDT
    From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>

    Last week, NASA announced the civilian space camp.  Twenty adults will
    spend three days training at a simulated mission control and take part
    in a simulated space shuttle flight.  The first trial camp is October
    19-21 and will cost $200.  I believe all this will happen at the
    Alabama Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, but I didn't see the
    announcement.  If you have more information, please send it to me.

    thanks,
    -andy (andy@score)

Dan

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Sep 1984  23:26 EDT
Message-ID: <G.MCMULLAN.12045554422.BABYL@MIT-EECS>
From: G.MCMULLAN%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA
To:   space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC
Subject: mondale space position

a while back someone asked about the positions of the various
presidential candidates on space research. well, in his book "A Step
Farther Out" (somewhat old news, but **highly** recommended for those
who have not yet read it), Jerry Pournelle states that "...Vice
President Mondale while a Senator each year introduced a bill to
***KILL NASA ENTIRELY*** (emphasis mine), abolish all its research and
developement..." i very much doubt that his ideas have changed too
much since that was written, or we would have heard about it by now.
					
					greg mcmullan
					(g.mcmullan@mit-eecs)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 84 14:29:18-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!rocksvax!dw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: NASA Broadcasts on CATV

I looked into the subject of NASA broadcasts of Shuttle events about
a year and a half ago.  At that time the details were:

The satellite is SATCOM F2; the channel is 13.  It's location is
119W; freq is 3.960 GHz; polarization is Vertical.

I believe that most of the cable tv stuff (such as HBO) are on SATCOM F3,
which is at 131W.  I also understand that these signals are Horizontal
polarization.

The information above was suppose to be valid in December of 1982.
It should probably be verified. 

/Don

"Are you mostly engineer, or are you mostly human being?"

arpa: Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
uucp: {allegra,princeton,decvax!rochester,amd,sunybcs}!rocksvax!dw
      || ihnp4!tropix!ritcv!rocksvax!dw

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

08-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #300    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 300

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Space Toilets
			   Re: Toilets in Space
			 Nasa SPace Shuttle Camp
			re: out-the-cockpit views
			   SATCOM polarization
		National Space Institute financial report
		    Any AstroPhotographers out there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 84 9:20:32-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!alan @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

>"female waste disposal is accomplished via a plastic/impermeable
>synthetic material which encloses the female perineum and is
>secured by strong adhesive to the skin;

It's interesting to think about what a job it must be to get it off.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 84 14:27:40-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!alan @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Toilets in Space

< As a gift from the Gods, the bushmen received an empty Coke bottle;
  thanks to the clogged toilet, what will they get next? >

Someone on the ARPAnet, asked me to explain the clogged toilet
joke i posted earlier. Since people on uucp cannot send mail to the
ARPAnet (*Remember this, guys*), and others *might* be confused (if you
have never lived both with and without women), i'll explain it here.

It was meant as a cute, not-to-be-taken-seriously, joke bringing up the
apparent propensity of women to clog toilets with masses of toilet paper,
hygenic napkins, and God knows what all else.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 1984 11:13-EDT
Sender: MHARRIS@BBNF.ARPA
Subject: Nasa SPace Shuttle Camp
From: MHARRIS@BBNF.ARPA
To: Hoey@NRL-AIC.ARPA
Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA, MHarris@BBNF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[BBNF.ARPA] 7-Sep-84 11:13:02.MHARRIS>

Sorry, I don't have any information on this, but I'd sure like some.  Thanks.

--mh

------------------------------

Date: Fri 7 Sep 84 10:50:25-PDT
From: Micheal Hewett <HEWETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: re: out-the-cockpit views
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA

At the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, they have a videodisc machine
hooked up to an Apple II computer.  You can play a regular computer game
in which you attempt to take off in the Shuttle and place it in orbit,
or you can display "films" from the videodisc.  There are 5-10 different
films.  One of them is a landing at Edwards AFB as seen from the cockpit
of the Shuttle.  I think most of these films are from the first flight
of Columbia.  They are excellent shots and well worth seeing.

Mike (HEWETT@SU-SCORE)

------------------------------

Date:  7 Sep 1984 1114-PDT
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: SATCOM polarization
To:   SPACE%MIT-MC@SCORE

It would seem to me that horizontal polarization is ambiguous, is it
N-S or E-W, while vertical polarization is bad design, because the
Earth is nearly exactly under the satellite (point on equator is exactly
under satellite, while anywhere else on Earth such as North American
ground station is at most 4000 miles deviation from exactly-under at
a distance of 24,000 miles) and electromagnetic signals propagate only
at right angles to their electric field change (and at right angles to
their magnetic field change; the three vectors form an orthogonal set
in 3-space), thus using cosine rule conversion from antenna beam field
and transmission direction you'd get very little signal at Earth.

I suspect by "horizontal" they mean "horizontal at ground station that
is due North of beam point" which would mean east-west, while "vertical"
would mean north-south. This still leaves the question of whether they
are talking about the electric or the magnetic field vector. Can I
assume they are talking about the electric field vector??

Or are they really using some strange kind of circular polarization that
appears horizontal from all points on Earth (except directly under satellite
where it can't be received at all)?

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 7 September 1984 17:51:04 EDT
From: Howard.Gayle@cmu-cs-g.arpa
To: Space@mit-mc.arpa
Subject: National Space Institute financial report
Message-ID: <1984.9.7.21.33.0.Howard.Gayle@cmu-cs-g.arpa>

After seeing a post about the National Space Institute on this
bboard a few weeks ago, I wrote to them for information, an
annual report, and a financial statement.  I just received a
letter stating that they do not disclose their annual report or
financial statement.  No reason was given.  Not-for-profit
organizations routinely provide financial statements to potential
contributors, so NSI's policy seems rather unusual and
unfortunate.  Even though I agree completely with their aims, I
don't intend to give them any money without knowing how much of
it will actually be spent on space, and how much on fund raising,
administration, and other overhead.  If any of you have access to
a financial summary, I would appreciate a copy, but please, no
flames.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 1984 1647 PDT
From: Ron Tencati <TENCATI@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
Subject: Any AstroPhotographers out there?
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Cc: SKY-FANS@MIT-XX
Reply-To: TENCATI@JPL-VLSI.ARPA

I recently purchased a Celestron C-11 telescope. I would like to do some 
astrophotography.  I used Poloroids slide film (ASA 40) to take some 
rather nice shots of the moon.  I would like to take some pictures of 
the planets.  Has anyone out there been through this before?  Can 
someone give me some hints as to what is the best speed film to use for 
the best results. I would also like to have input from anyone regarding 
what exposure times are the best for the different planets. I know it 
depends what focal length I am shooting with. I'm not sure. I would like
to do eyepiece projection using the celestron tele-extender and an 18mm 
and 9mm eyepiece.

