Text File

Aucbvax.6080 fa.space utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space Fri Feb 5 04:41:16 1982 SPACE Digest V2 #98 >From OTA@S1-A Fri Feb 5 04:18:29 1982

SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 98

Today's Topics: Administrivia dead batteries : This is the space mailing list! Relvancy of discussions New Saturnian Moons Shuttle Moved to VAB Re: poking agin Re: New Saturnian Moons Saturnian moons post script --> Space isn't just art RE: Technologists and Humanists Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station Re: Re: dead batteries ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 4 February 1982 23:39-PST From: OTA at S1-A Subject: Administrivia To: space at mit-mc

I'm afraid that some of you will get most of these message twice. Please accept my appologies, I erred in adding a new user yesterday and that sent the mailer into hysterics.

A couple of comments while I'm about it:

The discussion of details of the distribution of the space digest and its constituent materials inside the USENET is not germane to this list. I will try and work out something with the maintainers of that network. In general question, complaints, or suggestings about the mechanics of the digest should be sent to SPACE-Request@MC or directly to me, not to the list as a whole.

I generally agree with Bob Amsler's comments later in this digest. The discussions of Humanism vs. Technologism is getting rather far afield. Perhaps we can stop flogging that particular horse, and get on with issues such as why the shuttles fuel cell clogged up (asked and answered in this issue, how's that for service?).

Ted Anderson

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

Date: Wednesday, 3 February 1982 08:00-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: dead batteries To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL

Has anyone read a clear explaination of what went wrong with Columbia's "b" fuel cell?

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

Date: 3 Feb 1982 1044-PST From: Bob Amsler <AMSLER AT SRI-AI> Subject: : This is the space mailing list! To: space at MIT-MC

Why is the space mailing list discussing the philosophical aspects of technology vs. humanities?

Why is the space mailing list dealing with anti-space dialogues?

As I understood this list's function it was to serve as a news medium for distribution of information about the space program and scientific speculation about possible space research. Could we return to that purpose...

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

Date: 3 Feb 1982 1304-CST From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE AT UTEXAS-20> Subject: Relvancy of discussions To: space at MIT-MC

Concerning the relevance of the humanist vs. technologist debate of recent digests, I see no reason why they should NOT be in this digest. Assuming that the material in each disgest accurately reflects the amount of contributions, then everyone's missive is making it out on the list anyway, so what's to complain about?

Offhand, I don't see where the humanist/technologist dichomety is MORE appropriately discussed than concerning space, that field being a major area of technological endeavor with possibly the largest potential impact upon humanity. In order to make sense of technology, the human factors must be added to the equation. Ignoring one for the other is perhaps expedient but ill-fated. Although I agree with JP that if forced to choose between 'art' and 'technology', 'art' would, for me, lose, though it would be painful to actually do such a deed.

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

Date: Tue Feb 2 21:47:05 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: New Saturnian Moons Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Scientists, analyzing data from Voyager II, say that information has increased the number of known moons of Saturn to 21 to 23. Two new satellites were confirmed, with two others listed as ``possibles,'' since they had only one sighting each and are awaiting confirmation as satellites. The moons range from 6 to 12 miles in diameter and have orbits as far as 292,000 miles from the ringed planet. Before Voyager I passed Saturn in 1979, only 10 moons were known to exist.

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

Date: Wed Feb 3 07:31:11 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Moved to VAB Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

The shuttle Columbia was successfully moved to the Vehicle Assembly Building today, one day EARLY. There, it will be put into a vertical position and the external tank and SRB's will be attached. This completed (hopefully by Friday), the shuttle will undergo tests simulating during-mission conditions, leading to a hopefull rollout by 21 February and a launch the week of 22 March.

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

Date: Wed Feb 3 09:50:33 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!cbosg!teklabs!tekmdp!azure!johnk at Berkeley Subject: Re: poking agin Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I think we should have a new newsgroup net.space.philosophy and let those individuals that want to fight it out regarding technology vs humanism do it somewhere besides net.space. It seems net.space was intended to provide updates on recent developments in space exploration. Come on, guys, give us a break.

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

Date: Wed Feb 3 16:05:16 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley Subject: Re: New Saturnian Moons Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I am confused. Does anyone know the definition used to state that some body orbiting a planet is a *moon*? Especially with Saturn and the rings, there must be a lot of orbiting debris. When does debris in orbit get dignified with the label *moon*?

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

Date: 3 Feb 1982 at 2153-PST From: Andrew Knutsen <KNUTSEN@SRI-UNIX> To: space at MC Subject: Saturnian moons Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

Here is another interesting thing about the moons, extracted from the news story: -------- One of the confirmed little moons and one of the ''possible'' satellites are companions of the larger moon, Tethys, and appear to move in what Synnott referred to as ''horseshoe'' orbits. Satellites in horseshoe orbits trade orbits as they approach each other, the NASA spokesman said. -------- From the name "horseshoe", I assume the moons actually loop around each other and change direction, rather than deflecting slightly and following the path the other moon approached in. This might be interesting to watch, especially if one were (firmly) attached to one of the moons. However my intuition rebels against the idea. Is there really enough gravitational attraction to do this? Would such an arrangement be stable? What would the tides be like?

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

Date: 4 February 1982 03:08-EST From: Robert Elton Maas <REM MIT-MC AT> Subject: post script --> Space isn't just art To: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The Voyager pictures are indeed a work of art, but not very expensive, I've heard it's about one six-pack of beer per person of this country. Most works of art are much more expensive for the number of people who can see them and appreciate them. (All we need to do is distribute prints of the best of the Voyager pictures to each and every citizen, and we'll truly have the cheapest masterpiece of art ever produced.)

