Conference 7.286::space

    I tend to agree with a lot of that (and have said similar things in
    other notes). The Apollo 'moon or bust' program while providing much of
    the needed technology, severely hampered the US space program after
    1969. It makes it even more frustrating to contemplate.
    
    The general history of the US space program is riddled with poor
    management, infighting and idiot decisions. Even Apollo suffered
    from this. There is evidence of similar problems in the Soviet program
    during the Kruschev era, most notably the Voshkod program.
    
    One of the side effects of the style of government here is that
    very few 'leaders' can see past the next 3-4 years. The general
    public does not seem capable of even that. This shows up as an
    inability to formulate and follow long range plans.
    
    Maybe history will show that seperating the military and civilian
    programs was a mistake.
    
    gary
    
    Triva P.S. The bomber you mention was not an Australian design.
    It was based on the British Canberra bomber. I think it was the
    B-57 but I'm not sure. One of the last uses of this (when it became
    the RB-57) was to fly through exhaust plumes of Titan-IIIC's to
    measure possible pollution problems that would arise from 12-16
    shuttle launches per year. I guess they need not have bothered.
    
    Extra Trivia P.S. It was the acquisition of the Nene turbojet used
    in the Canberra that allowed the Soviets to build their first jet
    bombers.

    REPLY TO 0
    i think it should be made more specific how the soviets would have
    all the chips if they went to mars.
    1. if they do it the same way we went to the moon and had plans
    to go to mars also they won't have all the chips. these were one-shot
    plans that left no infrastructure in space. i believe we had plans
    of going to mars with the payload of 12 saturn V's not sure but
    i think that was all and no space station  was needed.
    2. if they build a large infrastructure in space with a sizable
    amount of people working in space then they would have all the
    chips. it would give them a leap in basic r&d that we could not
    duplicate. then we would become a second-rate nation in terms of
    science and technology becoming dependant on soviet breakthroughs.
    i don't think this will happen the japanese and the europeans not
    to mention the chinese space program which recently as seen some
    interesting results can just as easily pick up the infrastructure
    idea.

    The soviet have a new BIOS experiment on the astrophysic lab
    it is design to see if it is possible to grow food for deep
    space flight, They certainly have there eyes on the red 
    planet , while the US talks the folling plans have allready
    been plan, commited and in operation
    
    The next major interplanetary exploration program will be a
    CCCP one.  Phobos will orbit Mars 200 days after launch from
    earth, in July 1988 then after another 120 days of circling Mars
    apx May 89 the 1st Phobos spacecraft will approach the Martain Moon
    Phobos within 50 meters.  Following Phobos encounter a French design
    vehicle will carry a Soviet penetrator to mars in Aug 1995
    and a flyby of an asteroid_2335 james in 1997 all design to last
    another 5 years after that.
    Then Mars sample return flight is in 1996-98 and they are thinking
    of minning the moon in 1990's.  This is just a sample of their
    long range goals in space
    
    
    
    While we laught about , your most likly dont recognize me
    that is why I carry an Amerikan Express card to buy jewelry 
    in France ........   Raisa Grobachev

                         
    We build B1 boomers, and our only planetory probe will take
    6 years to get there but going to venus back to earth and then
    on, without collecting any real data on the way
    
    The Russian have a long term plan, they have commetment, and
    it include man in space, who ever rules space will rule the
    3rd planet
                                     jb
    

    	If we do not send humans to Mars as a joint cooperative effort
    (the U.S., Soviets, ESA, Japanese, and whomever else is willing
    and/or able to participate), and start a permanent, productive colony
    from the very first manned landing mission (or even some of the
    advanced unmanned probes), then any other type of Mars mission is
    a waste of time, money, and effort.
    
    	I also agree with an earlier comment that it was in many ways
    a mistake to separate the military and civilian space programs (I
    never thought I'd hear myself say that, but these are desperate
    times for the U.S. space program).  I have read that in the early
    1960's the Air Force wanted a logical manned spaceflight program,
    using the Space Shuttle-like DYNA-SOAR spacecraft; it was a logical,
    practical step in manned space exploration, but of course the
    politicians panicked when Gagarin went up in his primitive VOSTOK,
    so of course we had to get a man up there, no matter what kind of
    tin can we placed him in (I'm still surprised sometimes they even
    bothered to use test pilots - they way they acted, you'd think they
    would have grabbed anyone off the street!)  
    
    	One thing is clear - do NOT let the general, uneducated public
    and the equally uneducated politicians telling our space program
    what to do!
    
    	Larry
    

>      	One thing is clear - do NOT let the general, uneducated public
>    and the equally uneducated politicians telling our space program
>    what to do!

    Larry, I'm sure you said something like that before, and I was just
    as uncomfortable with it then.
    
    Who, but the uneducated public and politicians, should tell our
    space program what to do with our money?
    
    It is clear that the Soviets have become the tortoise to our hare
    in the space race. It is evident that they have a few visionaries
    with the position and power to implement their dreams, however
    ploddingly. But the uneducated Soviet public has paid dearly, at
    very least in terms of personal freedom, to finance their success
    in space.
    
    To advance in space, we must change the equation of letting the
    uneducated public control our space program, but the only acceptable
    change is to educate the public.

    	I am referring to the men and women who know and care about what's
    the best way to approach space exploration and colonization - the
    scientists and engineers.
                                                    
    	I am NOT trying to be elistist - I am saying let those who have
    a truly vested interest in space do the decision-making.  Doesn't
    it make sense to put our space program in the hands of those who
    can be objective AND knowledgable?
                                  
    	Larry
    

    
    Yes, you have to hire the best to get the job done right. NASA could
    certainly be better managed, and a relevant and exciting program
    will draw back in the best minds. But in our society, NASA MUST
    bend to the will of the people, so to get the job done right you
    have to educate the public (unless you want to treat NASA like
    NSA - "Here's $20 bil; get us to Mars, no questions asked" - how
    many people will accept that approach?)

    Well, you guys sure paint a pretty bleek picture of our future in
    space. I don't belive that it is as bad as some would make it out
    to be, but there are problems. I hope, we, as a nation can get our
    stuff together and make a run for space domination.
    
                                    Jack

    	Why dominate?  Cooperation is a lot better in the long run.
    
    	Larry
    

    re .8, .9
    
    No nation will be able to afford 'dominating' space unless everyone
    else abandons it. If it really did degenerate to another 'moon race'
    between the US and the USSR, the USSR is able to pour more money
    into it without public outcry than the US. This would probably allow
    them to 'win'.
    
    re .8
    
    The US needs to want to remain a leading space power in order to
    do so. At the moment, I don't see that level of commitment.
    
    gary

    here's my 2 cents again. a few things i'd like to see would be the
    us to consider the commercial portion of space a protected industry
    that way we will not have a problem with myopic statesmen and the
    unwashed masses. the problem here is that a commercial program
    would be run by "the bottom line", which has its own problems.
    as a nation we could subsides boosters, that have already been
    proven, also launch facilities.
     in this case nasa could spend its time and money researching the
    next generation of space technology, the space plane, laser powered
    boosters, railgun systems, etc. also nasa could be responsible for
    some infrastructure for commercial space for instance they could
    be responsible for a solar pannel array that could supply power
    for companies to send up there own industrial labs, these labs
    could be send up by the shuttle plugged into the array do what
    ever reasearch or material processing it was intended for then
    the shuttle could come back pick up the finished material or
    replace crews and supplies so more work can be done, the 
    corperation would be responable for the lab, nasa would be 
    responsible for power, and shuttling supplies and crews.
    in these cases we have goverment subsiding industry, so 
    what else is new our highways are paid for by our taxes,
    how much is the nuclear power industry subsidised?
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!DFVLROP1.BITNET!ESG7
Subject: Space developement must recognize political reality
Posted: 16 Apr 87 08:44:57 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
 
    John Leech's article in Vol. 7, No. 195 of Space Digest on
relative pulic support for the Space Program, hit the nail solidly on
the head. John demonstrated that while it is true that 67% of the
public wants the space budget held at current spending levels or
increased, it is also true that 69% wants Food Stamps held at current
spending levels or increased.  This is particularly poignant, since
for years we spent more on Food Stamps alone than on the entire NASA
space budget.  I still have vivid memories from my days at Berkeley
watching the Telegraph Ave. bums paying off their heroin debts to the
local pusher with freshly acquired food stamps.  The Food Stamp
program is money down the toliet, and yet it has more public support
than the Space Program.  Public support for the Space Program is very,
very soft.  The public will **not** support a major space project
(like my earlier proposed Mars colonization idea) unless the project
is being actively pushed by a charismatic president (a Kennedy or
Reagan clone) and  based on some sort of gut simple propaganda, i.e.
"let's beat the Russians". 

    The sad truth is your basic John Q. Public, man-in-the-street
isn't all that intelligent or all that well educated.  Talk to him
about space and he'll come back about Luke Skywalker and R2-D2.  SDI
was politically viable (from the standpoint of internal politics)
because zapping a Russian satellite with a laser is something any
idiot could understand.  The political fact-of-life is public support
for space is weak, and major space projects will occur only through
direct presidential support for one flashy, expensive, one-shot
project. 

    Educating the public about space is an obvious long term goal for
the Space Movement.  However this educational task is severly hampered
by the extremely low quality of science education in America. How can
you convince someone that we should go to Mars if they don't even know
that Mars is a planet?  I agree with other readers of Space Digest
that we should have a permanent presence in space. However if this is
to be done through the political process (and I believe space travel
is currently too expensive to be done any other way) then it will have
to be done through a flashy, expensive, ***one-shot*** project like
the Apollo program.  The only project that I can imagine that would
lead to a permanent space presence which is based on one-shot funding
would be the 500-man colony on Mars that I described in an earlier
posting. 
 
                             Gary Allen

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!cit-vax!oddhack!jon
Subject: Soviet Mars Sample Return Mission
Posted: 26 May 87 10:20:59 GMT
Organization: Caltech Odd Hack Committee
  
	SOVIET MARS MISSION AIMS TO BRING SAMPLE HOME
	By Lee Dye, Time Science Writer
	LA Times, May 21, 1987
 
	Soviet space scientists stunned their counterparts from around the
	world Wednesday when they announced that the Soviet Union plans
	to send an armada of unmanned spacecraft to Mars and bring back
	chunks of the Red Planet.
 
	The ambitious plan, which is to be completed by the end of the
	next decade, would require launching at least 60,000 pounds of
	scientific instruments, support equipment and automated rovers
	that could roam the surface of Mars, according to US space experts.
 
	``That's more mass in orbit than we have launched during the entire
	US planetary program to date,'' said Caltech planetary scientist
	[and former JPL director - Jon] Bruce Murray.
 
	Roald Kremnev, director of the Soviet Union's Center for Unmanned
	Spacecraft and a top official in his country's scientific 
	establishment, said in an interview that he is ``assured'' that the
	project will move ahead.
 
	The Soviet program will include one and probably two rovers that
	will be able to roam the surface of Mars. The larger of the two,
	possibly powered by a nuclear power plant, will be able to venture
	as far as 250 miles from its landing site, Kremnev said. The rovers
	will collect samples from a wide area of the planet and return them
	to a launch vehicle.
	
	Meanwhile, other scientific devices will poke and drill into the
	planet, collecting information and transmitting it back to scientists
	in the Soviet Union.
 
	At the end of the surface exploration, which could take several
	months, the samples will be blasted up to a spacecraft orbiting
	Mars, and then returned to Earth.
 
	It will require at least six launches of the large Proton rocket -
	the backbone of the Soviet space program - to carry the heavy
	payloads to Mars, Kremnev said.
 
	The launches will be conducted in three segments of two each, in
	1992, 1994 and 1996. The Soviets conduct parallel launches to provide
	total backup so that if one rocket fails, the entire mission will
	not be lost, according to US scientists.
 
	So if all goes according to plan, well before the end of the century
	Soviet scientists should have collected the first samples from another
	planet as part of a project many now view as a precursor to even bolder
	plans, most likely a manned expedition to Mars.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
	Here are a few other headlines from the last week:
 
	SOVIET ROCKET HELD AS MOST POWERFUL
	ENERGIA key to ambitious shuttle effort
 
	(referring to the new Soviet Saturn-class booster)
 
	FIRST SHUTTLE FLIGHT SINCE DISASTER DELAYED 4 MONTHS;
	9 OTHERS PLANNED
 
	(describing a delay to June '88. Anyone want to bet on September
	 or later?)
 
	NASA CITED FOR SHAKY US SPACE PROGRAM
 
	(a summary of the incredible Soviet mission annoucements at
	 the AIAA planetary science conference last week. Thomas Paine,
	 chairman of the National Commission on Space, is quoted as
	 saying ``The biggest problem is the lack of direction of the
	 US program.'')	
 	
	Let's face the truth:  The second phase of the Space Race is over.
	We've lost so badly we aren't even in competition; and I'm not
	at all confident about round 3. 
 
    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!LL-VLSI.ARPA!glenn
Subject: Soviet space advances: 2 big launches, PROGRESS 30, and Big Booster.
Posted: 26 May 87 15:16:34 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
  
    The Soviets have been running a very strong space program in the
past few weeks.  In addition to the launch of ENERGIA, their big
booster on May 16 (see my note of that date), they launched in
Gorbachev's presence 3 other boosters during his visit to the Baikonur
Cosmodrome.  First they sent up a PROTON on May 11 with a GORIZONT
communications satellite.  This was a very important launch as they
have had two PROTON failures so far this year (on Jan. 30 and Apr.
24).  This lends credence to the Soviet statements that these were due
to the testing of a new high energy upper stage on those earlier
flights.  In addition they sent up a SL-16 (their new 15 tonne
booster) and one of their standard A-2 boosters.  Gorbachev made the
following statement while there:  "Everything here at the Cosmodrome,
from the rockets, space vehicles, their life-supporting systems fitted
out with modern computers and highly sensitive instruments - all of
this is Soviet-made, everything is of a high quality and of modern
technological standard."  By the way, a person at Dartmouth who was
watching Gorbachev's visit on Soviet TV said that when he went into
one building they saw in the background a "shuttle-like vehicle". 

    In addition to these the Soviets sent up the PROGRESS 30 tanker,
which docked with MIR on May 21.  This means the Soviets have sent
some 6 cargo ships with 15 tonnes of supplies to MIR, along with some
5 other craft.  They have also announced that the space walk the crew
was going do to attach additional solar panels to MIR has been delayed
because the men are overworked.  In the past month they have had to do
an extra EVA to save KVANT, unload the 10 tonne KVANT, and PROGRESS 29
and 30.  Most experts here ( eg. James Oberg) think that this delay is
reasonable. 

    Also the Soviet's have revealed more information about ENERGAI.
The first stage uses liquid oxygen and kerosene, while the second is
the LOX/Hydrogen system (not both stages as has been stated in the
press).  Also they have stated that the vehicle contains its cargo
section slung to the side of the booster, where their shuttle would be
placed.  They are certainly proud of this ship.  In the past week
statements about the launch have appeared every night on the
shortwave. 

    Look, the Soviets are now moving faster than ever.  We must start
going forward now - not adding even more delays to the Shuttle's
launch like those announced this week. 
 
                         Glenn Chapman
                         MIT Lincoln Lab

    ok how do they top that, simple Radio Moscow announce plans
    to send a maned mission to mars the target date is 2020
                                     
    
    jb
    
    ps I was suprised to see another progress unit as they
    can not get the solar panels out the front docking ball
    so I would not expect the EVA untill P-30 undock
    
    other rumors have a AMATEUR RADIO SATION as part of the
    cargo of the next ship going to MIR
    watch for P-31 around the 16 or 23rd of June
    

From: dcn@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Dave Newkirk)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: From THE ROCKET TEAM 
Date: 1 Oct 87 14:32:05 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
  
    Werner von Braun left Huntsville in February 1970,
enthusiastically looking forward to the challenge of his new position
at NASA Headquarters as Deputy Associate Administrator of Planning.

    Prior to his arrival on the Washington scene, the White House had
indicated to Paine that President Nixon wanted a bold, new space
project with which his name could be associated, much as President
Kennedy's had been with Apollo.   The only feasible space exploit that
could top Apollo appeared to be the landing of a man on Mars. 
 
    First from his Huntsville base and later from Washington, von
Braun argued for a program that would include a Mars landing before
the end of the 1980 decade.  Leading to that event would be the
development of bases on the Moon and of a permanent manned space
station supported by an Earth-to-orbit shuttle system.  Other than the
reusable shuttle, a nuclear Earth orbit-lunar orbit transfer stage and
a highly maneuverable space `tug' for interorbital tasks were
recommended, along with a lunar orbital station to support base
activities below. 

    As the months went by, von Braun discovered that his arguments for
an aggressive and well-conceived post-Apollo space program were being
met with polite interest but no real enthusiasm or indication of
support.  Despite his unique combination of imagination, drive,
practicality and loquacious wit, so effective in the past, he and his
NASA associates could not affect a changing tide.  Nixon was losing
interest, and even some of NASA's top administrators were beginning to
show a general lack of enthusiasm. 