Has anyone used FUJI's HR1600 film? How does it perform?

Thanks in advance for any information.

Ron Tencati
Tencati@JPL-VLSI.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

09-Sep-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #301    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
		     The view out the shuttle windows
			 Discovery a lightweight?
			    Re: Space Toilets
			   New IRAS object????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 84 10:53:48-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: The view out the shuttle windows

[]
I can remember in the earliest shuttle missions, that a pink glow
was reported out the windows during reentry.  There were also
views out the window during launch.  I suspect that some of this
footage and future IMAX cameras will be showing this in the upcoming
Air and Space Museum film.  I only saw this on a B&W monitor, but I
am certain it will be quite a gas!

--eugene miya
  NASA ARC

------------------------------

Date: 6 Sep 84 22:03:19-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!brian @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery a lightweight?

	A few days ago, in an article about Discovery, Roger Noe mentioned
	that she is lighter than her predecessors. I am curious how they
	achieved this and if the weight reduction affords Discovery a larger
	payload, or if it will be used to increase safety margins or some-
	thing.

	Brian M. Godfrey

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 84 8:40:48-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!denelcor!neal @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

**************************************************************************

>Please, please. I'm dying to know. How does a space toilet work,
>and how does it fit to a lady???????

	Veeeeeeeeeeeeeery Carefully :-)
	
	Sorry, just couldn't resist.

			Regards,
				Neal Weidenhofer
"Nothin' ain't worth nothin'	Denelcor, Inc.
	but it's free"		<hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 84 10:22:52-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: New IRAS object????

    US News & World Report has a small article reporting that IRAS saw
an object at a distance of 50 billion miles!!  Has anyone out there heard
of this?  Let's hope it is true!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message from the mental maze that calls itself:                                    
                                       ERIC STROBEL

UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els
INTERNET:       els @ pur-phy.UUCP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

10-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #302    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 302

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Dreaded Killer Space Toilets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 84 20:47:00-PDT (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!dave @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Dreaded Killer Space Toilets

I heard they played brown astroroids when the potty failed....
----
Dave

arpa: Sewhuk.HENR@Xerox.ARPA
uucp: {allegra,rochester,amd,sunybcs}!rocksvax!dave

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

12-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #303    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 303

Today's Topics:
		     Article on Space Shuttle in CACM
		      Search for the missing mass  
			      NAVSTAR Launch
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 1984 15:02-EST
From: Jon.Webb@CMU-CS-IUS2.ARPA
Subject: Article on Space Shuttle in CACM
To: Space@mc
Message-Id: <463777355/webb@CMU-CS-IUS2>

This month's (September) Communications of the ACM has a series of
articles on the space shuttle's computers.  Included are discussions of
the shuttle's hardware and software, and explanations of various bugs
encountered.

Jon

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 84  1922 PDT
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Search for the missing mass  
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

n124  0030  11 Sep 84
BC-UNIVERSE
(ScienceTimes)
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
c. 1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - A cosmic mystery of immense proportions, once seemingly
on the verge of solution, has deepened and left astronomers and
astrophysicists more baffled than ever. The crux of the riddle is
that the vast majority of the mass of the universe seems to be
missing. Or, more accurately, it is invisible to the most powerful
telescopes on earth or in the heavens.
    The chief suspects in the case of the invisible mass - many
trillions of subatomic particles known as neutrinos - have now been
discredited, according to a recent article in the British journal
Nature.
    The increasingly bizarre news has caused a crisis among
cosmologists, according to Dr. Jeremiah Ostriker, an astrophysicist
at Princeton University. ''The discrepancy between what was expected
and what has been observed has grown over the years, and we're
straining harder and harder to fill the gap,'' he said.
    According to astrophysicists, calculations show that the sum of all
the known dust, planets, comets, asteroids, stars, pulsars, and
quasars now accounts for about 1 percent of the matter that theory
says ought to make up the universe - that is, unless there is a flaw
in current understanding of the laws of nature.
    ''It remains one of our great, great problems,'' said Dr. Frank
Wilczek, an astrophysicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics
at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
    The depth of the mystery is illustrated by the odd suspects now
being put forward to account for the invisible mass: Giant slush
balls, swarms of black holes, cosmic rocks and exotic new types of
hypothetical subatomic particles with names like photinos and winos.
''Why now further strain credulity?'' asked John Maddox, Nature's
editor, in a recent editorial. ''Would it not be simpler if
cosmologists abandoned their belief that there is a missing mass?''
    The answer given by Maddox and other scientists is that the evidence
for some kind of ''dark matter'' has been growing steadily for nearly
a half century. Indeed, the case is now so compelling that scientists
around the globe are redoubling their efforts to track it down.
    The first hint of the riddle came in the 1930s when an astronomer
noticed that some galaxies within a dense galactic cluster were
moving much faster than expected, suggesting that some kind of
invisible force was at work. Decades later astronomers came up with
an even more startling discovery: The stars on the outer rims of
galaxies were rotating around galactic centers at speeds much faster
than expected.
    Both these observations suggested that invisible matter was at work.
The reason, according to Wilczek, can be seen by visualizing the same
kind of discovery in our own solar system. It has been observed for
centuries that the outer planets move more slowly around the Sun than
the inner ones. This is because the strength of the Sun's
gravitational pull increases as planets get closer to it.
    If outer planets like Pluto had been observed to be orbiting much
faster than they actually do, astronomers would have deduced that
there was a great mass at work in addition to the Sun, exerting a
powerful gravitational pull from somewhere beyond the edge of the
solar system.
    ''In the same way,'' Wilczek said, ''there seems to be a massive
halo of dark matter surrounding every galaxy. What has been found
consistently is that the mass of the universe measured
gravitationally is always bigger than what you observe.''
    How much bigger? Based on calculations from gravitational tugs,
there seems to be about 10 times more matter than has been observed.
''The problem,'' Ostriker noted, ''is not missing matter but missing
light. Something is out there. We just don't know what it is.''
    Astrophysicists say the problem is even worse than that. Even the
added unseen matter implied by the powerful gravitational tugs brings
the total known mass of the universe to only about 10 percent of what
is believed, on the basis of current theory, to be out there. More
than 90 percent is still missing.
    Belief in this ghostly matter is based in part on philosophy,
astrophysicists say. If there is not more matter, the universe will
go on expanding forever, pushed ever outward by the residual power of
the big bang - that moment in the primordial past when the universe
was born in a hot explosion of dazzling brilliance. If, on the other
hand, there is a critical amount of additional matter out there
somewhere, the universe's overall gravitational pull will cause it to
eventually slam back together.
    According to Dr. David Schramm, an astrophysicist at the University
of Chicago, new theories of cosmology are giving this philosophical
view a firm basis in fact. Further, he said, the added portion of
''missing mass'' must be something other than everyday matter.
    This odd twist has been deduced by measuring the spectral lines in
starlight and calculating the total amount of elements like deuterium
in the universe, he said. Only a certain amount of it could have been
synthesized during the big bang, and it would occur in a certain
ratio to the rest of the normal matter in the universe.
    Most of the rest of the invisible mass, he said, is probably not in
the form of baryons - the generic name for the protons and neutrons
that make up ordinary matter. It is something different, something
that might be wholly outside the realm of human experience.
    