The rest of the space program is science, not art, mostly. We get vast amounts of crucial information that is a first step towards engineering to actually make use of space for our benefit. Science always comes first, then a lot of hard engineering, then profit. Thus I don't agree with your claim that the space program is just an expensive work of art with spinoff. It's a medium-priced science project with some artistic spinoff and also some random-product spinoff.

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

Date: 4 February 1982 05:32-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE MIT-MC AT> To: JMC at SU-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

The whole space community, with, I thnk, particular credit to L-5 Society, deserves a couplee attaboys. I'll take a bit of the plaudits because of the Citizens Council activity (and Danny Graham's efforts, plus Newt Gingrich's were somewhat influenced and aided by the Council.) Anyway--it is not what we wanted, but it is less than we feared. We could get into next year's state of the union if we worked it right; it means more coordinated work...

Date: 03 Feb 1982 2335-PST From: John McCarthy <JMC SU-AI AT>

I think you deserve considerable credit for this result.

a013 2242 03 Feb 82 PM-Space Budget,450 Reagan OKs Planet Program Money By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Overriding his fiscal advisers, President Reagan is proposing in his new budget that much of the U.S. planetary exploration program be kept alive. Just three months ago, the Office of Management and Budget recommended killing most deep space exploration projects in its drive to cut federal spending. The effort met strong opposition from scientific organizations and congressmen on key space committees who took their case to the White House. As a result, Reagan has put money for several deep-space projects in his fiscal 1983 budget. Included is $92.6 million to continue development of the Jupiter-orbiting Galileo satellite; $21 million to move ahead with several European nations on a joint sun-probe mission; and money to maintain the deep space tracking network and to allow the Voyager 2 spacecraft to travel on to Uranus and Neptune. If OMB had succeeded in dropping the planetary programs, it would have meant the loss of about 1,200 jobs at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which manages the deep-space efforts. The president is to submit his full 1983 budget to Congress on Monday. The Associated Press on Wednesday obtained an advance copy of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration section. Reagan proposes total NASA spending of $6.6 billion. Factoring in inflation, that's about equal to 1982's $5.98 billion. A major share of the 1983 budget, $1.7 billion, is for the manned space shuttle, which is to complete its test program with flights in March and July and to start cargo-carrying operational missions in November. A second shuttle, the Challenger, is to join the Columbia at Cape Canaveral, Fla., in June. Another $1.7 billion is earmarked for space flight operations, mainly for the shuttle. Reagan is a strong supporter of the reusable spaceship, primarily because of its potential military applications. NASA didn't get all it wanted in deep space. It lost a Venus orbiter and a probe to Halley's comet. Other projects were scaled down or stretched out. But, considering the bleak outlook a couple months ago, it came out pretty well. The proposed budget also includes $137.5 million, $61.7 million and $34.5 million, respectively, for continued development of three major orbiting satellites: a space telescope, an advanced Landsat Earth Resources payload and a gamma ray observatory; $100 million for construction of facilities; and $1.17 billion for research and program management. Aeronautical research dipped slightly, from $233 million in 1982, to $232 million. Heaviest cuts were in technology for transport aircraft and advanced propulsion. The budget projects total NASA employment of 21,219 by the Sept. 30, 1983, the end of fiscal 1983. This would be a drop of more than 400 from the projected 1982 figure of 21,652.

ap-ny-02-04 0137EST ***************

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

Date: 4 February 1982 05:54-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE MIT-MC AT> Subject: RE: Technologists and Humanists To: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!gdg at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

In the history of the republic there has never ben a legislature--state or federal--not having a majority of lawyers. Whether lawyers are "humanists" or not, they certainly are not technologists or scientists. In our history there has never been a legislature having more than a few technologists or scientists in it. The laws are hideously complex; this may or may not have smething to do with the lawyers who have made them. Would a legislature of engineers have done worse? For most of our history we have in fact been governed by "humanists" to the extent that we have been governed by intellectuals at all. Certainly the lawyers have always controlled the output of technologists; while until very recently our academic institutions were run by "humanists." We have a system which seems often enough to have damned near killed the lot of us. Is this an interesting observation? Perhaps it is time to drop the whole matter.

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

Date: 4 February 1982 05:57-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE MIT-MC AT> Subject: Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70

David Criswell has looked at lunar power stations. They will be discussed at the l-5 sponsored space citizen convention in LA April 4-6 (if you don't know about this and want to, ask me). Criswell is, of course, a lunar nut; but a rather sound one, and he can make a pretty good case for "go to the moon with shuttles first; THEN worry about SPS, whether lunar or orbital; either way you gotta build out of SOMETHING and lunar materials are cheapest..." The L-5 sponsored citizens convention will also feature architects and engineers beginning serious design of a luar colony. JEP

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

Date: Thu Feb 4 16:21:15 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ARPAVAX.arnold@Berkeley Subject: Re: Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

I think you might also give some credit to Jerry Brown. Some inside information indicates that one reason Reagan + advisors decided not to slash hard at NASA programs was to avoid handing Jerry obvious and wonderful targets for his campaign. Not that I want to dengrate those who worked hard on this. But remember that Reagan doesn't make all of his decisions on a basis of philosophy. Ken P.S. Neither does any other politician, of course.

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

Date: Thu Feb 4 21:52:44 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: dead batteries Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

Yes, it seems that a little contamination (some aluminum compound) clogged up one of its aspirators. These are the little holes that drain the cell of water. Subsequently, the cell flooded and that's what caused it to be finally shut down.

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.