    The reasons why the United States failed to undertake an energetic
space program based on the splendid Saturn-Apollo-Skylab foundation
established in the 1960s and early 1970s are varied and complex.  But
one factor was dominant:  The post Apollo climate was not propitious
for another great surge into space.  America's priorities were
shifting. [In plain English, few people had the brains to give a sh*t!
- LK] 

    To some within the NASA hierarchy, von Braun was on the road to
becoming a non-person at the agency, whose only alternative was to
retire or resign....In post-Apollo NASA, von Braun was like the fleet
admiral back from the glories of victory at sea who suddenly finds
himself walking dazedly along the Pentagon corridors with nothing
important to do.  The trials and triumphs of Raketenflugplatz,
Kummersdorf, Peenemunde, Fort Bliss, Huntsville, and Cape Canaveral
were over.  The space horizon had suddenly clouded. 

    Thus, when Wernher von Braun announced his retirement from NASA on
June 10, 1972, no one was surprised.  He simply could not work within
what had become an essentially holding operation.  
 
[This is from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, 
 MIT Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] 

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

Another reply this morning made the comment that a Mars trip by
today's technology would take 6 years (I assume that's round
trip).   Obviously, this is not practical, though the old Whalers
used to be gone for that long and more -- at least they could
keep interested by chasing whales and native girls!   What
technologies are we creating now to make this trip quicker/more
bearable?  We would need either more speed in ships the relative
size of our current ones, or larger ships.  

    Having read much of the "pre-clipper" days, one wonders why the
    big deal over the isolation of space and the long transit time to
    Mars.  In those days 3 or more months would pass without contact
    in any form of another ship.  The captain rulled, the mates implemented
    and the crew jumped.  Rough ideas for todays culture, but it solved
    the social structure issues for long voyages.  
    
    Thanks John for bringing this interesting thought train and parralel
    to mind.
    
    Les
    
    PS:  Becalmmed for 60 days and not a drop to drink
    			;^)
    

    Building a faster ship to get to Mars naturally has the problem
    of slowing down when it gets there.  If you get the one-way transit
    time below three years, you have to carry enough fuel to get you
    going x amount faster, then another equivalent amount to slow you
    down when you approach.  Also, you have to carry all the fuel you
    need to get back.  I would guess you need less fuel to get back
    since the Earth has much better braking possibilites, and Mars has
    a much lower escape velocity.  I guess we're going to have to come up
    with some very light fuel, like maybe something involving particle
    accelerators or fusion reactions, before we can realistically cut
    the time down.
    
    			Steve
                                   

    Some thoughts...
    
    ...about the idea of travelling a long time without contact...
    
    	we've been doing that on Earth for millions of years, still
    	looking for "someone out there"
    
    ...about how to slow down...
    
    	perhaps the fast ship could adopt an orbit around Mars and not
    	slow down?  Then the explorers could leave main ship in a small
    	rover and merely slow that down, which is easier.
    
    ...about lack of natives (women or men)...
    
    	take 'em with you !
    
    /Eric

Re:< Note 276.19 by VIDEO::OSMAN "type video::user$7:[osman]eric.vt240" >

>    ...about how to slow down...
>    
>    	perhaps the fast ship could adopt an orbit around Mars and not
>    	slow down?  Then the explorers could leave main ship in a small
>    	rover and merely slow that down, which is easier.

Not very good as you still have to slow down to orbit.

Much better would be the use of aeor braking, but Mars doesn't really 
have enough atmosphere to do enough aero braking on one pass, maybe 
multiple aerobraking passes could work though.

Tony

    If the fast ship doesn't stop at mars, you still have to slow down
    the rest of the crew section, and you've lost your ride home besides.
    If you are going to throw away large chunks of mass when you get
    to mars, what was the point of wasting the reaction mass to get
    them there in the first place?
    
    Willie
    

So...it sounds like the USSR's plans to get to Mars is just so
much unfeasible popcorn...and the US's plan to not plan such a
trip in the near future is realistic.  Not what I like to see,
but that's what it seems like.

    re .16 (and follow ups...):
    
    Where did you get the 6 year round trip estimate?  The current USSR
    probes are on the order of 200 days (about 8 months) for the one
    way trip.
    
    						Mike

	I heard it was about a 2 year round trip because the ideal
	launch window is within the next year or so. After that mars
	will get further and urther away.

	The only thing I wonder about is their ability to build
	a reliable vehicle that won't blow up or something. Maybe
	because they choose a low-tech approach that they might be
	better off. 

    Yes two years may be true, as it has been said that if one has to spend
    all that money to get there then it only makes sense if the crew
    stays on Mars for a Year.  So I don't think the 2 years is the two
    way trip time but the total mission time.  The other reason for
    waiting a year for the return flight is that fact that this would
    be the first time a min fuel return flight would be possible.
    The Soviet now believe that articifical gravity will not be needed
    for the flight to Mars but have accept the Western idea of first
    launching a Mars Data Relay Satellite.   I would expect to see the
    Soviet flight to mars to have a 'washing machine with a spin dry
    cycle'.  they have found that the effect of micro gravity can
    be reduced by putting one inside a small diameter drum that 
    spins fast.  So far this has only been used on small animanals
    in there bio-sats..
    
    jb
    .
    
    

    RE: .16
    
    The main reason for a major difference in travel time between a
    manned trip and a robot trip is mass.  The manned vessel will have
    considerably greater mass resulting in lower acceleration, slower
    top speed and lower decceleration at mars.
    
    As an example, it was a 3 day round trip for apollo 11 to the moon,
    yet pioneer crossed the orbit of the moon 11 hours after launch.
     Same problem.
    jim
    

    	PIONEER was also travelling several thousand miles per hour
    faster than APOLLO 11, as it was moving at a solar system escape
    velocity, while APOLLO was only moving at an Earth escape velocity.
         
    	Larry
    

    re: .27
    
    I realize that.  I guess I should have included that the mars mission
    would also be reaching for Earth escape vel and not Solar escape
    vel, as the Apollo missions.
    
    jim
    

>    	PIONEER was also travelling several thousand miles per hour
>    faster than APOLLO 11, as it was moving at a solar system escape
>    velocity, while APOLLO was only moving at an Earth escape velocity.

Well, almost - the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft weren't initially launched
with Solar escape velocity. They didn't acquire it until they bounced off the
moving gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn, picking up energy in the
process. The planets lost the same amount of energy from their orbital velocity,
which of course for a planet-sized mass is miniscule. This is why Voyager 2
hasn't taken decades to get out to Uranus and Neptune.

As I understand it, the Apollos broke from Earth orbit with just barely enough
energy to escape - they were then aimed in such a way that the Moon would
re-capture them and send them back toward Earth even if no more manuevering was
done. As I recall, Apollo 13 did exactly that - no retro-fire at the Moon, so
they looped around the far side and straight home.

-Tom R.

I don't see why they need to bring all their fuel with them when they go to 
Mars.  I would tend to send a couple of tankers there on a nice slow trip 
to go into orbit around Mars and just wait for a mission that needs the 
fuel.  This way they don't have to carry so much fuel on the actual manned 
mission, which means that they can use the crafts' power to bring 
additional weight in the form of other equipment.  I would do the same with 
food and water and possibly some spare parts and/or basic equipment that 
wouldn't be needed until they got to Mars.

One other advantage that this type of system would bring with it is that it 
would make the entire system of launching people and supplies to Mars more 
of a web of systems than a single string.  If one part broke down, it would 
be much easier and quicker to repair/replace it than to have to scrape he 
entire package.  It's kind of the same thing as modular programming.  By 
keeping the different functions separte, it's eaiser to correct an error on 
any given module. 

Doing things this way would also go far to establishing the idea (concept?) 
that this is a permanent program.

Think of it this way.  When a 747 gets ready to fly it's regular route for 
the day, it doesn't take all the fuel and food it needs for the entire day 
does it?  It gets resupplied along the way.  The same should be done with 
any long term space missions.

Rich

    re .30
    
    I think you are right about Apollo 13 firing the LMDE, but the Apollo
    trajectory was chosen so that a crippled spacecraft would return to
    Earth if it did nothing. The lunar gravitational field is used to
    'slingshot' the spacecraft back towards Earth. The Soviet Zond probes
    (the precursors to cancelled manned circumlunar flights) used this
    technique. I don't recall what the disadvantages of this trajectory
    were. 
    
    gary

    Wasn't the LEM's descent stage engine fired on the way BACK to
    Earth in lieu of the Command Module's retros?  I know the LEM
    was jettisoned a short time before Earth re-entry.
    

    Apollo 13's LM descent engine was actually fired four times during
    the mission.  The first burn occured several hours after the oxygen
    tank explosion and lasted about 30 seconds.  The purpose of this
    burn was to place the LM/CSM into a "free return trajectory" to
    Earth.  The references I consulted did not explicitly explain what
    was meant by a "free return trajectory."  I _assume_ this means
    that without this burn the LM/CSM would not return to Earth.
    	The second burn occured after they passed behind the moon and
    lasted about 4 minutes 30 seconds.  The purpose of this burn was
    to decrease the time necessary to return to Earth.
    	The third burn lasted between 20 and 30 seconds (one reference
    says 23 seconds and another says 28 seconds).  My references also
    disagree as to the reason for this burn.  One says it was a mid-course
    correction, and another says it was to place the LM/CSM into a
    "re-entry corridor."
    	The fourth burn occured about five hours before splashdown and
    I've forgotten what it was for.
                                   

    The free return trajectory is the term I was trying to think of earlier.
    It is the trajectory that uses lunar gravity to return the spacecraft.
    
    If I remember correctly, the S-IVB placed the Apollo complex on
    a free return trajectory. It is quite possible that the failure
    altered the course.
    
    As for the last burn of the LMDE, there was some concern about the
    dynamics of the CM/LM Ascent Stage which was the configuration
    immediately before re-entry. The last burn may have been to provide
    better safety margins or possibly to change the splashdown area
    (the Soviet lunar probes on free return trajectories usually splashed
    down in the Indian Ocean, fairly unusual for what would have been
    a manned sacecraft).
    
    gary

>        	The third burn lasted between 20 and 30 seconds (one reference
>    says 23 seconds and another says 28 seconds).  My references also
>    disagree as to the reason for this burn.  One says it was a mid-course
>    correction, and another says it was to place the LM/CSM into a
>    "re-entry corridor."
 
    It wasn't one of my better courses, but in Astrodynamics we were
    told that a midcourse correction actually happens far from the middle
    of the flight path, and is used to make sure the spacecraft is on
    the right trajectory.  Therefore, your two references may not actually
    disagree on anything but terminology.
    
    Willie

	re: 31

	I like that idea. Modular Space Travel.
	You have a real interesting concept that should be explored.
	I have never heard this concept discussed before. 

	Darryl

        re: the last several - Apollo 13
        
        The first Apollo missions to go to the moon used the "Free Return"
        paths, in case something went wrong. That limited the choice of
        landing sites. The site chosen for Apollo 13 required a different
        approach, which lost the free return capability. Without changing
        things back, I don't know where they would have ended up, but back
        on Earth it was not. 
        
        There was no retro firing on any of the lunar missions. This is
        only necessary to deorbit a spacecraft; since the lunar return
        isn't a sustained orbit, they come straight in. The return
        corridor is small and critical, so some last minute course
        corrections might be needed, but no retro burn. 
        
        BTW, Apollo had no specific retro motor; it used the SM main
        engine for this function, and then jettisoned the SM and used the
        RCS jets to orient the capsule for reentry, similar to the
        shuttle. Mercury and Gemini had special retro motors just for this
        purpose. 

    Apollo 13 also needed several course corrections to compensate for
    the effects of the venting O2 from the service module.  The whole
    operation was definately seat-of-the-pants.  While the original
    designers had discussed the use of the LM as a lifeboat, they did
    not do much more than make sure that they had extra fuel, water
    and air capacity.  They had not planned on using the LM to drive
    the entire CM/SM stack so the astronauts had to manually maintain
    the ships attitude while the descent engine was firing to keep the
    thrust aligned with the center of gravity of the combined vehicles.
    (The LM systems were built assuming a CG within the LM, not several
    feet above it!)  A stroke of luck (one of many) helped out here.
    It turns out that there had been some simulations using the LM as
    a ferry vehicle as part of the Apollo Applications program (later
    "devolved" to Skylab only) where it was used to maneuver a telescope
    or some such equipment which was about the size of the CM/SM
    combination!  They thus had a leg up on the problem.
    
    						Mike

    My mental history of my known universe recalls the last LM burn
    as "...the critical burn to prevent an atmospheric skip..."  If
    I recall the back side of the moon burn wound up wrong
    generating too much return velocity and was to slow the cm/lm down
    to prevent a solar orbit Which had already been initiated during
    TLI and just prior to the accident.  The 30 second burn was another
    retro burn to keep the craft from scoring an 8 on target earth.
    
    The last burn was three fold:  Generally reduce velocity, change
    the earth orbit entry asmith, and provide the de-orbit retro, All
    of which had never been done before let alone all at once with the
    LM and its joy stick guidence system.  It should also be noted,
    that until apollo 13, all re-fire tests for the LM motors were not
    considered successfull, and was man rated only for first fire! 
    So here was another to your space trivia treasuer chest:  the LM
    engines were not supposed to work well after they had been fired
    once!  

        In the late 60's, Notehwestern Univ built an observatory just
        north of Chicago. Seems dumb, but the purpose of the facility was
        not to observe, but to use as a test bed for new equipment. They
        needed quick access to the high-tech labs on campus to quickly fix
        and/or modify things during the day after testing at night. 
        
        At any rate, they had developed image orthicon tube system for
        amplifying light images over 10^6 times, for photographing
        real-time astroonical events, like variable or binary stars. On
        the night in question, they happened to be following Apollo-13,
        and taping the event for posterity, just as the accident occured. 

        At some point I saw this tape. Initially, it is nothing more than
        a boring bright white dot, not quite fixed against the stars in
        the background. Suddenly the dot gets brighter and bigger.
        Eventually you can see seperate objects, which must have been the
        debris and gas clouds, drifting away. After some time, the image
        the junk is out of the field of view, and all that is left is the
        bright dod again, in need of much help. 

    Here is what is happening at CMU (that's Carnegie-Mellon University 
in Pittsburgh, PA) with our Mars Rover project. 
 
Mars Exploration for the late 90's
==================================
 
    The Mariner and Viking probes are the best look at Mars we've had
so far.  Our pictures of a rock-strewn desert, and our knowledge of
Martian soil composition, come from the two Vikings which returned
pictures and data.  The landing sites were chosen to be the flattest
they could find, in order that the landers wouldn't tip over.  This
had the side-effect that the areas were geologically fairly boring. 
 
    The next step in Mars exploration is to send a flexible, mobile
robot to Mars to collect and study samples from different areas.  The
importance of the mission is split between observation, on-site
testing of samples, and return of samples to Earth.  The requirements
for this vehicle are pretty stiff if we are to try one of the more
ambitious and more useful of the possible missions.  The trickiest
part of the problem is to do autonomous motion and sampling.  Light
takes between 10 and 40 minutes to travel the round trip between Earth
and Mars, so a vehicle operated from Earth would be extremely slow. 
Even worse, NASA's Deep Space Network has other jobs to do, and the
rover will spend half its time on the far side of Mars.  This
virtually requires a vehicle which can move and take samples using
on-board computers and Artificial Intelligence.  The mechanical design
of the vehicle is also difficult.  The design is most highly constrained 
by a very low power budget - a few hundred watts to run a 1-ton vehicle.  
 
The CMU Mars Rover Project
==========================
 
    The CMU rover project, at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsuburgh, 
is a 3-year project to build a prototype rover which can:

 1. travel several hundred kilometers, reliably, over the period of about
    a year, traversing 1 meter obstacles and ravines
 2. take core samples, aim instruments, and perform sampling and experiments
    as flexibly as possible
 3. collect about 5 kilograms of samples and transport them to a return
    vehicle for return to Earth
 4. weigh no more than about a ton
 5. operate on about 300 watts of continuous power, supplied by a Radioisotope
    Thermal Generator (RTG)
 6. operate efficiently even when not in communication with Earth
 
    The project has three main research areas:  Mechanical Design,
Sensing, and Control.  The first group is building the vehicle, and is
headed by Red Whittaker, a mechanical engineer who recently
constructed a robotic vehicle to clean up Three Mile Island.  The
second group, sensing, is headed by Takeo Kanade, a Computer Science
professor who has been involved with the NAVLAB autonomous truck. 
They are using a laser rangefinder and computer vision software to
maintain a terrain map on board the rover.  The third group is headed
by Tom Mitchell, who does Artificial Intelligence work.  His group is
designing the software to do motion and sampling without human intervention.  
 
The Ambler
==========
 
    The original proposal had been for a rover with large, soft wheels
which could ignore small obstacles.  However, the mechanical design
group determined that a walking rover could better satisfy the
reliability, stability, and power requirements of the mission.  A few
hundred watts is almost no power at all, so a wheeled vehicle loses
because it puts so much power into its ground interactions.  A legged
vehicle is mechanically more challenging, but is smoother in operation
and very energy efficient. 
 