    As the mystery of the invisible mass has grown over the years, so
have the number of candidates put forward to account for it.
    According to Ostriker, the first ones were low-mass stars, slush
balls, brown dwarfs and intergalactic dust and gas. The problem is
that astronomers over the past decade have developed sophisticated
ways to detect such low-luminosity matter, and so far not enough has
been found to make an appreciable dent in the overall problem.
    Another candidate is swarms of black holes - stars so dense that
even light cannot escape their powerful gravitational pull. Ostriker
said the search for these black holes is intensifying. Each black
hole would need to have a few million solar masses, and there would
need to be millions of them scattered around the edges of galaxies.
    ''We're looking for gravitational lens and other effects that might
be caused by them,'' he said. ''It's speculative, but in this realm
everything is speculative.''
    The main candidate since the mid-1970s has been neutrinos, a ghostly
subatomic particle that does not react with normal matter.
Astrophysicists say neutrinos are appealing candidates precisely
because they are not baryons - that is, not normal matter. Another
reason for their allure is that unlike black holes or slush balls,
they are clearly one of the main forms of matter in the universe. A
single human body at any one instant holds a few hundred million of
them, according to Wilczek.
    The problem with neutrinos is that they have no mass - at least,
they did not until Russian researchers in the mid-1970s reported that
they did. That discovery immediately made them a key candidate for
the missing mass. Unfortunately, no other researchers around the
globe have been able to detect mass in neutrinos.
    Further, according to the Aug. 23 issue of Nature, a universe in
which neutrinos had mass would look quite different from the one we
see about us. ''It's probably the end of neutrinos in the standard
cosmology,'' said Simon D. M. White, an author of the article, in a
telephone interview from his office at the Steward Observatory at the
University of Arizona. ''We tried to see if you could fix things up,
but it was extremely difficult to find anything that worked.''
    For instance, White and Dr. Piet Hut, his coauthor, found on the
basis of computer simulations that if neutrinos had mass, all the
galaxies in the universe would still be in the process of forming,
rather than being largely complete.
    Thus, to date, all the major suspects have either been discredited
or are still under investigation. Nothing so far fits the description
for the invisible matter.
    The search, according to Schramm, is thus increasingly turning to
different types of hypothetical nonbaryonic particles with names like
gravitinos, photinos and axions.
    Teasing these odd particles into the light of day might take the
construction of the biggest and costliest project in the history of
pure science, a multibillion-dollar atom smasher that American
physicists want to build in the 1990s. It would stretch 60 to 120
miles in circumference.
    So too, new suspects will be sought in the heavens as astronomers
during the next decade put powerful telescopes into orbit that will,
for the first time, be able to peer to the edge of the universe.
Astronomers say strange new candidates, more bizarre than black
holes, might thus be discovered.
    A final way out of the conundrum, scientists say, would be some kind
of breakthrough in their understanding of the forces of universe, for
instance, a new theory of gravity that would explain why stars on the
rims of galaxies move so quickly. But that solution, they say, is the
most radical of all. They would much rather discover the stars or
particles that have so far eluded their grasp.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 84 12:40:09-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!ths @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: NAVSTAR Launch

Had the privilege of viewing the launch of a NAVSTAR GPS last saturday
from Vandenberg. The Atlas used was 23 years old. This was my first
launch and I was very suprised by the brighness of the exhaust. Also
toured the Shuttle facility.

It is easy for the public to get within 3 miles of the major launch
complexes simply by driving west out of Lompoc on 234 to the beach.
I didn't explore the beach route to the shuttle area but as Norm
Babcock said, it is certainly within several hundred yards of the
beach itself which is public access....except perhaps during the launch.
(Are you the the same Norm Babcock that worked for DPI?)

Flew to Vandenberg on Friday via C-182, noted as we passed directly
over Palmdale Plant 42 (on V-12), the new B-1B, several SR-71's that
appeared to be in mothballs, and some U-2's.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

13-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #304    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 304

Today's Topics:
		     Re:  Search for the missing mass
			     Discovery lands
	   Possible correction to news story about missing mass
		       Re: Discovery a lightweight?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 84 14:45:16 PDT (Wed)
From: Rick Chestek <rick@aids-unix>
Subject: Re:  Search for the missing mass
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA, @, aids-unix@aids-unix

It seems to me that many of the objections raised could be accounted for
by assuming that gravitational pull is NOT constant, but time varying
(possibly a monotonic decrease with time).  Since the observations made
on other galaxies are of events which took place long ago,
measurements/calculations of gravitational constants based upon fairly
local events (i.e. our own galaxy) might not directly apply to these
other observations.

Does anyone know if this possibility has been considered/investigated?

		Rick Chestek (rick@AIDS-UNIX)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 84 10:02:57-EDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery lands

Space shuttle mission 41-D ended successfully as the orbiter Discovery touched
down on dry lake runway 17 at Edwards Air Force Base, California at 6:38 a.m.
PDT after a mission elapsed time of 6 days, 56 minutes.  All three
communications satellites deployed on this mission (SBS-D, Syncom IV-1, and
Telstar 3-C) have reached geosynchronous orbital altitude without any
problems at all.  Also, the OAST-1 folding structure worked at least as
well as expected and the continuous flow electrophoresis (CFES) experiment
monitored by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics engineer Charles Walker produced
valuable pharmaceutical samples despite some problems with the equipment.
Apparently the crew experienced no space adaptation syndrome problems and
the waste collection system functioned properly until another system clogged
its discharge port with ice.