    The Ambler has six legs, each of which has two joints which move
in the horizontal plane and a telescoping z-axis which stays vertical.
The horizontal and vertical directions are totally decoupled - the
machine always stays level, and the two horizontal joints also stay
level at all times.  Each of the six legs is attached to a central
pole at a different height, so they can move 360 degrees without
running into each other. The bulk of the body hangs from the center
pole, close to the ground. 
 
    Here is a picture:
 
                              | |---------------------------------
                              | |                |              | |
                              | |---------------------------------
 -----------------------------| |^               ^               U
| |          |                | |Shoulder        Elbow           U
 -----------------------------| |                                U
 U                            | |                                U
 U                --------------------------                     U
 U               |                          |                    U
 U               | Body (with RTG, sampling,|                    U
 U               | computing, robot arm,    |                    U
 U               | instruments)             |                    U
 U               |                          |                    U
 |               |                          |                    |
 |               |                          |                    |
 |               |                          |                    |
 |                --------------------------                     |
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
/_\								/_\
 
        (Side view of the body and the lower two of six legs)
        (the elbow and shoulder move in and out of the page)
 
 
=============================================================================
 
                                     _________
                     _              /---------
                 __--_\\_    ------//
             __--__--  \_\_/      //\   __-
           --__--        \_\_    //  __----\
           --            | \_\ -//__----   \\
                     ______--_|  |--- |     \\
                  _-- ____---  -- _-___      \\
                 / ---    \        --__-__
                / /        \        /  --||
               / /           ------       ||
              / /                         ||
             / /                           ||
                                           ||
 
 
 
            (Top view.  5 legs planted, 1 recovering.)
         (Each leg moves in a different horizontal plane
          except for the telescoping z-axis of each)
 
=============================================================================
  
    The machine has a reach of about 4 meters and a height of about 4
meters. The laser rangefinder goes on top of the central pole. 
 
    The Ambler will walk a bit like a crab, with five legs on the
ground at all times.  When a leg is lifted from behind the vehicle, it
is moved all the way to the front of the vehicle to minimize the
number of footfalls required.  The body slides forward using the
horizontal joints only, spending energy only on friction losses and
ground sinkage.  It moves almost like floating on water.  The z-axis
is used to hoist the body up and down, and to lift each foot for
recovery to the next position. 
 
    The machine moves very slowly (since the limiting factor is the
ability to control the motion reliably, not the motion itself).  The
body averages a few centimeters per second, which is plenty as long as
the machine can operate autonomously. 
  
The Software
============
 
    Building the Ambler is about half the project.  The other half,
which is technically more on the cutting edge, is putting together a
software system to reliably (VERY reliably) move the robot from place
to place and perform sampling tasks. 
 
    A terrain map (more or less a contour map of the immediate
vicinity of the rover) is maintained by integrating data from the
rangefinder.  Other information, such as "this is a rock" or "this is
black stuff that sticks to your feet" may be attached to the basic
map.  This allows motion planning to be done accurately. 
 
    The rover will be controlled by commands from the control center
on Earth, such as 
 
   "go north as long as it's safe"
   "go back and pick up rock 13 and look at its underside"
   "follow this path to rock 15 and drill a hole in it, at this angle"
   "pick up one of those gray pebbles, about half an inch wide"
   "put this dust in your mass spectrometer"
   "aim your infrared sensor at anything unusual"
 
    The commands won't be in English, but rather will be specified in
terms of frames and slots in a knowledge representation system
designed by the control group. 
 
    Realistically, there will probably be a team of geologists
fighting over what is most important to do next.  Rather than forcing
them to do the optimization of exactly what to do, it will be
necessary to have a planning system which can do the best thing given
a set of goals of varying importance and difficulty.  For instance, if
one goal is very easy, you might as well do it first rather than a
more desirable but much more difficult one.  There are also background
goals best monitored by the machine, such as "Never go too near a
dropoff" and "Don't point your satellite dish away from Earth." 
 
    A flexible geometric reasoning system will be a component of the
software. It's important for the rover to have the ability to pick up
a rock, and also to be able to notice if the rock was dropped by
accident.  This involves creating a general purpose planner which can
generate expectations about what will be true in the world if all went
as planned, and to check if this really happened.  This is my area. 
 
=============
 
    The project has just finished its first year (of three or four). 
A test leg is nearing completion, and the first integration of
planning and sensing software and the rangefinder hardware is a few
months in the future.  We're funded by NASA and interact off and on
with groups from JPL, TRW, and Martin Marietta.  JPL in particular has
a parallel project, designing a more conventional wheeled rover for
the same mission.  Ours is considered to be the more ambitious and
high-risk of the two.  The results will be evaluated and the plan is
to produce the real thing for a launch in approximately 1998.  
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Marc Ringuette        | mnr@cs.cmu.edu  |        "He slimed me!"         |
| CMU Computer Science  | 412-268-3728(w) | [watch this space for other    |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213  | 412-681-5408(h) | quotes from great literature]  |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
========================================================================
Received: from DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA10392; Wed, 12 Oct 88 23:01:48 PDT
Received: from CS.CMU.EDU by DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Oct 88 01:26:55 EDT
Received: from DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU by CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Oct 88 01:25:44 EDT

RE:< Note 276.42 by MTWAIN::KLAES "Saturn by 1970" >
  

Your picture reminds me of the machines the Martians used in War of the Worlds
(the original version).


The current issue of National Geographic magazine has an article on a mission to
Mars.

Rich

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry
Subject: Space news from November 28 AW&ST
Posted: 19 Dec 88 08:19:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Xref: decwrl sci.space:9136 sci.space.shuttle:3139
  
    NASA accelerating studies to give the new administration the
option of initiating work on a lunar base or Mars mission.  Bush will
get initial results in the next year or two, followed by formal NASA
recommendations in 1991.  [A mistake -- the sooner the better.  Bush's
best chance to get something like that past Congress is right at the
start.  Of course, NASA may be aiming at Bush's hypothetical second
term...]  Bush himself is now saying "...the logical order is first
the Moon, then -- perhaps Mars".  Major studies will aim at three
ideas:  An evolving lunar base, a streamlined [translation:  One-shot]
Mars mission that could be mounted early in the next century, and a
possible Phobos mission. 
 
    The lunar-base studies will look at the commercial potential of
such a base, notably the potential for mining Helium 3 from the lunar
regolith for export to Earth as a fusion fuel.  Also of major interest
is producing liquid oxygen from lunar soil to cut costs of a possible
Mars mission. The Moon base is considered to involve the fewest
unknowns, since the Apollo landings eliminated most of them, and is
favored as an intermediate step even if Mars is considered the
long-term objective. 
 
    The accelerated Mars mission would have a crew of 3 and would make
limited use of in-orbit assembly (it would not require an assembly
base in orbit). The spacecraft would not provide artificial gravity,
and would use aerobraking and fast orbits to do the whole mission in
14 months, including 20 days on the surface.  This would be a
scaled-down version of an earlier concept, which planned to launch an
unmanned cargo transport in 2005 (with lander, surface equipment, and
Earth-return fuel), followed by a manned ship carrying eight
astronauts in a high-speed trajectory to reach Mars in eight months
(with a similar orbit used for return). 
 
    A new idea that is attracting attention is a manned mission to
Phobos. This could be done earlier than a Mars landing, would develop
most of the needed capabilities, could establish a useful staging
base, and would be of major scientific interest in its own right.  It
could be launched in 2001, using an unmanned cargo vehicle [presumably
using an economy orbit] to carry exploration hardware and return fuel
to Mars orbit, followed by a manned ship using a fast trajectory (nine
months).  The two would rendezvous at Mars.  Of the crew of four, two
would make a Phobos landing, while the other two control robot
activity (including a sample-return mission) on the Martian surface.
This again would be a 14-month mission with a Mars-orbit stay of 20 days. 
 
"God willing, we will return." |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
-Eugene Cernan, the Moon, 1972 | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!labrea!eos!ames!yee
Subject: NASA workshop to examine Mars mission technology (Forwarded)
Posted: 5 Feb 89 06:40:54 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Mary Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   January 30, 1989
 
Donald James
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
  
    EDITORS NOTE:  NASA WORKSHOP TO EXAMINE MARS MISSION TECHNOLOGY
  
     NASA studies of future solar system exploration include options
for both piloted and robotic missions to Mars.  One challenge to
future Mars exploration is to use the the Martian and Earth's
atmospheres to slow the vehicles while protecting them from the
searing temperatures encountered during atmospheric entry.  This
slowing process is now achieved in part through the use of rocket
engine firings. 
 
     NASA is investigating a new technology called high-energy
aerobraking which would allow spacecraft to be slowed on atmospheric
entry without having to use rocket engines.  The new technology would
use an aerobrake -- a structure whose large blunt shape would slow the
vehicle through friction with the atmosphere. 
 
     Currently, interplanetary spacecraft necessarily carry the weight
of the rockets and their propellants throughout its entire mission. 
The use of high-energy aerobraking would permit the weight and space,
now dedicated to rockets and propellants, to be used by astronauts or
for additional science payloads.  Aerobraking also could be used on
returning from lunar missions. 
 
     Scientists and engineers from NASA, private industry and
universities will meet at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View,
Calif., Jan. 31 through Feb. 2, for a workshop on high-energy
aerobraking.  The workshop will highlight current and planned
aerobraking research efforts.  Limited aerobraking experience exists
upon which to base these future designs. 

      "Language is the only instrument of Science, and words are but
    signs of ideas...." - Samuel Johnson 

    The Mars mission (manned form) is still in the less than concrete
    planning stages.  I have decided to summarize 3 possible approaches
    somewhat presented through the course of this note and elseware:
    
    These summaries appeared in the local Sunday ISSUES section and
    is reproduced here in part W/O permission of John Wagner.
    
    FLT PATH	MISSION TIME	  TO MARS     RET TO E	STAY
    
    CONJUNCTION   30 3/4 MONTHS    6 1/2 MO   6 1/4 MO	18 MONTHS.
    
    VENUS SWING	  21 3/4 MONTHS	  11 MO	      8 1/2 MO   2 MONTHS.
    
    SPRINT	  14 1/4 MONTHS    8 1/4 MO      5 MO	 1 MONTH. 
    
    
    
    
    These are the profiles available for 2003-5.  In todays dollars
    this venture represents a commitment of $100billion dollars give
    or take $20 billion.  If the costs associated with such a trip were
    taken on now and amortilazed over the next 13 -15 years, Is 
      Under $6 billion a year such a terrible price?  
      Is the sprint mentality still present?
      Sprint is the costliest, with shortest stay, fewest crew.  Why
       is this considered?
    
    I have more on this topic that I will input as time permits...Les

    100 Billion Dollars.  Funny how it just becomes a number after a
    certain point...
    
    We can either go to Mars once and come back or start a manned presence
    in orbit and/or on the Moon.  I don't know the relative costs involved,
    but I'm assuming that a permanent base on the Moon would probably cost
    about as much as the voyage to Mars.
    
    Please point out to me why Mars is so desireable over setting up shop
    on the Moon.  Sure we learned lots from the Apollo program.  But we're
    still not back there.  And we still rely 100% on materials from Earth
    for every mission, manned or unmanned.  How about starting to make
    Space pay for Space.
    
John

    The "real" issue is not the money to my way of thinking.  It is
    as you point out, "The infrastructure to make space pay..."  With
    Apollo, the payoffs never got the press the program deserved.  It
    changed business.  Concepts like task teams and group organizations
    empowered to make desisions stick in spite of individual pressures
    were introduced to business.  Computing and electronic communications
    have been one very visiable cultural change directly attributed
    to the US space program, but other meat and potatoes effects slipped
    by the wayside.
    
    The $100 billion includes a space station, whose purpose is assembling
    a manned Mars craft.  
    
    Several caveats are implied in the three scenarios I presented.
    
    The first is "burst mentality".  This takes the form of sprint.
    Sprint is the mentality that lead the US to the moon and remains
    as the 0 infrastructure in space many noters have discussed at length.
    The point being:  Setting an ambitious goal is often proven attainable
    at a given cost.  However the goal must have a purpose and fit into
    part of a whole.  Apollo is a prime example of a single goal attained
    but whose purpose was never defined for supporting whatever role
    the US space program was going to play in mankinds role in space.
    It could be said that its historical significance will then become
    one of a test or at best the relevelent significance of launching
    the first balloon.  Four year election cycles maybe the implementation
    factor for "burst mentality".
    
    Building fuel tankers and sending them to Mars is a neat concept.
    But what kind of fuel?  Is the fuel only manufacturable with earth
    resources or can the fuel be manufactured with moon resources? 
    Should it be?  
    
    Do we continue to portray the persons going into space as the cultural
    cream of the crop, or should some of them be average Joes who can, with
    interest and dedication, achieve their personal goal?  Recent releases
    indicate the average person is no longer science aware.  Will
    "elete-ism" help or hinder this trend or continue to support burst
    mentality?
    
    
    
    The plus side arguments for going to Mars definately need to look
    away from the "because its is there" mentality and head toward cultural
    issues.  The effort and expense may even go beyond any one nation.
    But one fact remains, space must be made available to the comon
    man of the 21 century, and that implies the infrastructure be built
    now...Les
    

re .48

The Apollo program did include some longer range goals that might have
helped build that infrastructure.  There were more Apollo lunar missions
planned and several Apollo hardware based projects in the works.  (Skylab
and Apollo-Soyuz were the only ones ever carried out.)  One problem was
that the lunar landing goal, which made it all possible, also had the
negative effect of overshadowing everything else in NASA.  The public
never understood or bought into anything but the lunar landing.  When
it happened, we had achieved the goal...Miller time!

You are quite justified in your fears of the "sprint" mentality.  We
Americans tend to have real short term vision.  Thus:

	The Shuttle flew four times.  It's operational.  Ho hum.

	Discovery flew.  Well, that's fixed.  See ya later!

	We got a few people to Mars....

						Mike

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space news from May 8 AW&ST
Date: 20 Jun 89 03:06:10 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
    Valery Barsukov, a prominent Soviet planetary scientist, says that
Soviet planetary activity will focus on Mars for the rest of the
century, aiming at an orbiter/lander mission in 1994, a rover/sample-
return mission in 1998, and a manned mission hoped to occur before 2025.  
The 1994 mission will use two identical orbiter/lander spacecraft, with 
the lander carrying an instrumented balloon, small "meteorological pods", 
and one or more surface penetrators.  Consideration is being given to 
building two complete backup spacecraft, which would be launched in 1996 
to either repeat the 1994 mission if it failed, or conduct similar studies 
on Phobos.  He says the Soviets have no immediate plans for Venus or the 
Moon, although they are interested in joint lunar missions with the US. 
 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

    A friend of mine told be about a CALTECH study of a Mars exploration
    balloon (actually, Caltech people tried it out in the desert - it
    may not have been their idea).
    
     The idea is to have a ballon which will expand when the sun rises,
    and take off. The winds carry it to some other point where it will
    slowly fall as the day ends and things cool off. 
    
     When it lands, it takes readings of various kinds. next morning,
    off it goes. You'd get lots of distance for a very simple vehicle.
    
     In order for this to work, I would imagine that there must be
    suficient data storage on board to hold whatever data it had until
    a satellite cruised by overhead. Then it could upload. It might
    be able to transmit to a base station while it was in the air, but
    only while line of sight was still established.
    
    Gregg

    You don't necessarily have to wait for a satellite pass.  The Viking
    landers were able to transmit directly to Earth.  After the orbiters
    ran out of gas, this was their only means of contact.
        John Sauter

    	See SPACE Topic 288 for more information on Mars balloons.
    
    	Larry
    

    ok, carrying on the discussion in 288.
    
    Feel free to move my stuff there.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Gregg

        Someone recently sent me this news blurb.  If it is true, then
    this is no laughing matter for our space program if Quayle is truly
    so outdated in his thinking of the planet Mars and who knows how
    many other astronomical subjects:

        In an August 11 interview on Cable Network News, the head of the
    National Space Council, Vice President Dan Quayle, explained why the
    United States should undertake a manned mission to Mars:  "Mars is 
    essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same distance 
    from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures where 
    there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water, there is 
    oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe." 

    Re:.55
    
    		OH MY GOD!!!!! WE'RE REALLY IN FOR IT!!!!!
    
    	But in defense of our feebled brained Vice President, Mars is in a
    similar orbit as the Earth (compared to something like Neptune) and if
    Mars does have accessable water, it can be processed into breathable
    oxygen for a potential Mars base. BUT, our Vice President's apparent
    NEAR ignorance of the space program for which he is to establish goals is
    still inexcusable! Let's just hope that the Congress funds the project
    despite him.
    
    				Drew
    
    

    I wouldn't pay too much attention to Dan Quayle.  His only positive
    value to the U. S. Government is that everybody in the world wants
    George Bush to stay healthy: his job is to protect the President.
    
    Dan Quayle is the only person in my experience whom the press ceased to
    tell jokes about while he was still in office.  That shows how much
    respect the press has for him.
    
    He's a zero.  Ignore him.
        John Sauter

    
    
    
    
    
    				Sad.
    
    			    Very Sad.
    
    
    	Gregg

    re .55 and since-
    
    The Vice President's comments may have been taken out of context.
    Looked at objectively, it's not possible to tell much about the
    discussion from such a short quote.  Certainly there are no canals on
    Mars, but there are surface features which appear to have been formed
    by water (according to the last speculations I saw).  Some of that
    water may still be present, frozen in strata below the surface.  If
    that turns out to be the case, you could mine it and produce oxygen by
    electrolysis.  Such a scenario is not inconsistent with the quote
    given. 
    
    Regardless of how you interpret the quote, I'd like to suggest that the
    generally negative attitude expressed in the notes is a waste of disk
    space as far as advancing the program.  Comments like these reinforce
    the notion that the cause is lost and nothing can be done.  I've been
    thinking lately that there is a lot that could be done at the grass
    roots level to build a constituency for space exploration.  That
    would be a good topic for a note if it hasn't been covered already.
    Making fun of Dan Quayle this way is easy, but it costs the program
    and wastes time, which none of us has too much of.
    
    (Wait a moment before replying, I gotta get my Nomex suit on 8^)} .)
    
    Mike Hughes

    Perhaps you'd prefer something more positive, like plans for removing
    obstructions - like D Quayle? :-)
    
    					-**Ted**-

    Re:.59
    	I am a space enthusiast; I have been literally as long as I can
    remember (which goes back to the early Gemini missions when I was 4
    years old). I get really excited to hear about these plans to establish
    a base on the Moon and send men to Mars but I was also very excited
    about the mission to Comet Halley, the Planetary Explorer series, the
    Viking mission followup, Mariner Jupiter/Uranus, the retrieval of Skylab,
    a joint Salyut/Space Shuttle mission, the Lunar Polar Orbiter, the
    fully reusable Space Shuttle, Apollos 18 and 19, Skylab 5, and
    countless others.
    	When it comes to space projects I still get excited like I did when
    I was a kid but the adult in me knows that the space program is not run
    on the basis of what is logical or what is best but on politics and I
    have seen very exciting proposed missions come and go. The adult in me
    also knows the track record of the previous and current
    Administrations; they promise the world and deliver you a globe.
    	I don't want to give the impression that I am a pessimist; I am a
    member of several space interest groups and I have signed countless
    petitions and sent many letters to politicians in support of various
    programs and I will continue to do so. However, I also know that it
    will be impossible to fund missions to Mars or establish bases on the
    Moon in the current fiscal and political climate. The fact that we have
    Dan Quayle in charge of directing space policy does absolutely nothing
    to make me feel warm and fuzzy about the current proposals (as well as
    the highly secretive nature of the debate in the National Space Council).
    	I don't think that President Bush's current proposal will amount to
    anything; it was just moon-landing-anniversary rhetoric to get a two
    minute spot on the national news. In spite of all this, I think that at
    least this is a start; people are begining to talk about going back to
    the Moon and going to Mars. I am hopeful but wary.
    
    				Drew                                       

    RE last few.
    
    .59  I agree with your comment that what is needed is a grass roots
    effort to drive the space program.  Our politicians do not have a clear
    sense the the American people want to be in space.  Certainly the
    scientific community does, but this are only a small part of the
    people.  
    
    Unlike Kennedy, modern day politicians do not lead, they react. In
    fact, I give Bush some credit for offering a degree of leadership with
    his proposal for the Lunar base and Mars mission.  However, unless
    the American people show that they want this, I would agree with
    .61 that it is unlikley to happen.  
    
    Question is, how can the people be convinced that this is a good
    way to spend their money?  The people who usually try to do the
    convincing are scientists--and scientists are not entirely trusted
    in our society.  Having some nerd with a pocket protector tell
    the American people that space exploration is beneficial won't
    work.
    
    We need a grass roots effort that will push politicians into seeing
    that many Americans do want the practical benefits of space
    exploration.  From that, hopefully, we might find someone to lead
    the effort by showing, like Kennedy did, that this is something
    to do for the challenge--something that uniquely fits the human (and
    probably it would have to be shown, the American) character.  Broad
    support, from all strata of Americna life, is the only way to get the
    necessary appropriations for an ambitious space program.
    
    True leadership will not simply challenge Americans, it will tempt 
    them with the adventure that was Apollo.  The Space Shuttle is 
    an extraordinarily boring enterprise.  NASA erred in its desire to 
    present space travel as an ordinary event.  To keep the interest
    of the people, space travel must be viewed as adventurous and 
    dangerous; a sense of risk should prevail, risk that possesses 
    energy to excite our dreams.
    
    Dan Quayle will not bring such leadership; nor will George Bush.  If
    a grass roots program can propel some people to voice their interest
    in space travel, then, perhaps, such leadership will emerge.
    
    JT
    

  People will support the space program when they are convinced there is a
practical value that will make their lives or the lives of their decendents
better. Right now, the big road block is cost and there is not enough return on
the investment to get people excited about large space projects. Once the X-30
and follow on space planes start flying, the cost may go down to the point
where the return on investment is higher. 

  At that point, it may become worth while to build factories and power
generators in space. That may encourage more space planes and soon the amount
of lift capacity needed for research as a percentage of the capacity available
will be low enough that the cost won't be that high. 

  From that point on, space travel will increase sharply.

  George

        Here is some information from the 1986 NASA Mars Conference on
   possible manned Mars mission plans: 

    (1) Conjunction Class Missions

    The most traditional type.  It is relatively low energy, with a long
stay time.

	Outbound	270
	Stay		530 
	Return		209
	-------------------
	Total          1009 days

    (2) Opposition Class Missions

    Very high energy, much shorter trip time, but also shorter stay time.

	Outbound	254
	Stay		 20
	Return		245
	-------------------
	Total		519 days

    An inbound swing-by of Venus reduces the energy requirements of this
class of missions, and increases the stay time, at the cost of a slight
increase in trip time:

	Outbound	267
	Stay		 60
	Return		366
	-------------------
	Total		693 days

    (3) Low Thrust Transfer Missions

    These employ low thrust electric rockets or solar sails.  They
include a coasting portion during the middle of the trip when no
thrust is applied. 

	Earth Spiral	 52
	Outbound	510
	Mars Spiral	 39
	Stay		100
	Mar Spiral	 23
	Return		229
	Earth Spiral	 16
	-------------------
	Total		969

    Not all of this time need be taken by the crew; the crew could
board after the vehicle has spiralled above the van Allen belts.  I do
not know what acceleration these numbers imply; an ultra low mass
solar sail could probably do better.  The inbound spiral at Earth
could be avoided by parking the vehicle in HEO and returning the crew
via OTV. 

    (4) VISIT (Cycler) Orbits

    The next two concepts use "spaceports" in solar orbit as stepping
stones to/from Mars. 

    The VISIT-1 orbit is a 1.25 year orbit that swings close to Earth
once every five years while approaching Mars once every 3.75 years. 
The VISIT-2 orbit is a 1.5 year orbit that approaches Earth once every
three years while approaching Mars once every 7.5 years.  The orbits
would have to be retuned once every 20 years or so, and do not exploit
planetary swing-by. 

    (5) Escalator (Cycler) Orbits

    Unlike VISIT orbits, these orbits (due to Buzz Aldrin) use
planetary swingby to rephase the cycler orbit.  Basically, it is a
more elliptical orbit that passes by Earth once an orbit and Mars
twice an orbit.  At Earth, a wingby redirects it on to the next Mars
encounter.  The orbit's period is about 2 years.  It would require a
bit of nudging at times, for a total of about 2 km/s over 15 years. 
The orbit is high energy. 

From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space news from October 9 AW&ST, part 2
Date: 4 Dec 89 00:13:27 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
    [The following is the rest of the extensive planetary-missions
coverage in the Oct 9 issue, hitting the high spots only.] 
 
    JPL and JSC say that morale in NASA has improved considerably
since Bush's Moon/Mars announcement.  "This is the first time since
President Kennedy... that a President has told us clearly what he wants." 
 
    JPL outlines tentative approach to a manned Mars mission:
 
    1996	Mars Observer 2, a followon to Mars Observer
    1998	Mars Global Network, two launches landing penetrators at 
                24 sites
    2001	two sample-return missions with small rovers
    2003	two missions (for redundancy) each carrying a site-
                reconnaissance orbiter and a communications orbiter
    2005	major rover to potential landing site
    2007	another rover
    2009	another rover
    2011	sample-return missions, with small rovers, to 2 best sites
    2015	manned launch from space station
 
    Safety and scientific interest will determine the best landing
site, but the best spot would be an ancient lake bed (potential for
fossils) with nearby resources (e.g. near-surface permafrost) useful
to the mission. A manned mission is considered much more effective
than robot missions. [However, I note that quite a bit of the robotic
buildup in the above schedule is only tenuously related to the manned
mission.  A cynic might suspect the existence of a contingency plan
which simply scratches the "2015" entry off the schedule...] 
 
    All of the above missions except the final manned mission are
assembled on the ground and use Titan 4 launches. 
 
    Technologies being pursued for sample-return missions include
aerocapture at Mars, intelligent autonomous landing (the Viking
landers were lucky: current estimates put the chances of a successful
blind landing as low as 60%), and autonomous rendezvous and docking in
Mars orbit.  [The above-mentioned cynic might observe that aerocapture, 
although certainly useful, would probably be unnecessary with on-orbit 
assembly... which seems like a rather easier technology to develop.] 
 
    Technologies seen as significant problems for rover designs are
autonomous sample retrieval (locating and picking up a rock without
help, currently a research topic only), lubricants good to -140C, and
power supplies that do not require sunlight (unreliable due to Martian
dust storms) or batteries (which have problems with the cold).  The
probable solution to the power-supply issue is RTGs. 
 
Mars can wait:  we've barely   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
started exploring the Moon.    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP 
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles
Date: 4 Jan 90 20:43:14 GMT
Reply-To: conklin@frith.UUCP (Terry Conklin)
Organization: Engineering, Michigan State University, E. Lansing
 
    The March 1990 ANALOG has an incredibly interesting article in it
by Robert M. Zubrin (with Martin Marietta Astronautics) describing an
apparently feasible approach to Mars and other missions. 
 
    I continue having assumed you've read the article. What, you mean
you dont always read March issues on January 4?  For those who don't
yet have access to the issue, in summary, Mr. Zubrin details a system
that uses simple gases heated with a nuclear core as a form of
propulsion.  Since a vehicle could collect the gases itself from
the Martian atmosphere, it can self-refuel and make an extensive
exploration of Mars and then fly home without incurring the enormous
cost of launching conventional fuels all the way to Mars, around Mars,
and back home. 
 
    Much of the information in this article seemed to be related to a
1960s research project, NERVA, into superheated gas propulsion. 
 
    My question is basically, what's the story? Is this story _right_? Can
we have some questions/comments from qualified experts on the subject?
 
    My final impression with the article is that it's eminently
workable, and that none of the technology is "bleeding edge."  I must
admit I'm sort of jaded lately (having pulled off some amazing stuff)
and getting to the point where *everything* is just YASEP (Yet Another
Stupid Engineering Problem) but it really *doesn't* seem to terribly
difficult, even extrapolating for zillions of nasty interdisciplinary
hassles. 
 
    So perhaps this is a "what am I missing?" question.  Otherwise,
what the heck?  Let's explore this route.  Current "staged" approaches
for long range missions (orbital platform, space station, possible
lunar base, Mars) seem more than unrealistic given the current U.S.
financial climate, since funding cuts for any step of the pipeline
kills the entire effort. 
 
    Can someone color this picture in please?
 
Terry Conklin - a Systems Designer/Programmer (naturally), among other stuff
conklin@egr.msu.edu			-They like Data, sure, but what
uunet!frith!conklin			 would they do if we went ahead
The Club  (517) 372-3131  3/12/2400	 built him?

    	I'm digging way back in my memory here, but one reason why the
    "gas collection" may not be feasible might be the unavailibility
    of gases on Mars.  If I recall correctly, the Viking lander showed
    us that the Martian atmosphere is a WHOLE LOT thinner than we had
    speculated from Earth.  I can't recall the percentage stated, but
    I get the feeling it was in the area of 1% of predicted.
    
    	Although, given the total volume of atmosphere for the planet,
    maybe the gas collection would still be feasible.  Ah, heck, I dunno.
    just my $.02
    
    McQ
    

    I don't remember the finding of thinner atmosphere than predicted. 
    However, it could not have been THAT much thinner.  Viking used
    'chutes to slow down quite some bit of the ways.  It then jettisoned
    the 'chutes and used (Hydrogen Peroxide?) rockets the rest of the way.
    If the atmosphere had only been 1% of prediction, I would think that
    it would really have thrown off the calculations of how when to
    jettison the chutes and how much landing fuel to carry.
    
    And regardless of the above...if the atomosphere is thinner, then you
    go lower to scoop it up.  Clearly there is enough there at some
    altitude.
    
    Burns

    Re:.67
    	It wasn't Viking that found out that the Martian atmosphere was
    thiner than expected from Earth observations; it was Mariner 4 a decade
    before Viking. Before Mariner 4 (which was the first mission to return
    information about Mars) astronomers generally estimated the Martian
    atmospheric pressure to be in the 80 to 100 millibar range (compared to
    Earth's atmospheric pressure of 1013 millibars). Carbon dioxide was
    detected in the Martian atmosphere but certain aspects of the spectral
    lines indicated that the total amount of gas was more than could be
    accounted for by carbon dioxide alone. The assumption was that a large
    amount of nitrogen (which is undetectable from Earth) was also present
    in the atmosphere.
    	Well, the radio occultation experiment of Mariner 4 indicated an
    atmospheric pressure of about 20 millibars and subsequent more detailed
    studies by Mariners 6 and 7 in 1969 and Mariner 9 and Mars 2 and 3 in
    1973 indicated an average pressure of about 6 millibars (the accepted value
    today). It seems that the changes in the carbon dioxide spectral lines
    were not the result of gas pressure but the result of light being
    scattered by dust in the Martain atmosphere.
    	If the Viking landers were designed to enter a Martain atmosphere
    made primarily of nitrogen with traces of carbon dioxide (the opposite
    of what is actually the case) which had an surface pressure of 80 to
    100 millibars, the Viking lander would have crashed into the surface of
    Mars at a speed of a couple of kilometers per second. The design and
    requirements for entering a thin Martian atmosphere versus a relatively
    thick one are vastly different. If Viking had discovered a thin Martian
    atmosphere it would have been a billion dollar catastrophe.
    
    				Drew
    
         

    Re:.67
    	Gee, I almost forgot; gas collection is still feasible on Mars
    despite the low surface pressure. There is enough gas available to use
    fairly conventional techniques to collect it and there have been dozens of
    engineering studies that I have seen (plus probably hundreds more that 
    I haven't seen) published on just that subject.
    
    				Drew
    

    re: .last few
    
    Oh, well, I knew SOME discovery superseded SOME other, guess I got
    'em confused.  Thanks for the corrections.
    
    McQ
    

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Mars Rover Update - 03/22/90
Date: 22 Mar 90 16:49:50 GMT
Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
 
                        Mars Rover Update
                         March 22, 1990
 
     Engineers at the Jet Propulsion Lab began tests last week on a
prototype of a Mars rover vehicle, the first step step toward
establishing a manned outpost on the moon and sending a manned flight
to Mars. The Planetary Rover Navigation Test Bed Vehicle, nicknamed
"Robby", is a self-navigating vehicle about the size of a small car
that can pick up samples or manipulate tools and equipment with its
robotic arms. The testing this week was to determine whether the rover
can be made self-thinking so that it does not have to rely on human
commands. The prototype's computer systems must be autonomous and
self-navigating because commands sent from Earth at the speed of light
takes 30 minutes to reach Mars. Initial tests went well, and plans are
being made to move from the prototype to a fully operational
production model of the planetary rover. 
 
     The Exporation Technology program to develop the rover grew out
of a study known as the Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR), an effort to
design a self-thinking machine to collect ground samples from Mars.
Last October, JPL folded the 2 year old sample return effort into the
Exploration Technology program so that the machine could be designed
to do more than pick up ground samples, such as building a capsule on
the moon in which astronauts could live in. $5 million is allocated to
the rover itself and about $500,000 is devoted to the development of
autonomous navigation. 
 
     In response to Bush's call to go back to the Moon, and from there
on to Mars, JPL is drawning up plans to dispatch a series of robots to
Mars. The first step is the launch of the Mars Observer in 1992 to
measure the atmosphere and planetary surface of Mars to find possible
landing and outpost sites. A Mars Observer II launch may aslo occur in
1996. The Global Network Mission, scheduled for launch in 1998, calls
for two spacecraft to place 24 instruments at different sites to study
Mars' surface. Some would be designed to last several years and would
serve as meteorological stations. 
 
     A mission to bring back Martian soil is scheduled for launch in
2001. The trip is dedicated to learning more about the planet's
history and searching for signs of life. Soil samples would be
returned to Earth by the year 2003. Another spacecraft will be
launched to Mars in 2003 used to help support future manned missions
to Mars. The spacecraft will bear a communications satellite to serve
as an orbiting data relay link for future mission. The spacecraft will
also carry a site reconnaissance orbitor to perform mapping, high
resolution photography and radio science instruments. 