The next mission, 41-G, is scheduled to begin October 1 with the launch of
the orbiter Challenger.  This ten-day mission will be commanded by Robert
Crippen and piloted by Jon McBride.  Mission specialists David Leetsma,
Sally Ride, and Kathryn Sullivan and payload specialists Marc Garneau and
Paul Scully-Power will round out the crew to seven, the largest yet for a
space shuttle mission.  Cargo will include the large format camera Earth
resources mapping system and the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS).
Crew members will conduct a fluid transfer experiment.
--
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1984 2232-PDT
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: Possible correction to news story about missing mass
To:   SPACE%MIT-MC@SCORE

(From news story in recent space diegst:)
	If outer planets like Pluto had been observed to be orbiting much
    faster than they actually do, astronomers would have deduced that
    there was a great mass at work in addition to the Sun, exerting a
    powerful gravitational pull from somewhere beyond the edge of the
    solar system.
Sloppy science journalism - adding mass outside the system doesn't
change rate of rotation in the system, unless it's irregular in which
case it totally messes up things with its purturbations. The place to
add mass is in the annulus between the inner planets and the outer
planets (or stars in case of galaxy). They don't affect the inner
planets (stars) but do speed up outer planets (stars). By having extra
mass distrubited all throughout, i.e. at all different radii, there's
a gradual increase in effect as you go out further from the center of
rotation of the system, with the outermost planets (stars) moving
fastest. In such a case, the extra mass probably continues outward
beyond the most distant planets (stars), which probably confused the
writer of this news story, but this outer extra mass is merely
correlated to the inner extra mass that causes the effect, the outer
extra mass is not the cause of the effect.
-------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 84 12:16:36-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxh!slb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Discovery a lightweight?

During a slide presentation given to family and friends of the 
Discovery crew, it was stated that Discovery does not use as many
tiles as her sister ships.  Some areas are now covered with a
sheeting material that provides the necessary protection, but
with a considerable savings in weight.  Perhaps someone else has
more specific info on the whys and hows??

	Steve Browning (inuxh!slb)
	AT&T Consumer Products
	Indianapolis, IN

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

14-Sep-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #305    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 305

Today's Topics:
		Discovery arrives at Kennedy Space Center
		   Discovery Thermal Protection System
		     Re: Search for the missing mass
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 84 6:54:11-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Discovery arrives at Kennedy Space Center

Space shuttle orbiter Discovery returned safely to Kennedy Space Center at
Cape Canaveral, Florida at 11:38 a.m. EDT yesterday (Monday, Sept. 10).
The shuttle and the modified Boeing 747 which carried it spent an extra
day at Altus Air Force Base in southwestern Oklahoma because of uncertainties
regarding the path of hurricane Diana.  Discovery will now be prepared for
launch in November.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 84 09:26:27 pdt
From: Alan Fernquist <fernquis@AMES-NAS-GW.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8409131626.AA27560@amelia.ARPA>
To: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Discovery Thermal Protection System

The Orbiter Discovery uses an advanced thermal protection blanket called
Advanced Flexible Reusable Surface Insulation (AFRSI). It consists of
a silica material sandwiched between an upper and lower quilt. The 
quilt is bonded directly on the orbiter's skin. It weighs less than the
tiles and is easier to install, more durable and less easily damaged.
AFRSI replaces the low temperature white tiles.

Alan Fernquist
NASA, ARC (fernquis@ames-nas-gw)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 84 10:59:17 PDT (Thu)
To: Rick Chestek <rick@aids-unix>
cc: space@mit-mc
Subject: Re: Search for the missing mass
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>

   It seems to me that many of the objections raised could be accounted for
   by assuming that gravitational pull is NOT constant, but time varying
   (possibly a monotonic decrease with time).

This hypothesis has been raised several times, but doesn't adequately solve
the missing mass problem within galaxies and clusters.  Only structures
which are hundreds of millions of light years across would be affected at
all by such a change.  Such a change has been postulated in explanation
of quasars, the red shift, and several other phenomena.

By the way, the original article seems to use the philosophical desire to
have a closed universe (on which will not continue to diverge forever) to
indicate that an extra order of magnitude of extra mass must exist.  This
argument has never seemed convincing to me.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

15-Sep-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #306    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 306

Today's Topics:
	      Galileo diversion to pass asteroid, a request
		     Re: Search for the missing mass
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1984 07:58:56-EDT
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Galileo diversion to pass asteroid, a request
Cc: pourne@mit-mc

It has been reported that there is some thought toward having Galileo pass
by an asteroid on its way to Jupiter. It would cost some money and delay
the Jupiter arrival date, but ought to have some obvious benefits vis-a-vis
the question of space resources.
According to the article, THE DECISION MUST BE MADE BY OCTOBER 1.
Does this warrant activating the telephone tree?
   David   sde@mitre-bedford

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 84 09:10:06 PDT (Fri)
To: Rick Chestek <rick@aids-unix>
cc: Chestek@aids-unix, space@mit-mc
Subject: Re: Search for the missing mass
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>

   Why would "only structures which are hundreds of light years across" be
   affected by a change in gravitational pull?

I meant to say "only structures which are hundreds of millions of light
years across."  I was assuming a change in gravitational pull which is
consistent with the relative stabilities (with quite a lot of room of
change) which have been observed.  The problem is really that some black
mass must exist (or some fundamental misunderstanding in our physics) in
order to deal with the differences in scales between galaxies and galactic
clusters.

   P.S.  Can you point to me to the literature which has proposed time-varying
	gravitational "constants" to explain quasars, red-shift, etc?
	Much thanks.

References have always been my weak point.  There have been discussions on
the issue in the past two years of Scientific American.  In depth analyses
can probably be found by following their references and using the "Science
Citation Index" (write me privately if you don't know how to do this).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

16-Sep-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #307    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 307

Today's Topics:
		    Re: LAUNCH / RE-ENTRY VIDEO - (nf)
			 women flying the shuttle
			Re: VAFB Shuttle watching
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 84 10:27:00-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!gm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: LAUNCH / RE-ENTRY VIDEO - (nf)

The "Space Archive: STS Missions 5,6, & 7" laserdisk has a clip of the
re-entry process. The cockpit is dark, with the cherry-red sky seen out of 
the windows. Not that impressive. None of this "The Right Stuff" effects
outside, just looks more like a fireplace than anything else. If you
don't have this laserdisk, get it. If you don't have a laserdisk player,
get one of those too.

George Moore				      Tandy System Software
uucp: {laidbak,sco,microsoft,sneaky,allegra!convex!ctvax}!trsvax!gm

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 84 17:48:09-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!brahms @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: women flying the shuttle

As you may know by now, the next mission of the shuttle (Challenger) will
have two women on board, not to mention seven people on board.  Both
firsts (yeah for our team).  My question is:

	When will the first woman pilot/command a shuttle?