 Ron Baalke                       |    baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov 
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

    Re .72:
    
    30 minutes for commands from earth to reach Mars at the speed of light? 
    Seems to me they would take no more than five minutes at opposition and
    22 minutes around superior conjunction.  Hmmm, space must be expanding
    faster than we thought... :-)
    
    Mac.

It takes a long time for the Admiral to tell the Captain to tell... before the 
technician executes them (commands that is ;^)

They may have been stating a round trip time since they need confirmation of 
one command before the next one gets sent. Move here, turn, move there, turn, 
move... (aw sh*t, it slid sideways three commands back!) I sure hope it's 
self-righting.

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Mars Rover Update (Forwarded) - 03/26/90
Date: 27 Mar 90 05:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
 
    Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 26, 1990
 
"NASA Begins Operating Testbed to Access Semi-Autonomous Navigation
Techniques"        by Michael Dornheim
 
     The NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory has started operating a six-wheeled
vehicle here to test semi-autonomous navigation techniques applicable to
a Mars rover or situations where real-time human control is not pratical.
 
     The testbed vehicle, funded at about $1 million in Fiscal 1990, is part
of the Exploration Technology Initiative of NASA's Office of Aeronautics
and Exploration Technology.  The purpose of the initiative is to provide
information for future decisions on NASA programs.
 
     The vehicle takes navigation ideas developed in the laboratory and tests
them in a realistic environment.  The six-wheeled articulated chassis is a
leading contender for a Mars rover configuration, according to Brian H.
Wilcox, supervisor of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) robotic sensing
and percerption group.  The alternative configuration is a "walker" concept
that has about twice the relative mobility, but the six-wheeled configuration
should be adequate for all but high-risk terrain, and should be simpler and
more reliable, Wilcox said (AW&ST Oct 9, 1989, p. 85).
 
DIFFERTIAL WHEEL MOTION
     The testbed has a central chassis with two wheels, a forward axle that is
free to move in roll and yaw and an aft axle that is free to move in roll,
pitch and yaw.  Steering is by differential wheel motion on the fore and aft
axles.  A robotic arm is on the front axle, and a set of television cameras
is on a bar atop the central chassis.  Experimenters monitor the testbed with
an externally mounted computer - there is no radio link.  The six-wheel
configuration technology was developed by General Motors since the 1960s, and
the purpose of the testbed is to evaluate software, not the basic mobility
system.
 
     Three outings had been made as of late last week, and the rover has not
yet been operated autonomously.  A drive-train fault prevented this Aviation
Week & Space Technology editor from observing autonomous travel on the third
outing.  With current hardware, the testbed will be able to move autonomously
about 50 meters (164 feet) in an 8 hour day, Wilcox said.
 
     The algorithm works by first using stereo cameras to make a 3D map of the
terrain ahead, plotting a course through the terrain and then executing this
course without further visual reference.  This process is repeated in 5-8
meter (16-26 feet) segments with the current software and hardware.  Each
segment takes about 1 hour to execute and most of this time is spent deriving
the map and plotting the course.
 
     Expected inclination angles and other data are calculated during the
course plotting and compared with actual sensor data as the rover moves.  If
the sensors differ too much from the expected value, the rover stops for
safety.  Besides unseen rocks, one hazard postulated on the Mars surface
is "dusttraps" - pits that have been filled with fine dust so their danger is
not seen by the cameras.
 
     A local terrain map is built up from the vehicle's motion and is compared
with a stored global terrain map with 1-meter resolution, comparable to
what might be expected from a satellite map of Mars.
 
     As more powerful computers become available, the weighting of the various
algorithms may change.  For example, vision is not used during movement now
because the data takes too long to process.  But a new pipeline processor
should greatly spped up this task; then vision may be used as another input
during motion and paths may be replotted in shorter segments.
 
HIGH-SPEED MICROPROCESSORS
     The visual pipeline processor and other high-speed microprocessors are to
be installed within a year, and then the rover testbed should be able to
travel at its full average speed of 3 cm/sec (1 inch/sec), or about 1000 km
on an actual Mars mission, Wilcox said.  This would allow the rover to
adequately survey sites before sending samples back to Earth.  Good Earth
launch opportunities fo a Mars sample return mission are in 2000 and 2002.
 
     The testbed is now being operated in rocky dry riverbed next to JPL,
but will later be tested at a lava crater and in sand dunes.  Wilcox hopes
to put hundreds of test kilomters on the rover.
 
(Photo shows the Mars rover with a JPL person typing on a keyboard
 and monitor placed atop the rover). 
 
 Ron Baalke                       |    baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov 
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

    This is my first entry in this conference, my apologies if this idea is
    dumb but...
    
    If the external tanks used by the shuttle could be sent into space full
    by an unmanned launcher would it not be possible to refuel a shuttle
    by connecting a new tank (or tanks) and use the refuelled shuttle as 
    a basis for further planetary exploration ?
    
    I imagine there are problems with fuel stability, guidance and engine 
    design and that this is too simplistic a view, but if it is possible 
    then some uses might be...
    
    Using a refuelled shuttle as a tug between lower and geo-stationary
    orbits
    
    For a quick trip back to the moon, use a refuelled shuttle with 
    a LEM aboard (or towed if not room inside) ?
    
    For a trip to Mars build a ship using 6 or 7 fuels tanks, 2 shuttles 
    connected to a central construction containing the mars lander etc.
    
    Well shoot me down then folks....
    
    Brian
    (Reading England)

    Re .76:
    
    I don't think there ARE unmanned launchers which could propel
    a full external tank into orbit.  There HAVE been proposals to
    insert EMPTY ETs into orbit.  Even if you could re-fill the ET,
    I don't think the shuttle has sufficient "space time" capability
    to spend any significant amount of time in orbit.  (Fourteen
    days seems to be the most they care to stretch for in the next
    few years.)
    
    It DOES seem like a waste to pitch all those "used" ETs, though.
    Might be able to build a real "cheap and dirty" space station
    using the ETs as building blocks.

I thought I had read that there was a private company that had contracted for 
a certain number of external tanks in orbit? To be gathered and used at some 
future time?

    Re:.76
    	Using a refueled shuttle orbiter as a lunar or interplanetary
    spacecraft is a real bad idea for the following reasons:
    
    > As reply .77 brought up, there is no launcher currently available
    that can orbit enough fuel to send the shuttle anywhere interesting.
    
    > The shuttle as presently designed requires far too much ground
    support to be easily refueled or serviced in orbit. It just isn't
    designed for the task.
    
    > Shuttles typically can only carry enough consumables for a week or
    two. While with upgrades this figure could go as high as a month, it is
    nowhere near enough to send people anywhere beyond the Moon.
    
    > A shuttle after being boosted out of Earth orbit would have only
    enough fuel to enter orbit around a small body such as the Moon. It
    would, however, be stranded there because there would not be enough fuel
    to leave orbit.
    
    > The shuttle is simply overdesigned to be a lunar or interplanetary
    spacecraft or any sort of tug. Such a mission would not need the
    shuttle's wings, thermal protection system, and other atmospheric
    flight systems. All this would amount to several tens of tons of dead
    weight. It would be far better and more efficient to start from scratch
    and design a new spacecraft for such a mission. Such a spacecraft with
    the same amount of fuel available as the configuration you ar proposing
    would be able to attain your proposed goals and carry MUCH more useful
    payload.
    
    				Drew
    
    

  The time in orbit for the shuttle could be extended by putting extra
fuel and life support in the cargo bay, however there's a big problem with
trying to refule the main tank. The problem is that the external tank holds
liquid Hydrogen and LOX which wouldn't last long enough and/or would not
survive the transfer from one tank to the other. 

  The Saturn V used liquid hydrogen for the S4B 3rd stage but it didn't have
to stay in orbit long and it didn't have to be transfered from one place
to another.

  Also there is the question of whether the thermal protection could handle
hitting the atmosphere on return at 25,000 mph +. It's designed to handle
the 17,000 mph or less speeds of low earth orbit.

  However, with a fuel/life support system in the cargo bay, better thermal
tiles, an IUS flown up separately and attached to the tail and a lander
attached to the nose, it might work. The extra weight of flying wings to the
moon would be made up by the fact that all the hardware came home.

  The Shuttle probably wouldn't be able to do it but it might be an option
to design into the space plane. Or at least into space plane II.

  George

    My idea was pure speculation without any detailed knowledge. However I
    still don't think is is absolutely impossible. 
    
    If there is no launcher that could send a full tank into orbit how 
    about having a 2 smaller tanks 'semi-cylindrical' in shape one for the LOX 
    one for the LH2, sent up separately and joined in space ? Extra tanks
    could be joined in series, the further the distance the more tanks. The
    tanks don't have to be aerodynamic, they would require shields and
    small motors to keep themselves cool. 
    
    Alternatively the shuttle could dock with a new tank sent on ahead, say
    to lunar orbit. A space gas station !
    
    I expected that handling fuel in space would be difficult and that a
    certain substantial amount of re-designing would be required, but the 
    shuttle is a well developed and tested space going vehicle, that is 
    ready now.
    
    Maybe a manned version of shuttle 'C' which does not have wings would
    be a better choice ?
    
    I hadn't thought about re-entry (good job I'm not designing these
    things for real) but with a full tank picked up from the moon wouldn't
    there be plenty of thrust to slow down to a reasonable re-entry speed.
    
    The payload bay could be used for extra crew supplies etc. Would the
    LEM need to be attached to the nose ? Why not attach it to one of the
    points where the SRBs are normally attached. The airframe (spaceframe)
    must be strong enough.
    
    Brian
    (Reading England)
    
    

  Here's the important thing to keep in mind. The cryogenic fuels of the main
tank will not survive long in space with out expending a lot of energy to keep
them cool. This implies a lot of weight for the equipment and fuel to do the
job. That's why liquid hydrogen and LOX are not used except for launch and for
burns that happen within a couple hours of launch. 

  Also, remember that they abandoned the wide can Centaur (sp??) program
because they felt that it was too dangerous to take liquid hydrogen up into low
earth orbit even when the plan was just to release and fire the engine, never
mind do a transfer of the volital fuel.

  Solids are a lot safer and have almost the same wallop per pound. Go with an
IUS and the plan makes a lot more sense. 

  In addition to thermal problems, there are also stress considerations.
Remember, Challanger didn't blow up, it broke appart from aero-dynamic stress
when it turned sidewards. The 25,000 mph re-entry speed may be too much. They
don't like to use thrust to re-enter because it's too much of a waste to cart
all that fuel to the moon and back when the atmosphere will do the job. 

  One final problem, the 4 shuttles (counting the new one) can hardly keep up
with the launch schedule as it is. It would be worse if one was taken out of
service to rebuild it for a deep space mission and then tied up for the time it
took to fly the mission. 

  Your best bet is to design the ability into the space plane. That would
make a lot of sense.

  George

The last few entries have been fascinating reading.  I propose a marriage of
these ideas as follows:

Definitely design the refueling capability into the space plane.  Leave the
shuttle as is (although maybe we could "test" some portions of the design with
the shuttle).  Assuming that the space plane will be able to take off from the
ground (Earth), achieve orbit and return to launch point, how about designing
some kind of lunar lander that could bring solid or some
not-so-volatile-as-LOX-or-LH2 fuel to the lunar surface, then the space plane
could land on the moon (I know, there aren't any runways on the moon...yet)
refuel, launch itself back into space and return to Earth.  A similar thing
could be done for Mars missions.

Am I reaching here?

...Roger...

Why do you need a "runway" on the moon?

Personally, I don't see the point of modifying existing designs to do things
they were never intended to do in the first place, and are ill-suited for.
There are plenty of spaceship designs on file for lunar and Mars missions -
it'll cost plenty to do whatever has been discussed - so why not build the
right craft for the right job?

- dave

1.  Runway on the moon:  In an airless location, all your deceleration and lift
needs to come from reaction power.  On Earth, we have runways, because the lift
is provided by forward motion of the airplane in the air, and you can't stop
that forward motion till you are supported vertically.  In an airless location,
it makes less sense.  (I suppose it might mean that part of the forward vector
of your motion could be lost via friction rather than via expending fuel, but
I don't know if it would be worthwhile for the paltry few hundred km/h that
that could be done for.

2.  Using the shuttle out of LEO.  I bet there are a number of things that
are designed such that it would not work.  Or more specifically, that were
designed assuming leo.  For example, radiation protection.  Or how about heat
dissipation?  In LEO, you are in shadow some significant portion of the time.

3.  Assuming all this stuff was ok, and there was no problem shipping the
fuel up, I bet the SMEs need gravity to start.

4.  I bet the SMEs are vast overkill.  They have to throttle them way back to
avoid overstressing everyone and everything as they get out of the atmosphere.
Maybe it would make more sense to design a big hydrazine tank to allow much
longer runs of the OMS engines.

Burns

    re .82
    
    I'm not trying to defend or refute any of the earlier proposals, but I
    think some of your comments about the use of LH2 are incorrect.
    
    No existing solid propellants have anything like the specific impulse
    (which is what I assume you meant by 'wallop per pound') of LH2/LOX.
    LH2/LOX looses out for launch vehicles because of the low density of
    LH2 which means very large tanks and very large turbopumps to get
    adequate flow rates for lift off thrust. These aren't as critical for
    deep space missions.
    
    While long term storage of LH2 in space would be new, there is more
    experience with medium term storage than you suggest. One of the first
    Apollo missions (2 or 3) placed a modified S-IVB with no other payload
    in orbit specifically to examine the behaviour of LH2 for more than a
    couple of hours. The Centaur D-1T was required to perform a restart
    after a coast of 12-18 hours (I think) for one of the Helios missions.
    It was supposed to be able to restart after a 24 hour zero-G coast.
    
    However, the most likely technology for lunar transfer in the near
    future would be hydrazine based hypergolics. There is a lot of
    experience in the US and Soviet programs with long term storage and
    interspacecraft transfer (at least for the Soviets) and the engine
    designs tend to be very simple and therefore reliable.
    
    gary

RE<<< Note 276.86 by STAR::HUGHES "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred." >>>

>    I'm not trying to defend or refute any of the earlier proposals, but I
>    think some of your comments about the use of LH2 are incorrect.

  No Gary, my comments are not incorrect. I said, or at least I ment to imply,
that solids were the next best thing to LH2 in terms of specific impulse, not
that anything was as good. Also I said that LH2 would only last a few hours
which would include the 12/18 hour time period you mentioned. 

  The problem with the proposal was that it seemed to imply that the shuttle +
tank would be launched and have to raundavue (how ever that is spelled) with a
full tank from a 2nd launch. Then the transfer of LH2 would have to take place.

  This sounds like a lot more than 12 to 18 hours and transfer of the fuel
would require that the pipes and hoses be insulated to keep the fuel and LOX
at cryagenic tempratures, a problem not encountered during the 12 to 18 hour
test of the Centaur. 

  Given that they won't even launch a Centaur in the Shuttle for safty reasons
I think we can pretty much kiss off any proposal to use LH2 as a fuel for
Shuttle related burns in low earth orbit, especially if it requires a
potential several day process of transfering it from one tank to another.