			-- Brad Brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@USC-ECLC

------------------------------

From: tekred!normb%tektronix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
To: tektronix!hplabs!ucbvax!anderson.es@xerox.arpa
Cc: tektronix!tekred!normb@ucb-vax.arpa, space@mit-mc.arpa
Date: Friday, 14 Sep 84 15:43:57 PDT
Subject: Re: VAFB Shuttle watching

Craig, please excuse the attached "form" letter. There were so
many requests for info, that I had to resort to this. Norm


Since it's Friday already, I thought I'd better respond
to those who ask for information re VAFB shuttle watching,
before another week goes by.

I put some information on the net, a week or so ago, but I'll
give a synopsis here:

Lompoc is the best place to watch, but will be crowded. Lompoc
officials expect up to 200,000 people to filter into the area.
I recommended staying in Santa Barbara for the best access to
Lompoc, Santa Maria second, and Solvang third. If you camp,
that probably would be best. Gaviota, between Santa Barbara
and Lompoc would be good. If the traffic gets the best of you,
you still will get a pretty good wiew.

The USAF will close all roads leading to the base, including
the one to the little RR station called Surf, which is between
North VAFB and South VAFB (the shuttle will launch from SVAFB).

Lompoc will produce a publication explaining the rules, sometime 
in early '85. I'll post a address on the net when it's available.

Just for you guys, I plan to watch from the one spot the Feds 
are likely to miss, the city dump. The dump is northwest of town,
and overlooks a great deal of SVAFB. I won't be able to see lift-
off, but should acquire within T+10 secs. You're welcome to join
me if you can (depending on the wind) stand the smell. 

In response to those who ask "Are you the Norm Babcock who..."
a brief resume: 1956-1959 U.S.Navy, flying the barrier between
Midway and Adak. (Any of you out there familiar with that operation?
                1960-1965 VAFB, Federal Electric Corp, rf labs, 
data reduction, test documentation.
                1966-1967 DewLine
                1968-1970 VAFB again
                1970-1972 White Alice (Alaska)
                1973-1976 VAFB (FEC WPO) anyone know about this?
                1976-     Tektronix
I'd like to hear from anyone who has had experience relating to the
above. Also from anyone who has a project (basket case) airplane,
of the C-150/J-3/Super Cub (including Wag-Aero) or the like, and
would like to get it out of the garage.
                                          Regards-Norm

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

17-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #308    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 308

Today's Topics:
			 Re: women flying shuttle
			Time variance of constants
			    Mass distribution
			 Large numbers hypothesis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 1984 1557-PDT
From: LEE at SU-STAR
Subject: Re: women flying shuttle
To: SPACE%MIT-MC%SCORE at SIERRA
Reply-To: LEE at SU-STAR

	As far as female shuttle pilots, I don't think that there are any
in the present groups of actual and prospective female astronauts. It seems
that spacecraft pilots are usually selected from theranks of pilots having
a LOT of experience with high-performance airplanes (i.e. fighter-interceptors
& fighter-bombers) PLUS test-flying experience. Since the 1st requirement
involves assignement to Air Force combat units, which women are presently
barred from, I don't think that there are any presently in the pipeline
that could become Shuttle pilots in the near future.
Damn shame, isn't it?
				Emilio P. Calius
				Stanford U.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 1984 20:18:47-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Time variance of constants

The idea that uniervsal constants might vary was seriously considered, but
is in disfavor now largely due to the fossil 'nuclear reactor' in Africa.
This is a 1 or 1.5 Billion year old deposit of Uranium that was rich enough
to have a continuous low level fission going for many millions of years. It
has been studied in particular because it is an 'engineering prototype' for
storage of fission products. It shows that they can, in practice, be kept
out of the environment for a safe number of half lives.  Anyway, the
analysis of the reaction rates shows that the universal constants have been
constant to within a VERY small error bar over astronomical time scales. And
unless current physics is greatly mistaken in its attempts at unification,
the ratio of the basic forces to each other are pretty much fixed.

For those interested, this is the 'large numbers hypothesis' that noted the
ratio of two of the forces (I think gravity and the weak force?) was on the
same order of magnitude as the size of the universe in cm or some such rot.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 1984 20:29:11-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Mass distribution

The key to the constant rotation speed with increasing radii is that the
mass is not only distributed unifromly, but that the object is at a radius
interior to a large fraction of the distributed mass. For those who suffered
the triple integrals of Fields, this is fairly similar to an many e-stat
problems. Picture it this way: each object deep in the interior is
gravitationally affected by the instantaneous sum of all the the other point
sources. If the object is interior, many vectors cancel each other so the
field strength is linear with radii. If the point is beyond the 3-d surface,
all the vectors sum and allow the entire diffuse body to be simulated by a
point mass with a corresponding square law decrease of field strength with
distance from the center of mass.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 1984 20:43:10-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Large numbers hypothesis

I think it was an idea of Dirac's in the 1930's...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

18-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #309    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 309

Today's Topics:
			  Missing Mass again...
			  Challenger rolled out
	      Galileo diversion to pass asteroid, a request
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1984 12:59:19-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Missing Mass again...

Over a pizza last night, I realized that my previous analysis could be
stated better.

Assume a diffuse, evenly distributed mass M contained with radius R. At any
radius r within R, the portion of mass interior to r can be modeled as a
point mass and a square law applied. All mass contained in volume
infinitisemals exterior to the radius cancel out. If you move outwards by
dr, the volume (and thus enclosed mass) increases by a cube, while the
attraction from the original radius decreases by a square, resulting in a
linear INCREASE in force. This holds for each r+dr =< R. For r+dr>R, a
straight square law DECREASE in force occurs.

Consider moving from the center of the Earth outwards. At the exact center
all mass is exterior to you and you are at 0g. As you move outward, the
gravity increase linearly to 1G at the surface, and then decrease via a
square law as you move away from the surface.

I'd try to do better, but
	1) I don't have my copy of Thomas here.
	2) Ascii doesn't handle integral equations, and a triple integral
	   in spherical co-ordinates is the real way to express all this
	   garbage.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 84 6:47:51-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Challenger rolled out

On September 13 space shuttle orbiter vehicle Challenger was rolled out to
launch complex 39-A at Kennedy Space Center in preparation for its early
October launch.  Challenger was rolled out with only two of its three main
engines, while work is being done on the third.  This is not expected to
delay the launch.  Launch for the eight-day mission is expected to be around
October 4.  A rehearsal countdown is scheduled for September 15.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 18 September 1984 05:05-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Galileo diversion to pass asteroid, a request
To: sde @ MITRE-BEDFORD
cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC

Since I have no management authority nor wish to have such for
L-5 you must consult someone else on this.  I heard today that
the decision on asteroid was no go.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

19-Sep-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #310    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 310

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Discovery a lightweight?
			Drexler in Reason Magazine
		       Re: Discovery a lightweight?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 84 12:42:52-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!nsc!proper!dsmith @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Discovery a lightweight?

Portions of the Discovery (the OMS pods, the bay doors?) are covered with
a heat resistant felt.  I saw a quickie bit about it on TV.  Apparently,
the felt is the same type used to make tennis balls.

				David Smith @ Proper Unix

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 1984 20:43:39-EDT
From: Dale.Amon at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Drexler in Reason Magazine

For those Libertarians out there, Eric Drexler's article on making a cheaper
Space Station (L5 News from some months back) was cited in the Reason
Magazine 'Trends' section this month.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 84 15:29:27-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!jcp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Discovery a lightweight?

Yes Discovery is lighter than either of the first two orbiters (which
are approximately the same weight).  Some of the weight reduction
was made by replacing the silica 'tile' surface in some areas with
thinner, larger molded plates made of metal and/or composite
materials.  (test plates of this material were flown earlier on
Challenger).  The upper surface of Discover (white area) has quite
a bit of this.  Also, the wing structures have a few less internal
struts, in non-critical areas.  Some weight reduction has also been
achieved thru use of different materials for the OMS pods, I believe.
The total weight reduction of the orbiter is on the order of 1500 lbs.
Of course, all shuttle missions recently have used the lightweight
external tank, (unpainted), which shaved off 3000lbs all by itself.
The idea is to increase launch payload.  For instance, only Discovery
and the next orbiter (Endeavor?) will be able to launch the max
payload capacity ~70K lbs.  The first Discovery flight had a payload
of ~45K lbs I believe.  (Three satellites, which didn't come back down,
plus the extensible solar array assembly, which did).  Also, the flight
instrumentation for Discovery is simpler, (the development instrumentation
having never been installed).  I believe Discovery has 'head-up' displays
for the commander and pilot, (the 'pilot' sits in the right seat), unlike
the previous orbiters, which are being retrofitted for this.  (Challenger
will have them on the next mission, I believe)

							-JCP-

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

20-Sep-84  0431	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #311    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 311

Today's Topics:
		  NASA Activities TOC v 15 n8 Aug. 1984
		   Re: Discovery flight postponed again
		       Re: Discovery a lightweight
			   Women shuttle pilots
		  CACM has articles on shuttle software
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 84 9:51:07-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: NASA Activities TOC v 15 n8 Aug. 1984

Airborne Science and Applications Programs Marks 20th Anniversary
(Photo of TR-2)
Hughes Aircraft Nominates Payload Specialists for Shuttle Flights
Former Deputy Administrator George M. Low Dies
First Space Product Set to be Developed for Commercial Use (Latex)
IRAS Identifiies Additional Stars with Possible Solar Systems
NASA Centers Assigned Space Station Studies
Improved Welding System Introduced
Teach Workshops Held at NASA Centers
Finalists Chosen in Shuttle Student Project (I would like to post, but do not
have the time)
NASA Conducts Gysy Moth Survey on East Coast
Pioneer Can Make Unique Halley's Comet Observation
International Search and Rescue Program Saves 223 Lives
Space Shuttle Main Engine Testing Reaches Milestone
Ames Aircraft Operations Consolidated
Mattingly to Leave NASA for Navy Post
Wear-Proof Refrigerator Completes First Year of Operations
Publications
Launch Schedule
Patents

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,dual,hao,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 84 23:14:53-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!intelca!proper!mikevp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Discovery flight postponed again

I got an opportunity to visit the Vandenburg shuttle launch site about
a year ago, and there just isn't any place for anyone to watch it from,
whether the Air Force wants to let them or not.  The launch site is on
the coast, and surrounded by hills.  I'm pretty sure you would get a good
view of it as it rose over the hills, but the only place you could see
it take off and survive is from the ocean.	

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 09:49:32 pdt
From: Alan Fernquist <fernquis@AMES-NAS-GW.ARPA>
Message-Id: <8409191649.AA18806@amelia.ARPA>
To: space@mit-mc.ARPA
Subject: Re: Discovery a lightweight

OK, it looks like alot of "guesses" and "I believes" are being
thrown out on the net regarding the Shuttle thermal protection
system and the weight of the Orbiters. Hopefully this will 
explain in no uncertain terms the Orbiters' thermal protection
system.

NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View California has been
continuing research into improving the Space Shuttle"s thermal
protection system. Some of the new materials were installed for the
second mission of the Orbiter Colombia on March 22, 1982.

The Shuttle thermal protection system consists of tiles and other
refractory materials applied to the outer shell of the orbiter to
protect its aluminum and graphite-epoxy skin from extreme temp.
Temperatures on a Space Shuttle flight may range from -110 Celsius in
space to nearly 1,648 C at some points during reentry.

Shuttle orbiter Colombia has had a silica glass quilt, called Advanced
Flexible Reusable Surface Insulation installed over 1.85 square meters
of its elevon cove, replacing the Felt Reusable Surface Insulation which
originally covered the area. This felt insulation had to be replaced
because temperatures in the elevon cove area reached 816 C and the felt
was designed for areas no hotter than 398 C. The advanced type is tougher,
lighter and cheaper than earlier tile heat shields. It was conceived by
Ames and produced by Manville Building Materials Corp., Denver, Colorado.
A square foot of the new insulation costs about $200, compared to 
approximately $1,000 a square foot for tile materials.

On Challenger, the advanced flexible insulation is installed on the
orbital maneuvering system pods and partially replaces the low temp.
reusable surface insulation tiles developed and manufactured by
Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, California.

On Discovery and the future Atlantis, the advanced flexible type replaces
all the low temperature insulation and parts of the felt type, covering
more than 250 sq. meters.

Also on the two newest orbiters, another new material called Fibrous
Refractory Composite Insulation (FRCI-12, 12 pounds per cubic foot)
replaces LI-2200 tiles. Both of these materials were developed by Ames
and are manufactured by Lockheed. The new fibrous insulation is lighter
and stronger than LI-2200. The fibrous type saves about 450 kilograms
(1,000 pounds) on Discovery and Atlantis.


Original Thermal Protection System:

Four principal types of materials comprised the original thermal protection
system: felt reusable surface insulation effective for temp. less than
398 C; low temp. reusable surface insulation tiles, covered with a white
borosilicate glass coating effective from 371 C to 648 C; high temp. 
reusable surface insulation, covered with a black reaction-cured glass
coating which is used for 648 C to in excess of 1,260 C; and reinforced
carbon-carbon, effective for temp. up to 1650 C.