  George

If all you want to do is keep the fuels cool, you just need to design the 
proper type of parasol. The vacuum of space is a great insulator and it 
doesn't have to be aerodynamic. Also there is no reason to transfer the 
fuel if the tank could just be reattached to where the used one came off 
(just new disconnect technology)

These are just points I saw as being missing from the discussion. I totally 
agree that the money would be better spent designing a specific "bus/tug" 
that was reusable and worked WITH the current fleet. Not another reason to 
steal missions from the already agressively tight schedule.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (LORI SANTOS)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.top
Subject: Bush sets Mars deadline
Keywords: space, science, air transport, transportation
Message-ID: <2Rmars_10b@clarinet.com>
Date: 11 May 90 20:48:39 GMT
Lines: 83
Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com

	KINGSVILLE, Texas (UPI) -- President Bush set a timetable Friday for
an American visit to Mars, saying the United States should send
astronauts to the red planet within 30 years -- by 2019.
	But the president provided no details about how such a costly
program would be paid for, when it should begin or whether the United
States should work with other nations on such a venture, saying only
that ``30 years is a long time.''
	In a speech at commencement ceremonies at Texas A&I University,
Bush put a timetable for the first time on his previous promise to send
astronauts to Mars.
	Pointing to the 21st anniversary of the first landing on the moon
July 20, 1969, Bush declared: ``Thirty years from now I believe man will
stand on another planet. ... I believe that before Apollo celebrates the
50th anniversary of its landing on the moon -- the American flag should
be planted on Mars.''
	In a speech last summer marking the 20th anniversary of the Apollo
11 landing, Bush outlined a space policy that called for building a
permanently manned space station, eventually returning to the moon and
then mounting a mission to Earth's nearest planetary neighbor.  NASA's
space station Freedom, plagued by budget shortfalls, a soaring price tag
and frequent redesigns, is scheduled to be built in low Earth orbit
starting in late 1995. But until Friday, the Bush administration had not
set any kind of deadline for going beyond Earth orbit.
	``Today, we're no longer just asking for the Moon. We've been
there. We're looking futher, to carry the American adventure to wherever
opportunity, curiosity and need will take us,'' Bush said.
	In a speech reminiscent of John Kennedy's 1961 pledge to send
astronauts to the moon within a single decade, Bush declared: ``We stand
at a halfway point in our exploration of the immediate solar system. ...
Thirty years ago, NASA was founded and the space race began. And 30
years from now'' Americans should land on Mars.
	Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio and the first American astronaut to orbit
Earth, said he thinks reaching Mars in 30 years is a reasonable goal,
but added, ``I hope we would beat that.
	``It's going to be very expensive. But once again, if we are
getting a research return back on each one of these steps out, which I
believe we do get, then it's going to be very worthwhile,'' Glenn said
at a Florida reunion of Mercury 7 astronauts.
	Bruce Murray, professor of planetary science at the California
Institute of Technology, former director of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory and a frequent critic of NASA's manned space program, hailed
Bush's speech.
	Murray said the United States is actively discussing Mars mission
plans with other nations, including the Soviet Union. ``This speech
gives a time framework, which is long enough to make it doable without
it being a budget buster, but still it's sort of a tangible time
scale.''
	``He's quite serious,'' Murray added. ``It's not only rhetoric.
He's taking heat on this thing and he's doing it because he thinks the
country needs to have the technical challenge and the psychological
challenge of a very ambitious, forward-looking thing.''
	But John Pike, a space analyst with the Federation of American
Scientists in Washington, questioned whether such a goal is politically
realistic.
	``The big question is, `Who's going to pay for it and why?''' Pike
said. ``The reasons he set out for doing moon and Mars have not really
generated the kind of political support for spending a half a trillion
dollars on this stuff.''
	Bush has proposed spending $15.2 billion for NASA in fiscal year
1991, an increase of 24 percent.
	Murray agreed the cost would be high, but not prohibitive.
	``What (Bush is) saying implies doubling the NASA budget by the end
of the century, certainly, if not before,'' Murray said. ``That's really
the issue that people have to face. Do we want to create this future, do
we want to have an image young people can aspire to, do we want to
distinguish ourselves from other nations by choosing to do something as
imaginative and as bold as this?''
	NASA currently is studying a variety of options for returning to
the moon and launching flights to Mars.
	Terence Finn, a planner with NASA's office of exploration, said
unlike the Apollo program, a flight to Mars will be part of a long-term
program to expand human presence into space.
	``We will do it step by step,'' Finn said. ``We're going to do
space station, we're going back to the moon, we're going to have robotic
spacecraft going to Mars. It isn't one grand flight.
	``We're not going to Mars to plant the flag and come home; we're
not going back to the moon the plant another flag and come home. It's
different. Unlike Apollo, this is for the long haul.''
	Pike said it would cost roughly $500 billion to build the space
station, return to the moon and launch a Mars mission. The cost of a
Mars project alone could run anywhere from $50 billion to $200 billion,
he said.

    RE .89 Good news lets hope Bush stays in office for the next 30 years.
    
    RE .88 This is exactly what I was thinking, just connect to a new tank
    when you want to go somewhere else. I wasn't suggesting that an
    existing shuttle should be used. In several places in this conference
    the Soviets are praised for developing on from existing equipment and
    NASA criticised for starting anew.
    
    Maybe a new vehicle would be cheaper, would development + production 
    costs of a new vehicle be larger than production costs of a shuttle ?
    
    If the shuttle is inappropriate, can I suggest that the new spacecraft
    might use LH2/LOX with connectable tanks. I read somewhere in the notes
    conference that a privately funded probe was going to orbit the moon
    looking for water at the poles. If frozen water is found on the moon,
    then use solar powered hydrolysis to produce H2 and O2 and use the
    natural cold of the dark side of the moon to liquify it. Then send
    these parasol covered tanks around the solar system by means of a
    rail-gun.
    
    A safer approach would be to send out 1 tank full of H2 and another
    full of O2, each tank would connect to a different side of the
    spacecraft. That would make docking safer, i.e. less chance of H2
    O2 and a spark getting together.
    
    What happens if the Soviets announce they are going to Mars in the
    next 25 years ?
    
    Brian.

    Oops, I meant electrolysis not hydrolysis in the previous note.
    
    Brian.

  "The natural cold of the dark side of the moon"?

  You're refering, of course, to any part of the moon currently in shadow,
right?  There is no constantly dark side of the moon...

John

>There is no constantly dark side of the moon...

HUH????????

monty

RE:       <<< Note 276.93 by 8269::MONTGOMERY "Lakers to the Undertakers" >>>

>HUH????????

The Moon rotates on its axis, just like the Earth does, with the result that
a given spot on the Moon's surface is in light for half a Moon day, and in
darkness for half a Moon day.  Thus there is no permanently dark/cold spot on
the Moon.

The moon's siderial rotation period (length of day) is equal to its period of
siderial revolution about the Earth (27 days 7 hours 43 minutes 11.5 seconds),
so that from Earth we happen to see the same hemisphere constantly facing us.
(This would say that 50% of the moon's surface is observable from the Earth.
The actual figure is about 59%, because of the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit
and other libration effects.)  The fact that the Moon changes phases is a
visual way to tell that all points on the Moon's surface experience both day
and night.
						-- Tom

There *is*, of course, a side of the moon which we never see from Earth.  This
has what has been (incorrectly) called "the dark side of the moon".

BTW, to shoot down another pet theory:  It used to be thought that Mercury had
a rotation synchronous to it revloution about the sun and that it truly did have
a dark side and a light side.  In the 70s, one of the Mariners determined that
it was actually not synchronous.  That means that it is just plain hot; not a
baked Alaska.

Burns

    	Actually, Mercury's 59 Earth-day rotation was discovered by radar
    from Earth in 1965.  By the time MARINER 10 first reached the small
    planet in 1974, scientists knew the 88-day rotation was incorrect.
    
    	Larry
               

    	re. 'dark side of the moon'... The moon does revolve about an axis,
    once every 28 days or so. I gather that axis is perpendicular to its
    direction of travel. Its direction of travel is not in the same plane
    as the earth's travel around the sun. Therefore, parts of the moon
    experience very long periods of night/day the same as our polar
    regions.
    	Is the above correct, or have I forgotten something? - Chris

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Carnegie Mellon University develops planetary robot for NASA 
Date: 17 May 90 18:31:18 GMT
Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Mary L. Sandy
Headquarters, Washington D.C.                        May 17, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-2754)                               10 a.m. EDT
 
Anne Watzman
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
(Phone:  412/268-2900)
  
    RELEASE:  90-69
 
    CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DEVELOPS PLANETARY ROBOT FOR NASA
  
     The "Ambler," a six-legged, 12-foot-tall, prototype, autonomous
robot with the "brains" and motor skills to explore rugged terrain, is
being developed for NASA by Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics
Institute, Pittsburgh. 
 
     NASA officials and university researchers say the Ambler's
technology could bring an important new dimension to solar system
exploration.  Because the robot literally walks, it can traverse rough
terrain by stepping over crevices and large boulders. Future
operational rovers, based on the Ambler design, could reach areas on
the Moon and Mars inaccessible to wheeled vehicles or too dangerous
for humans. 
 
     Since October 1987, three teams of researchers including Carnegie
Mellon graduate and undergraduate students have been developing the
algorithms, hardware and software necessary for the Ambler's
locomotion, perception and planning capabilities. The Ambler
represents an integrated, self-sufficient system that will be used to
provide NASA mission managers with the confidence that legged vehicles
are a realistic alternative to wheeled rovers for lunar and Martian
exploration. 
 
     The aluminum Ambler has two sets of stacked legs, with three legs
per stack.  These legs separately lift, advance and circulate to their
original positions, much like an egg beater. 
 
     "The body is propelled in a motion similar to cross-country
skiing," said Carnegie Mellon's William L. "Red" Whittaker, one of
three Ambler project principal investigators.  "A single leg reaches
out in front of the others, places itself firmly on the ground like a
ski pole and then pulls the machine forward." 
 
     Because the drive motors that support the Ambler's body are
separate from those that propel it, the robot remains level whether
it's walking on flat or rugged ground.  The design provides a stable
platform for sensors, scientific equipment and sample acquisition tools. 
 
     Above the legs, on the stacks, are boxes containing the machine's
electronics.  Above that, a cross bar connects the two sections.  The
electrically-powered Ambler will be energy efficient and can retain
its ability to walk even if it loses mobility in two legs. 
 
     The Ambler requires a set of sensors for its vision system.  With
input from this system, the robot creates three-dimensional maps of
the surrounding topography and objects it might be interested in
sampling.  After studying the maps, it decides in which direction to
move and where to place its feet. Future versions deployed on Mars
could combine the current laser sensing system with cameras, sonar and
other sensors to provide the full spectrum of information needed for
sampling and navigation. 
 
     "These machines will have to contend with rugged and soft
terrain, low temperatures, high winds, dust and equipment failure,"
said principal investigator Takeo Kanade.  "For autonomous operation
under such conditions, a good vision system is critical." 
 
     The Ambler's unique software control system, called Task Control
Architecture, enables the Ambler to plan for the selection of stable
and safe steps.  "The system is designed for robots that operate in
dynamic and uncertain environments," explained principal investigator
Thomas Mitchell.  "It uses a variety of sensors with different ranges
and resolutions to know where it is and see where it's going." 
 
     The Ambler recently took its first steps at the Carnegie Mellon
University's Robotics Institute.  The next step is integration of its
perception, planning and control capabilities. 
 
     The Ambler represents a new generation of robots to explore and
work in natural terrains.  The technology also has implications for
Earth-bound activities such as construction, mining, timbering,
hazardous waste management and emergency response. 
 
     The Ambler is one of the concepts being evaluated under NASA's
Planetary Rover program, which is developing robotic and manned
technology to explore lunar and planetary surfaces.  The program
initially is focused on unmanned rover technology with both legged 
and wheeled options being studied. 
 
     Planetary rovers must be able to make autonomous decisions
because of the long transmission times for commands between Earth and
planetary surfaces -- about 45 minutes one way to Mars.  "The intent
for the vehicles being designed is for them to be capable of operating
on their own with just a very general set of directions," notes David
B. Lavery, manager of NASA's Planetary Rover Program. 
 
     "Robots are not susceptible to temperature changes or radiation
exposure on the long flights required to reach the planets," added
Whittaker.  "They can spend protracted time on a mission that would be
impossible for an astronaut who requires close proximity to his or her
space ship." 
 
     A video clip and still photographs are available to media
organizations to support this release and can be requested from NASA
Headquarters by calling 202/453-8375. 
 
     Photo numbers are:
 
     Color   90-HC-305
     B/W     90-H-320
 
     The 8-minute video clip will be broadcast on NASA Select
television at noon EDT, Thursday, May 17.  NASA Select may be accessed
via Satcom F2R, transponder 13, frequency 3960 MHz, position 72
degrees West longitude, polarization vertical, audio monaural 6.8 MHz.

  Actually, all this talk of the 'dark side of the moon' is just 'another
brick in the wall'.

  George

    re : .99
    
    Are you joking or is this just a 'momentary lapse of reason' ?

    Re:.100
    
    	"Wish You Were Here", then you probably wouldn't "Meddle".
    
    		(I just couldn't resist!)
    
    				Drew
    

  "HEY TEACHER, LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!!!"

  GM

    Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun, and turn this lot into
    RELICS
             
    Ken

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: New Advanced Life Support Division established at NASA Ames (Forwarded)
Date: 25 May 90 18:51:32 GMT
Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 25, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-1547)
 
Jane Hutchison
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
(Phone:  415/604-4968) 
  
    RELEASE:  90-73
 
    NEW ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT DIVISION ESTABLISHED AT NASA AMES
  
     How can astronauts grow their own food, live and work on the moon
and safely explore the harsh environment of Mars? 
 
     Research into these and similar questions will be the prime focus
of the newly created Advanced Life Support Division at NASA's Ames
Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.  William E. Berry, who heads
the new organization, said the goal is to support President Bush's
plan for a permanent lunar settlement and an astronaut mission to Mars. 
 
     Berry said the new division, which consolidates such research
efforts at Ames under a single organization, will focus its efforts on
developing new technologies that will allow humans to live and work
productively in space for long periods of time. 
 
     As missions become longer and crews larger, storing or
resupplying food, water, oxygen and other consumables becomes
prohibitively expensive and difficult.  The life support system
necessary to meet crew members' daily needs without resupply consists
of several elements:  Thermal control, air revitalization and food,
water and solid waste management. 
 
     Berry's division has responsibility for developing several new
life support technologies, including: 
 
     "Closed-loop" life-support systems, using physical or chemical
means to generate nutrients, gases and liquids from waste products. 
Ames is the lead center for development of physical-chemical systems,
which use chemical processes to convert carbon dioxide, waste water
and solid wastes to breathable air, potable water and food. 
 
    A "bioregenerative, closed-loop" system, called Controlled
Ecological Life Support System (CELSS), using plants to produce food
and recycle water vapor, oxygen and carbon dioxide.  Work at Ames
emphasizes developing a crop growth research chamber and space flight
investigations to study the performance of CELSS technology in space
and to maximize the growth of edible plants under controlled conditions. 
 
    Creation of new space suits and portable life support systems. 
These technologies could be used in the exploration of Mars or the
lunar surface.  Included is the AX-5 space suit, an all-metal
high-pressure suit which for the first time will allow astronauts to
exit the shuttle or space station without first breathing pure oxygen
for several hours. 
 
     This "pre-breathe" phase is currently necessary to prevent the
"bends," a life-threatening condition resulting from the formation of
nitrogen bubbles in the blood stream. 
 
     Berry is conducting a nationwide search for scientists and
engineers to join his research and development team.  "We are looking
for talented, creative people who want to help develop the space
technology of the future," he said.  "The unique human habitats we
will build in space may provide technologies useful in solving some of
the critical environmental issues which we face on Earth today." 
 
     NASA news releases and other NASA information is available
electronically on CompuServe and GEnie, the General Electric Network
for Information Exchange.  For information on CompuServe, call
1-800-848-8199 and ask for representative 176.  For information on
GEnie, call 1-800-638-9636. 

re. 'dark side of the moon'...

  One final point. I was listening to WZLX count down the top 100 albums
of all time in terms of sales and and guess what beat out Sgt Pepper for
the number one selling album of all time?

  None other than Pink Floyd's 'Dark side of the moon'.

  How is this related to the mission to Mars? Easy, if you'll remember,
that's the album with the song.

  "Money, it's a drag ..."

  George

    Did anybody hear if there are any plans or just sugestions
    to study the Hellas crater on Mars. 
    
    It is one of the more interesting features on Mars, result of a 
    huge (tens/hundreds of kilometers) meteor impact.
    
    It is also the most hospitable place on the planet. Since its 3 Km
    below average elevation. Its the only place on Mars that water may
    exist as a liquid even temporarily. And it certainly has ice/water.
    
    In the the Southern Mars summer the temperature may reach 22 C,
    for a couple hours around noon. It is the only place on the planet
    where you may not die of explosive decompression if your space
    suit is holed. The pressure there being a few times higher then
    the normal 1/100 of an atmosphere on the rest of the planet.
    
    Gil

    	I believe the idea of exploding in space or on a planet with
    a thin atmosphere is a myth created by poor SF films.  There is 
    already a discussion on this in the DECWET::PHYSICS Conference.
    
    	If anyone wishes to corroborate/reject this, please continue
    the discussion in a separate Topic, if it does not directly relate
    to the exploration of Mars.
    
    
    	Larry
                                                                   

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Mars Rover Update (Forwarded)
Date: 21 Jun 90 16:30:07 GMT
Reply-To: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
 
    NASA'S JET PROPULSION LABORATORY TESTS PLANETARY ROVER
 
     Scientists and engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, Calif., have begun an extensive period of field testing of a
semi-autonomous navigation system on a computer-operated robotic
vehicle prototype for possible use in future planetary explorations. 
 
     Brian Wilcox, supervisor of the Robotic Sensing and Perception
Group, said the summer-long testing program would be carried out
mostly in the Pasadena Arroyo, a dry river bed, adjacent to JPL. 
 
     Developing new technologies, including a new generation of
planetary rovers, is seen as critical to the success and cost
effectiveness of the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) program
announced by President Bush last July.  The Planetary Rover project
will develop systems for the manned and unmanned vehicles needed for
surface transportation. 
 
     Surface transportation systems required by SEI include unmanned
rovers for outpost site survey and for regional robotic exploration
and science, piloted rovers for transportation both locally and long
range, and unmanned cargo handling, construction and mining. 
 
     Increased traverse distance, longer life and autonomous
operations are required for the unmanned roving vehicles for the
program.  Traverse distances of up to several kilometers per Earth day
and a mission life from 1 to 5 years are desired for the next
generation of robotic exploring vehicles. 
 
     The operation of an autonomous unmanned rover in a location
remote from Earth, such as the surface of Mars, with round-trip
communications time, at the speed of light, between 8 and 40 minutes,
involves an entirely unproven technology. 
 
     Two advanced forms of unmanned rover navigation are under
development at JPL.  They are computer-aided remote driving (CARD) and
semi-autonomous navigation (SAN). 
 
     The CARD technique allows a human operator to remotely drive a
vehicle by planning and identifying an extended (10s of meters)
obstacle-free path with a three dimensional display of images from
stereo cameras aboard the vehicle.  The path then is transmitted to
the vehicle for atonomous execution. 
 