The low and high temperature tiles come in two densities: the LI-2200,
22 pounds per cubic foot, and LI-900, nine pounds per cubic foot. The
later material was developed and manufactured by Lockheed. The high
temperature insulation is covered with the black, reaction-cured
borosilicate glass coating developed by Ames to protect the high temp.
areas, about 43 percent of the total surface of the orbiter. The white,
borosilicate-coated low temp. tiles are located primarily on the upper
surface of the orbiter.

Enough with this typing, hope this clears things up.

Alan Fernquist
NASA, ARC
(fernquis@ames-nas-gw)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 84 10:32:15-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-dvinci!fisher @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Women shuttle pilots

>  When will the first woman pilot/command a shuttle?

I believe that there are currently no women pilots; they are all mission
specialists.  Based on my memory of the astronaut application forms (didn't
you fill one out too?) shuttle pilots still need to have a number of thousands
of hours of flight time before applying.  This means that the hiring of women
pilot astronauts will always lag the hiring of women in entry-level flying
positions.  (Do the various military flying services have women flyers?)

Burns

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 84 8:19:41-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!sdo @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: CACM has articles on shuttle software

[I hope there aren't fifty other articles saying this]

The current (September) issue of Communications of the ACM is dedicated
to the Space Shuttle software and hardware, and provides some
detailed descriptions of their operation.  It's fascinating.
-- 

			Scott Orshan
			Bell Communications Research
			201-981-3064
			{ihnp4,allegra,pyuxww}!u1100a!sdo

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

21-Sep-84  0402	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #312    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 312

Today's Topics:
		    Soviet Salyut Mission Space Record
			 Re: Women shuttle pilots
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1984 01:13:38EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: space@mit-mc

Subject: Soviet Salyut Mission Space Record

     The current Soviet Salyut space station mission has now resulted in 3
men being up there for 225 days, two weeks beyond the world's previous record
of 211 days.  According to Russian reports the crew looked well during a
recent medical exame.  There have also been no reports of them preparing
to return during the next landing window which will be about Oct 1 to 7.
Since the current Soyuz T-11 space craft attached to the station has
been up there since April it is at the limits of the time the Soviets
set for such craft in space, about 140 days.  This suggest that
either this crew will be returning then or else a new team will be
sent up to visit them and bring a fresh capsule.  There has been some
suggestions by observers here that a crew rotation may take place,
allowing them to have a station manned for a full year even if not with
the same men.
     It is interesting to note how little notice this mission has gotten
here.  The fact that a new record had been set received only a 4 line note
back on page 27 of Aviation Week, probably the best source of space
information in magazines.  The Russian naturally said that this put them
in the lead in space.  Interestingly they also pointed out the this
shows that a flight to Mars is possible.  200 odd days is about the
duration of the outward bound portion of a Mars mission.
     I personally suspect that they will keep this crew up for
one year if possible.  One indication of this is that the Soviets have
just created a new metal for accomplishments in astronautics.  The
prize will be awarded next year for the first time in menory of the
51st birthdate of Yuri Gagarin in March 1985.  Now next March happens
to be the first landing window for the current crew if they spend more
than a full year in space.  Certainly they would have the right to
claim to be ahead in that area if that happened.  After all with
NASA's current plans it will not be until 10 years from now that this
country will keep a man in orbit for one year, if even then.  Funny,
it only took us 8 years to go from a suborbital flight to putting men
on the Moon, and now it takes 10 years to do much less.

                                Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 84 12:19:28-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: hplabs!oliveb!olivee!oliven!hawk @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Women shuttle pilots

>(Do the various military flying services have women flyers?)

For non combat planes, yes.

rick
[hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

23-Sep-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #313    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 313

Today's Topics:
		      Challenger countdown rehearsal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 84 10:03:41-PDT (Mon)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Challenger countdown rehearsal

	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- A dress rehearsal countdown for the
early October launch of the space shuttle Challenger went off
without a hitch September 15, NASA officials said.
	The test began Friday shortly after 6 p.m. EDT and ended shortly
after 11 a.m. Saturday, at the time that Challenger's three rocket
engines would have ignited had the launch been real.
	Seven astronauts participated in the final hours of the
rehearsal countdown, entering the cabin around 8:30 a.m. EDT.
	Earlier in the morning, Robert L. Crippen, commander of what
will be the 13th shuttle mission, practiced landings in a jet that
has been modified so it handles much like the shuttle.
	Crippen was pilot of the first shuttle flight on April 12, 1981,
and also was commander of the seventh and eleventh missions.
	The Oct. 4 scheduled launch will be the first time that seven
crew members are sent into space in one craft and the first time
that two women are part of the crew.
	It will be Sally K. Ride's second trip into space.  She was the
first American woman to go into orbit on the seventh shuttle flight
last year.
	The other members of the crew are pilot Jon A. McBride; mission
specialists Kathryn D. Sullivan and David C. Leestma; and payload specialists
Marc Garneau of Canada and Australian-born Paul D. Scully-Power, an
oceanographer.
	Among the goals of the flight, scheduled to last eight days and
five hours, will be a satellite deployment and several Earth
observation experiments.  Challenger is scheduled to return to
Kennedy Space Center for a landing at the center's 15,000-foot long
runway.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

24-Sep-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #314    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 314

Today's Topics:
			   Conjunction question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 84 5:50:43-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houca!sab @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Conjunction question

A friend asked me to post this question:

When will the next conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter be
visible in the northern hemisphere?

Thanx.

Scott

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

27-Sep-84  0405	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #315    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 315

Today's Topics:
		       Soviet Salyut Mission to End
		   Re: The view out the shuttle windows
			 Re: SATCOM polarization
			    Re: Space Toilets
				IUS fixed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 1984 18:14:55EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Soviet Salyut Mission to End

The Russians have announced that the crew of the current Salyut mission is
preparing to depart the space station.  Such messages are usually given these
days one or two weeks before they land.  That should give them a total of
about 240 days in orbit.  This is in agreement with the Soviet's previous
missions for record space durations.  Each one of those tends to be 30 to
40 days longer than the previous record.  There was no suggestion in the
Soviet press reports that a replacement mission was being sent up.  Indeed as
there has been no mention of the removal of the last Progress supply vessel
it is probably still attached to the station preventing such a link up.

O.K. I goofed it in my previous comments.  It really did appear that they were
going to try for a quantum leap in mission duration this time.  Instead they
played it safe and stuck to their older mission style of incremental increases.