     The SAN technique allows a human operator to determine a nominal
extended route (10s of kilometers) for the vehicle, with the specific
path taken by the vehicle around local obstacles determined
automatically from the rover's sensor data and stored data base. 
 
     JPL's prototype rover made its first, continuous semi-autonomous
navigation (SAN) traverse, in rough natural terrain, on May 7, 1990. 
 
     The navigation testbed is a six-wheeled, three-body, articulated
vehicle the experimenters call Robby.  It is about 13-feet long,
5-feet wide and more than 6.5-feet high.  Its 35- inch diameter wheels
and articulated body permit it to go over obstacles a meter high. 
 
     The 2,500-pound vehicle contains two computer systems, one for
perception and planning and one for control of the actuators in the
wheel drive and arm control.  The robotic arm has six links and 6
degrees of freedom with an additional pivot axis and gripper providing
two more degrees of freedom. 
 
     There are four cameras on the pan-tilt head capable of stereo
correlation to provide three-dimensional images of objects.  A motor
generator provides 3,500 watts of power and batteries provide 24 volts. 
 
     Other parts of the rover program include the development of
advanced mission operation, mobility and power technology at JPL; the
development of an innovative legged vehicle concept, as opposed to
using wheels, at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa.;
mission operations research at the Ames Research Center, Moffett
Field, Calif.; and piloted rover technology at the Marshall Space
Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. 

       _   _____    _
      | | |  __ \  | |       Ron Baalke           |  baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
      | | | |__) | | |       Jet Propulsion Lab   |  baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov
   ___| | |  ___/  | |___    M/S 301-355          |
  |_____/ |_|      |_____|   Pasadena, CA 91109   |

Date: 8 Aug 90 04:51:52 GMT
From: ksr!clj%ksr.com@uunet.uu.net  (Chris Jones)
Subject: von Braun's "The Mars Project"
 
    About a week ago a library I frequent was dumping its excess books
as a fund raising tactic, and for a dollar I picked up a book called
"The Mars Project", written by Werner von Braun and published in 1953
(and based on a special issue of the German magazine "Weltraumfahrt"
which was published in 1952).  After skimming it in the meantime, I
can say that this is a fantastic book in several senses of the word. 
 
    In it, von Braun lays out the plans for a manned expedition to
Mars.  His scheme is a combination of Earth Orbit Rendezvous to
assemble the interplanetary fleet of 10 ships, and Mars Orbit
Rendezvous as only 3 of the 10 are actually equipped to land on Mars
(I found this interesting, given von Braun's initial reluctance to
embrace Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, the method eventually employed, during
the planning of the Apollo project). He discourses on the ferry
vessels, construction of interplanetary craft, orbital mechanics,
rocketry, and radio communications. 
 
    The orbital mechanics portions of the book I found to be
excellent.  He talks about a launch into LEO (1075 mi above Earth's
surface, giving a period of 2 h) which I imagine is out of the question 
given the existence of the inner Van Allen belt.  He goes into pretty 
hairy detail about the various maneuvers which have to be made. 
 
    This expedition would have been composed of "not less than 70
men".  Of these, about 50 would land in the "landing boats" for an
approximately 400 day stay on on Mars.  Based on albedo measurements,
he incorrectly believed that Mars has an atmosphere sufficient to
allow large winged vessels to land.  Of the three landing boats, one
would be equipped with skis and unable to lift off from Mars.  The
plan was to land it in a polar region, embark on land craft, travel to
the equator, and prepare the landing strip for the other two landing
boats. The entire contingent of 50 men would return in the two
equatorial craft, thence to be rocketed back to Earth orbit. 
 
    I've saved the best part for last.  He goes into the rocketry
necessary to pull this off, and it just made my mouth drop.  He
envisions a fleet of 46 reusable three stage rockets, each flying
every 10 days for 8 months (and he generously allows 6 of them to be
out of commission at any time) for a total of 950 flights.  The
rockets are totally reusable, of course (parachute recovery for the
first two stages, winged gliding reentry for the third).  Of the 10
days between flights, 3 are allocated to getting the hardware back to
the launch site, and 7 "for inspection, reconditioning, and reassembly
of the three stages."  These rockets would be fueled by "hydrazine
(N2H4) and nitric acid (HNO3).  These propellants remain in the liquid
phase at normal temperatures." He mentions that "The use of liquified
gases as propellants is purposely avoided.  In theory, liquid hydrogen
and oxygen would save a great deal of weight, but their low boiling
points would immensely complicate the supply and logistic problem,
probably to such a degree that no gain would result." 
 
    In metric tons, he gives the thrust of the ferry rockets as
follows.  For comparison, I have put the respective thrusts of the
Saturn V, a von Braun design which was actually manufactured, alongside. 
 
	      3 Stage Ferry    Saturn V
Stage 1:	12,800 t	3500 t
Stage 2:	 1,600 t	 450 t
Stage 3:	   200 t	  91 t
 
    So, man, this sucker would have been big!  The book doesn't have
any photographs, unsurprisingly, or even line drawings of the ferry
craft, but it assumes, for its aerodynamic calculations, that the
first stage would be 20 m in diameter, the second stage would slope
from there to 9.8 m, and the third stage would be some kind of glider
which would be 15 m long with a wing span of 52 m.  Whew! 
 
    In case I haven't made it clear yet, I love this book.  It's
amazing to me all of the things von Braun considered back when I was
floating in a womb, and it's sobering to realize how much harder the
problem got in the meantime.  If you ever see the book, I recommend
you pick it up.  Mine certainly isn't for sale, and it's one of the
best bucks I ever laid out. 
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
 

    A famous artist whose name escapes me did an acclaimed set of paintings
    for Collier's Magazine in 1953 detailing the von Braun scheme.  I've
    been looking for copies of this mag for years at flea markets, used
    book/magazine stores, and library sales with no success.

    The author of .109 is right, its an amazing book.  Well worth a read
    for any rocket/early space nuts.

    re: .109, .110
    
    Disney did a show on von Braun's ideas at the end of its first season,
    1955 (I think; I was only 10 years old so I don't remember the date
    for sure).  The Disney animators did a good job on the ferry vehicles
    and the orbit-to-orbit rockets.  However, I think they postulated a
    long-burning, low thrust engine for getting to Mars orbit.
    
    I suspect a lot of the people who worked on Apollo saw the von Braun
    episode of Disneyland.  He's a good persuader.
        John Sauter

    Re:.110
    	I've seen the book in question and I am fairly sure that the artist
    that did the paintings for van Braun was Bonestell (sp?).
    
    					Drew
    

    This was discussed as followups to the original posting in Usenet. If
    people are going to post this kind of thing from Usenet, it seems to me
    that they should post the followups.
    
    The pictures are by Bonestell, from the famous series of articles that
    appeared in Colliers' magazine in the late 50s. Von Braun was either
    the author or advisor for these articles. Another design from these
    articles was the rotating wheel space station.
    
    Von Braun had been pushing a plan to send 50 men and tractors to the
    moon, followed by 70 men and more tractors to Mars using technology
    that was available at that time. The first stage of the launch vehicle
    was to have been powered by hydrazine/fuming nitric acid and would have
    had 50-70 combustion chambers. It appears in a number of 50s vintage
    books about space exploration.
    
    There were even plastic kits of these available, which were reissued in
    the early 80s. I have the reissues of above mentioned launch vehicle
    and a 'lunar shuttle'.
    
    gary

I remember seeing a Disney movie in grade school called Mars and Beyond.  It
had a section on a proposed trip to Mars using a fleet of saucers with booms
attached below that housed the engine.  These ships would spiral out from the
Earth into a transfer orbit to Mars.  They would then spiral into the Martian
gravity well.  There were some fanciful speculation on the types of life that
might be found on Mars.  I remember being thrilled by it and wanting to be an
astronaut on that mission.  It one of the things that got me interested in 
space.  Is this the same stuff described in one of the previous replies?

Wook

    re: .114
    
    It is exactly what I was describing.  I only saw it once, in 1955, but
    I still remember it.
        John Sauter

    re .114
    
    That movie, and another detailing a moon mission, were also shown on
    the Disney TV show (I remember watching them). I think they may have
    been shown on the Disney channel as well.
    
    gary

    
    
      A while back someone mentioned the fact that the trip to the
    moon/mars wouldn't need wings or a heat shield and that a new vehicle
    should be built "from scratch" (here we go, making the same mistakes
    again).
    
      Someone else pointed out that there are only four (I think) and
    that one could not be spared.
    
      Why not add to the fleet by building a new class or two of shuttle?
    First - build one without wings or tiles (several thousand pounds
    lighter and therefore more cargo/fuel lift capacity) and park it
    in orbit like you would leave a camper at a campgrounds for weekend
    use in the summer. I expect I will hear all about how the shuttle
    requires maintenance, but if it is so unreliable as to have an MTBF
    (excluding the persistant fuel leaks that have been plagueing the
    thing lately) of less than 2 months it should NEVER fly again in
    any form!
    
    Second - build one without sleeping quarters. Strictly a (arbitrarilly)
    four person straight up, unload and straight back function. 
    
    Frankly - if we weren't relying on the motors (or are they engines?!?)
    on the back of the thing, we could be slinging virtually anything
    at all on to the SRB's (along with a "black box" guidance/control
    module that could be 2'X80' between the SRB's).
    
    Would this not constitute a "heavy lift vehicle"?
    
    Blissfully.
    Rob Wall
     
    

    re .117
    
    Removing "several thousand pounds" from the current shuttle only
    produces an additional 2-4 tons lift. We're looking for an order of
    magnitude or more improvement to be useful. 

From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Mars Rover Update - 10/03/90
Date: 4 Oct 90 20:11:31 GMT
Sender: news@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
  
                    Mars Rover Update
                     October 3, 1990
 
     The Mars Rover being developed at Jet Propulsion Lab (nicknamed
"Robby") successfully picked its way along a rocky, dried-out riverbed
without human guidance.  This is the first time that an autonomous
vehicle has ever navigated rugged terrain without the aid of a human
navigator. 
 
     The test is a milestone in developing a planet-roving vehicle
which could explore Mars to find suitable landing sites for a human
expedition.  The rover took four hours and twenty minutes to navigate
a 109-foot-long course in Pasadena's Arroyo Seco, a dry riverbed
adjacent to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Mars Rover Update - 10/03/90
Date: 8 Oct 90 17:00:14 GMT
Sender: news@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
 
    In article <1990Oct4.201131.4109@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.
  gov (Ron Baalke) writes: 

>                    Mars Rover Update
>                     October 3, 1990
> 
>The rover took four hours and twenty minutes to
>navigate a 109-foot-long course in Pasadena's Arroyo Seco, a dry
>riverbed adjacent to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
 
    Correction:  The course the rover navigated was 109 METERS, not 109 feet.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |


From: BUNGE@OSU-20.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Robert Bunge)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Dust storm on Mars
Date: 6 Oct 90 02:06:29 GMT
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
 
    I'm passing this message on from a friend, Brent Archinal at the
Naval (U.S.) Naval Observatory (which isn't on the net).  
 
    Jeff Beish, of the U. S. Naval Observatory Miami Station and the
Mars Coordinator for the Association of Lunar and Planetary observers,
has reported that members of the International Mars Patrol have
discovered a dust storm on Mars.  It was apparently originally seen
(on October 3?) in the Chryse area, and was seen today (Oct. 5) at
05:40 UT at 40 degrees W longitude and 12 degrees S latitude over the
Eos area (moving there from 3 degrees W and 0 degrees latitude the
previous day).  It is therefore currently moving in the unusual
direction of southwest at the unusually high speed of 390 miles/day,
and should soon be in the Solis Lacus area (80 degrees W, 25 degrees
S).  This could turn into a major Martian dust storm but its
unexpected movements make predictions difficult to make.  The cloud
should appear yellowish in contrast to the reddish background of Mars.
 
    Geoff Chester has calculated that Sunday morning at 5 AM EDT may
be the best upcoming time for viewing it, with the Mars central
meridian then at about 41 degrees W.  Much of the United States also
promises to be clear for the next few days, especially in the eastern
U.S., so make sure you get out there and take a look!
-------------------
    Good luck!
 
    Bob Bunge
    bunge@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu

From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: JPL Mars Rover article
Date: 18 Dec 90 02:56:32 GMT
Sender: news@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
 
Ad Astra, December 1990
 
"Auto-Piloting"
 
     There's a little patch of Mars out on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's
back lot.  The rugged arroyo dry river terrain near the JPL facility in
Pasadena, California, is the site for a recent test of "Robby", a
semi-autonomous navigation system for a planet-roving vehicle.
 
     Last September, JPL engineers put Robby through its paces.  The device
covered a 100-meter course in less than four and a half hours, cautiously
moving about two meters at a time, then stopping to survey the next two
meters.
 
     Certainly, as far as speed goes, Robby will never get a traffic ticket.
What the test demonstrated, however, was that the vehicle's stereo ranging
cameras perceived the terrain ahead of its wheels in three dimensions.
Using artificial intelligence, the rover plotted out, without human help,
a safe route acrosst the arroyo.
 
     According to Roger Bedard Jr., JPL's planetary rover project manager,
the 1000 kilogram Robby is a six-wheeled, three-body articulated vehicle.
It measures four meters long, one and a half meters wide and two and a half
meters high.  It comes complete with a commercial robot arm attached to it
fron body.
 
     JPL space engineers have long-range technology development goal for a
self-contained rover to travers 20 kilometers in on day.
 
     Rover are being considered for many applications.  JPL's overall program
is dedicated to develop both Lunar and planetary rovers for exploration,
mining and construction tasks.  Roving devices are expected to play key
roles as precursors for the Space Exploration Initiative, specifically to
provide an all-clear before humans touch down on Mars.  The Soviet Union,
France and Japan also have technology development programs for building
autonomous planetary rovers.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |


From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Soviet Mars Rover article
Date: 18 Dec 90 02:58:50 GMT
Sender: news@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
 
Ad Astra, December 1990
 
"Failed Soviet Mars Rovers"
 
     Soviet space engineers have revealed more than 20 years after the fact
that two mini rovers were onboard the Soviet Mars 2 and Mars 3 spacecraft
that reached the Red Planet in 1971.  The rovers never had a chance to strut
their stuff, however, as Mars 2 crashed into the planet and the Mars 3
lander appears to have been blown over by an intense dust storm just 20
seconds after touchdown.
 
     According to Alexander Kermurjian, chief designer of the Soviet Union's
Industrial Transport Institute, the rovers were to scoot across the Martian
surface attached to their main landers by a 15-meter tether.  The devices
carried tiny sensors to measure surface strength and density on Mars' soil.
 
     The robotic revelations were discussed by Kermurjian in a recent issue
of The Planetary Report, a publication of The Planetary Society.
 
     The spacecraft designer is now busily working on mobility systems for
future roving devices the Soviet Union hopes to dispatch to Mars in future
years.

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headlines for 01/29/91 (Forwarded)
Date: 29 Jan 91 18:04:55 GMT
Sender: news@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. 
 
             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters
 
  Tuesday, January 29, 1991	Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788
 
This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 29, 1991
 
NASA and the National Science Foundation signed an agreement yesterday
which will allow NASA scientists to use the Antarctic to conduct basic
scientific and technical research, which could be directly applicable
to the development of a Moon base or Mars journey.  The NSF manages
U.S. research activities on the barren continent and has more than 33
years of Antarctica experience.  NASA Code S and Code R scientists
will use the continentUs harsh environment as a testbed for the
development of such technologies as life support, environmental
control, energy generation and storage, and human behavior and
performance.  According to the NSF and NASA scientists, the Antarctic
climate, terrain, temperature and isolation closely parallel the
conditions which would exist during long- duration space missions and
thus provides a testbed for prototype lunar and Mars systems. 
 	
Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA 
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.  **indicates a live program.
  
Tuesday, 1/29/91
	12:00 pm	NASA Productions will be transmitted.
 
	2:30 pm	**NASA Educational Affairs video conference on
SEEDS project.  This is an interactive video program involving
students, teachers, and program scientists.  It will be
transmitted on Westar IV, channel 19, but will be available on
the NASA Headquarters internal video distribution system.
 
Wednesday, 1/20/91
	1:15 pm	**Magellan-at-Venus report from Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
 
NASA Select TV:  Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72
degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz.
 
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | 
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.military
Subject: Nuclear rockets needed for Mars flight
Date: 15 Mar 91 19:39:11 GMT
  
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A NASA advisory group will recommend
development of nuclear reactor-powered rockets, which could propel
manned spacecraft to Mars in roughly half the time required by
conventional systems, a magazine reported Friday. 

	Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports in its March
18 issue that the panel, known as the Synthesis Group, is scheduled to
report to NASA and Vice President Dan Quayle, chairman of the National
Space Council, in early May. 

	``If we're going to be serious about exploring space, we're
going to have to come up with something better than chemical
rockets,'' astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz told Aviation Week. 

	The White House asked the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration last summer to convene the Synthesis Group, headed by
former Apollo astronaut Thomas Stafford, to gather new ideas for ways
to explore the Moon and Mars. 