                                   Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 84 11:02:45-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: The view out the shuttle windows

>	in the earliest shuttle missions, . . . a pink glow was reported
>	out the windows during reentry. . . . I suspect that some of this
>	footage and future IMAX cameras will be showing this in the upcoming
>	Air and Space Museum film.  I only saw this on a B&W monitor, but I
>	am certain it will be quite a gas!
>	--eugene miya

But an incandescent gas, of course. :-)

-- 
"It's only by NOT taking the human race seriously that I retain what
    fragments of my once considerable mental powers I still possess."
Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 84 21:05:16-PDT (Wed)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: SATCOM polarization

The direction of polarization of a radio wave always refers to the electric
field. (It's easy to remember, a vertical whip antenna produces vertical
polarization.)

The "vertical" and "horizontal" polarizations of a geostationary communications
satellite are referenced to the spacecraft as you would see it if you were
lying down directly under it (on the equator) with your head pointed north.
For the spin-stabilized birds (HS-376, SBS, Westar, etc) this is also the
position in which you usually see the spacecraft in ground tests, and when
it is mounted on the launcher.

Of course, you have to do a coordinate rotation when adjusting your TVRO
feed horn, but it is easy when you visualize what is going on.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 84 13:19:00-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uok!jsmcginn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

  The next time you're in a book store, look for a book titled "The
Space Shuttle Operator's Manual".  It has a brief, non-technical 
explanation on the operation of the 'space toilet'...it even has
pictures!!  Gee.

                                         j

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 84 10:30:50-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: IUS fixed

Boeing Aerospace Co. announced that the Inertial Upper Stage design has
been fixed.  The IUS was used 17 months ago to deploy TDRS-A, the first
tracking and data relay satellite, into a geosynchronous orbit but there
was a failure in the IUS motor during its burn.  Small maneuvering motors
were employed to get TDRS-A into its intended orbit.  The Air Force will
use an IUS - the most powerful U.S. upper stage - in December to deploy an
undisclosed payload from the shuttle orbiter Challenger.  Another IUS will
be used next February to deploy TDRS-B.
--
Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

28-Sep-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #316    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 316

Today's Topics:
		       NASA and Women Spacewalkers
			 Re: Conjunction question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 1984 15:34:10EPDT
From: glenn at ll-vlsi
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: NASA and Women Spacewalkers

An article in the Wall Street Journal (Sept 26) suggests that NASA not
really that interested in getting women working in space with spacesuits.
NASA now is using a set of off-the-rack spacesuits which come in sizes
ranging from extra-small to extra-large.  When they bought the suits the
only extra-small one purchased was for test use on earth only.  However
five of the eight women astronauts take that size, and hence cannot do EVA's.
All 66 male astronauts fit in working suits.  NASA says that it did this to
save money, but that does not seem reasonable.  They could probably got
the $600,000 needed just from saying to the congress that this would be
a positive step for women's equality in the new realm of space.

                                   Glenn Chapman

------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 84 11:30:22 PDT (Thursday)
From: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Conjunction question
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: Lynn.es@XEROX.ARPA, ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houca!sab@UCB-VAX.ARPA

Saturn and Jupiter conjunct (is that the right verb?) every twenty
years, usually once, but occasionally a triple in quick succession (few
months apart).  Such conjunctions are almost always visible in both
north/south entire hemispheres, at least within a day of conjunction,
with the exception of some of the polar regions.  I say almost because
maybe 10% of the time the conjunction occurs when they are essentially
behind the sun as seen from the earth.  I remember observing a
Saturn-Jupiter conjuction a few years ago (3 maybe?), so it is a long
wait for the next one.  I can look up the date tomorrow if "about 17
years" isn't close enough.
/Don Lynn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

29-Sep-84  0404	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #317    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 317

Today's Topics:
		    Shuttle Enterprise in New Orleans
			     Space Videodisks
		ACM lecture on NASA's spacecraft computers
			   Female Spacewalkers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 28 Sep 84 10:01 EDT
From:  Chris Jones <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  Shuttle Enterprise in New Orleans
To:  Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID:  <840928140105.145672@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>

I'm going to be in New Orleans from October 7th to 10th, and thought I'd
like to take in a little of the World's Fair; specifically I'd like to
check out the shuttle Enterprise there.  Does anyone have any info about
it, like is it just there, or can one get inside, or what?

------------------------------

Message-ID: <32404@Wayne-MTS>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 84 00:12:04 EST
From: Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Space Videodisks


 There was mention in a previous digest about a
 laserdisk called "SPACE ARCHIVE: STS Missions 4, 5, 6."
 Where can these be obtained from? Also, are VHS format
 videotapes of the same material available ?

 Michael

------------------------------

Message-ID: <32405@Wayne-MTS>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 84 00:15:08 EST
From: Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: ACM lecture on NASA's spacecraft computers


  Last week here at Wayne State University in Detroit
  we had a lecture by Dr. James Tomayko of Wichita State
  University on NASA's manned spacecraft computers.  Dr.
  Tomayko is writing a book for NASA on the history of
  NASA's manned and unmanned spacecraft computers.  The
  book  will be available from the GPO sometime in 1986.

  However, Dr. Tomayko is touring the country as part of
  the ACM's lecture circuit, talking about NASA's computers.
  He gives an outstanding lecture which I highly recommend.
  Topics covered include:
     - the Gemini Digital Flight Computer
     - Apollo flight computer
     - Skylab Telescope Mount Computer
     - Space Shuttle's computing system
     - Galileo computer system

  I do not know  where his lecture schedule will take him.
  I suggest contacting your local ACM chapter to see if he
  will be appearing in your area.  If he's not scheduled to
  appear this year, ask them to request him in future years.
  Definitely a must see.   For those interested in the
  shuttle computer systems, the September issue of the Communications
  of the ACM contains 3 indepth articles on the shuttle's computer
  systems.  Fascinating reading, and also highly recommended. For
  example, did you know that the shuttle's 5 APS-101/4 Pi computers
  are really mini-IBM 370's that have magnetic core memory?
  Were you aware how easy it is to crash the entire shuttle
  redundant set of 4 computers?   Read the articles to find out!

      Michael

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 84  1207 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@S1-A.ARPA>
Subject: Female Spacewalkers
To:   space@MIT-MC.ARPA

If I am not mistaken, Kathryn Sullivan will be spacewalking on the
next Shuttle mission.  Even if this turns out not to be the case,
she has certainly had lots of pictures taken of her suited up in
the practice tank.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

30-Sep-84  0403	OTA  	SPACE Digest V4 #318    
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 4 : Issue 318

Today's Topics:
			    Re: Space Toilets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 84 15:31:54-PDT (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc.arpa
From: 
      decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!uf-csv!uf-csg!mark @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
Subject: Re: Space Toilets

If you need to indulge in gratuitous, misogynistic aspersions on women,
you might confine them to "net.flame," so as not to offend nearly all
the readers on the net.  Your comment, Alan, is unredeemed even by
putative humor.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************