	``The Synthesis Group emphasis on nuclear propulsion is
sparking a flurry of activity inside and outside the U.S. space
agency,'' Aviation Week reported. ``Increasingly, nuclear rockets are
seen as the most practical means of sending explorers to Mars and the
only possible vehicles for visiting other planets.'' 

	Using traditional chemical rocket technology like that
employed by the old Saturn moon rockets and NASA's space shuttle,
astronauts would need at least a year and possibly up to 500 days to
travel from Earth to Mars.  One way. 

	Nuclear propulsion, on the other hand, could cut the travel
time to 150 to 300 days, Aviation Week reported. Chang-Diaz said he
believes such technology ultimately could result in 60- to 90-day
trips to the Red Planet. 

	The Bush administration is seeking $7 million for NASA and $14
million for the Energy Department for nuclear propulsion research in
fiscal 1992. 

	Nuclear propulsion should not be confused with the
``radioisotope thermoelectric generator'' technology used by NASA to
provide electrical power for interplanetary probes like the Pioneer,
Voyager, and Galileo probes to the outer planets. 

	Two nuclear propulsion approaches currently are envisioned.

	In one, a fission reactor would be used to heat a propellant
such as hydrogen to extremely high temperatures, providing a large
thrust. The other approach involves heating hydrogen or argon to
extreme temperatures with a reactor and utilizing electrical effects
to provide push. 

	One major problem facing any effort to develop nuclear space
propulsion is a vocal anti-nuclear lobby that has protested such
programs in the past. 

	Chang-Diaz, a nuclear physicist, said the uranium fuel for any
such propulsion system would not be radioactive until the reactor was
turned on in space. But he cautioned that NASA will have to adequately
address the safety issue if the project goes forward. 

    Re -1
    
    Something is screwed up here. 
    
    The minimum energy orbit, from Earth to Mars only takes about six 
    months or 180 days. Using chemical or nuclear engines doesn't change
    this.
    
    The advantage of nuclear engines, is the possibility to do it with
    half or less of the fuel needed using chemical engines. OR if you
    choose you could use the same mass of fuel, and have more payload
    instead. OR same fuel and payload but do the trip in less time.
    
    Me when I think of the cost of lifting a ton of hydrogen to Earth
    orbit, and how many tons the Maned Mars ship will need (thousands!!!)
    I think they will opt for having the same payload and trip time
    and save half of the fuel mass.
    
    The trip time choises, are given back in reply .46 of the topic.
    
    Gil

*      <<< Note 276.123 by ADVAX::KLAES "All the Universe, or nothing!" >>>
*                      -< Nuclear power for Mars missions >-


*	Two nuclear propulsion approaches currently are envisioned.

*	In one, a fission reactor would be used to heat a propellant
*such as hydrogen to extremely high temperatures, providing a large
*thrust. The other approach involves heating hydrogen or argon to
*extreme temperatures with a reactor and utilizing electrical effects
*to provide push. 

Was there any subsequent mention of them digging up the old NERVA project
results?  I seem to remember the researchers got ~3000 s. specific impulse
out of the sucker.

*	One major problem facing any effort to develop nuclear space
*propulsion is a vocal anti-nuclear lobby that has protested such
*programs in the past. 

I vote we use them as reaction mass.  At least that way they can constructively
(destructively?) contribute.

Re: .125, applicability of NERVA data

The AW&ST article quoted in .123 had a comment from a Westinghouse engineer
who estimated the value of NERVA research at $6-10 billion in 1991 dollars.  The
Westinghouse contact also said much of the NERVA data would be applicable to 
the new effort.

re spacing nuke protesters:

Cummon...there is a legitimate point here.  Nuclear material *is* dangerous.
It is a legitimate point of view that the risk of possibly spreading it through
the atmosphere is not worth what (to some) may be a dubious goal to begin with.
We don't have to agree, but we have to consider their opinion in order to
counter their arguments.

For example, the fuel in a nuclear engine before it is ever run is not nearly
as dangerous as it is when it contains waste products.  Maybe a nuclear engine
save a lot of pollution that would come from manufacturing the fuel that the
spacecraft would otherwise use.  Etc etc.

Burns

    I'll post the article here. Unfortunately I can't post the nifty
    illustrations. Check out your local library.
    
    Mike H
    
    Copied without permission from -
    Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 18, 1991
    
    NUCLEAR ROCKETS GAIN SUPPORT FOR PROPELLING MARS MISSION
    
    James R. Asker/Washington
    
    The White House "Synthesis Group" defining U.S lunar base/Mars mission
    options will strongly recommend development of nuclear reactor powered
    rockets to propel manned spacecraft to Mars much faster than
    conventional rocket systems.
    
    If adopted and developed, nuclear propulsion would revolutionize space
    travel, enabling not only quick trips to Mars but also manned missions
    to the deepest reaches of the solar system.
    
    The Synthesis Group is due to report to Vice President Dan Quayle, the
    National Space Council and NASA about May 1 on exploring the Moon and
    Mars. NASA astronauts were briefed on the plan this month.
    
    The Synthesis Group emphasis on nuclear propulsion is sparking a flurry
    of activity inside and outside the U.S. space agency. Increasingly,
    nuclear rockets are seen as the most practtical means of sending
    explorers to Mars and the only possible vehicles for visiting other
    planets.
    
    "If we're going to be serious about exploring space, we're going to
    have to come up with something better than chemical rockets," astronaut
    Franklin Chang-Diaz told Aviation Week & Space Technology.
    
    The White House asked NASA to convene the Synthesis Group last summer
    to gather innovative ideas for manned lunar and Mars exploration. The
    group will offer four scenarios for reaching Mars, and all four will
    call for nuclear rockets.
    
    The panel, chaired by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, a
    former Apollo astronaut, is expected to differ with a recommendation of
    another blue-ribbon panel, the Augustine Committee on the Future of the
    U.S. Space Program.
    
    Officials familiar with Stafford's Synthesis Group work said it's
    members will reject an open-ended approach to scheduling a Mars mission
    and urge the U.S. to stick to a timetable for returning to the Moon and
    going to Mars. Target dates discussed for landing astronauts on Mars
    are 2015-18.
    
    The new emphasis on nuclear propulsion for manned space exploration is
    seen as a way to accelerate critical industrial technologies. Although
    not often articulated, that goal -- advancing U.S. economic
    competitiveness -- underlies much of the Bush Admisitration's interest
    in lunar and Mars missions.
    
    NASA TO BEGIN PROGRAM
    Important developments include:
    
    o This week, NASA's Lewis Research Center in Cleveland will inaugurate
    a nuclear propulsion program with the goal of building and
    ground-testing a rocket engine so space flight qualification can begin
    by 2006.
    
    o Also this week, Boeing Space and Defense Group in Huntsville, Ala.,
    will beliver its analysis of space exploration transfer vehicle
    concepts to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, also in Huntsville.
    After examining chemical, solar electric, nuclear thermal and nuclear
    electric propulsion technologies for spacecraft to Mars, Boeing
    recommends nuclear thermal. The cover of this weeks Aviation Week shows
    an artists concept of such a spacecraft.
    
    o The administraion is seeking approval in Congress of $7 million for
    NASA and $14 million for the Energy Dept. for research on nuclear
    propulsion in Fiscal 1992. Although the initial request is small
    expectations of growth have led industry, university and national
    laboratory tesms to form for work on specific concepts.
    
    "There's a great deal of enthusiasm in the community, a lot of good
    ideas out there," Thomas J. Miller, NASA's chief of nuclear propulsion,
    said. "It's the next generation in space propulsion."
    
    Nuclear propulsion -- not to be confused with nulcear power for
    spacecraft, that is, using a reactor or radioisotopic heaters to
    generate electricity -- would power a rocket engine one of two basic
    ways.
    
    In one approach, called nuclear thermal, a fission reactor is used to
    heat a propellant. Hydrogen would reach 2,400-3,000K before spewing out
    the nozzle. That is much hotter than the hydrogen in a space shuttle
    main engine and hence more energetic.
    
    In another approach, called nuclear electric propulsion, argon or
    hydrogen becomes so hot it turns into plasma and propels through
    electrostatic or electromagnetic force.
    
    Chang-Diaz -- a nuclear physicist himself -- and nuclear fusion
    researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with funding
    by NASA and the Air Force, have built a nuclear electric plasma rocket
    that can produce 800-30,000 sec. specific impulse. He said the team is
    proposing to build a version to be deployed from the space shuttle and
    tested in orbit.
    
    Chang-Diaz, who has been assigned by NASA to work on the Space
    Exploration Initiative, said, however, it is the nuclear thermal
    engine that could deliver two things in a Mars spacecraft that
    astronauts want.
    
    First, its high specific impulse would cut travel time to the red
    planet. Transit times between Earth orbit and Mars orbit typically are
    pegged at 450-500 days with chemical rockets. Specialists say nuclear
    can bring that down to 150-300 days. And Chang-Diaz believes nuclear
    propulsion ultimately could offer 60-90-day trips to Mars.
    
    The worries about long trips are many, everything from spacecraft
    component reliability to the crew's boredom and loneliness. But the
    chief concern is about exposing the astronauts to solar and galactic
    radiation.
    
    "It's ironic that we are going to have to use nuclear power to minimize
    the radiation threat," Chang-Diaz said.
    
    Some slow, low powered mission profiles call for flying by Venus for a
    gravity assist to accelerate toward Mars. "That just takes you too
    close to the Sun," Chang-Diaz said, noting radiation from an
    unpredictable solar eruption could kill the crew.
    
    Second, nuclear thermal promises high thrust engines, which greatly
    expand the possible abort modes, the astronaut said.
    
    One way or another, he warned, "We're probably going to lose a crew if
    we have a rinky-dink kind of motor."
    
    A Boeing concept for a Mars transfer vehicle envisions assembling in
    Earth orbit a hydrogen thermal rocket powered by a 4-5-ton 1,500-W
    nuclear reactor according to Gordon Woodcock, manager of the study for
    Marshall.
    
    Brent Sherwood, lead engineer on the $7 million, 36 month study said,
    "Large missions, small missions -- the nuclear thermal rocket would
    give us good return on investment because of its flexibilty and high
    performance."
    
    As early as 1956, U.S. scientists conducted experiments to develop
    space nuclear propulsion systems. Later, projects called Nerva and
    Rover succeeded in testing nuclear thermal rockets on the ground. The
    efforts were canceled in 1972 as space propulsion development began to
    focus on the shuttle.
    
    David Black of Westinghouse, the Nerva reactor contractor, estimates
    the Nerva technical work value in 1991 is $6-$10 billion. NASA's Thomas
    said much of that work could be applied today with advances in
    computers and materials since the 1970s. He said the new federal effort
    aims first to advance technologies further, though, and will avoid
    focusing early on a specific propulsion concept.
    
    The U.S. space nuclear propulsion effort faces pitfalls:
    
    o Public concerns about nuclear power could lead politicians to
    scuttle the work. Chang-Diaz pointed out the uranium fuel for a space
    propulsion reactor would not be radioactive when the unit is launched
    but added that NASA must allay fears about safety if the project is to
    succeed.
    
    o Cutting-edge nuclear projects -- fusion energy research being a prime
    example --  are notorious budget busters. Thomas said projecting costs
    of developing a fullscale nuclear rocket is "very difficult."
    
    o The desire for greater rocket performance may lead to a commitment to
    an exotic reactor configuration that is promising but difficult to
    develop.
    
    One nuclear industry insider said, "They're doing a lot of evaluation
    by rocket people and not enough by reactor people."
    
    o Concentration on the glamorous side of research may mean neglect of
    important supporting technologies.
    
    A NASA engineer complainded that "either way you go, chemical or
    nuclear, you're going to need new ways to store and handle liquid
    hydrogen. But what's the funding for cryogenic technology? Zero!"

Another possible engine might be the aneutronic reactor.  AE labs (New Jersey)
received 18 million from the air force about 2 years ago.  I haven't inquired
as to how the research came out on that grant.  Then we could start talking
about nuclear-electric engines.  And the nice thing about them is the low
amount of radiation produced (compared to conventionally used reactions).

How do you get fission reactions without using neutrons?  Or is it a
matter of the neutrons being more efficiently consumed in the
reaction?

Actually, that sounds like a nice SF title:

Tom Swift and his Aneutronic Reactor

Burns

Aneutronic reactions - More details when I get home.

  I don't like this idea. History shows us that when space projects get
too complicated, they don't work. Simple is the way to go.

  Space travel already is low on popular support and this will add a major
negative in that area.

  As for safety, how many of these things is a typical spacecraft going to
carry? What happens if the spacecraft is on a high energy trajectory on it's
way to Mars and the thing fails? Looks to me like the crew makes a hyperbolic
sail past Mars and then off into the cosmos.

  A better plan would be a simple space station (Skylab++) to solve the
problems of people living and working in space for long periods of time, then
an LH2 system to push the space craft away from Earth, Mars aero-breaking,
LEM++ lander, solid fuel for the return, and more aero-breaking back at Earth. 

  At least that sounds like it might work,
  George

Re: .133

>As for safety, how many of these things is a typical spacecraft going to
>carry? What happens if the spacecraft is on a high energy trajectory on it's
>way to Mars and the thing fails? Looks to me like the crew makes a hyperbolic
>sail past Mars and then off into the cosmos.

In no way do I claim to understand orbital dynamics, but if you're implying
that a "free-return" trajectory (e.g., Apollo) be used - I don't think
that is possible/practical for a Mars mission, since Mars doesn't orbit
the earth and the trajectory changes needed to maintain that would be
constant (and I would guess massive).

If anyone can explain how I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept a free lesson :-)


As the news article stated, the astronauts are far more worried about
solar/cosmic radiation than they are about being bored/cramped up.  Every
pound you add to the ship requires a longer trip or bigger pop.

Did anyone read Mike Collins book on travelling to Mars?  There were some
excerpts in some magazine.  In recognition of the danger of solar flares
one of the ships (he had two connection ships travelling there) had a
"storm cellar" which had maximum shielding (under the aeroshell) for
such events.


- dave

  It's not so much a matter of free return, it's more a matter of speed.
As I understand it, the way a high energy system cuts down on a trip to Mars is
to use a trajectory which is hyperbolic with the sun at it's focus point
rather than a Holman Transfer which is an ellipse with the close point being
near Earth orbit and the far point being near Mars orbit.

  With a standard engine system, if a slightly better than Holman transfer were
planed, and an engine were to fail, there would be a chance of using a Holman
transfer to return to earth. 

  However, if a nuclear engine cranked the speed up to two or three times the
normal transfer speed in order to use a hyperbolic trajectory to Mars, if the
engine failed, there would be no way for them to stop. It's unlikely that a
clever flyby of Mars would help much either, they would be off to the cosmos.

  Perhaps they are planning to use several smaller engines but it still
sounds like there is some risk going at those speeds and depending on that
same engine to slow down.

  George

    Re: The last few
    
    	Yes, the very high energy trajectories made possible with nuclear
    engines (thus significantly decreasing travel time) would result in the
    spacecraft escaping the solar system in the event of an engine failure.
    	And yes, there are families of trajectories that would allow a free
    return to Earth in the event of an engine failure. These trajectories
    usually involve speeds that can be "easily" attained using chemical
    rockets.
    	Finally as far as the debate about chemical vs nuclear engines,
    there are valid points to be made for both methods. Personally I'd like
    to see the use of nuclear engines. The mass that can be delivered to a
    target can be greater, travel time can be reduced, the engines
    themselves when not being used for propulsion can be used as a power
    source (something not mentioned in the more recent reports but figured
    prominently in plans in the 60s and early 70s), and this technology
    would open up the entire solar system for manned and relatively quick
    unmanned missions. As far as the complexities of a nuclear engine, they
    are mechanicly no more complicated than the run-of-the-mill chemical
    rocket (NERVA had much fewer parts than a Shuttle SSME yet delivered
    better than twice the performance).
    
    					Drew
    

While I would guess that a free return might possible, I would also guess that
the constraints on it would be such that the free-return version would not
usually be used.  Low energy transfer orbits are solar orbits which touch
both the source and the destination.  So assuming that the slow-down rocket
fails at the destination, you should at least come back to the orbit of the
source.  However, the source (i.e. Earth) is not necessarily going to be there
at the same time the returning spacecraft is unless you are very clever.

In any case, my guess would be that the difference between an engine failure
on a high vs low energy trajectory would be whether or not the crew was too
far from Earth to be in radio contact when they died.

Burns

re .128

>    The new emphasis on nuclear propulsion for manned space exploration is
>    seen as a way to accelerate critical industrial technologies. Although
>    not often articulated, that goal -- advancing U.S. economic
>    competitiveness -- underlies much of the Bush Admisitration's interest
>    in lunar and Mars missions.

I think this is a great emphasis.  I wonder tho, how does nuclear propulsion
accelerate critical industrial technologies?

I think the best thing that NASA or the government could do for U.S.
competitiveness is NASP.  I think the next 747 (the most profitable airplane
ever made) will be a hst (hypersonic transport).

Tony

Not sure if this is the right topic for this, but continuing the nuclear 
propulsion string . . .

Today's NY Times has an article by William J. Broad describing a secret US
program called Timberwind, apparently funded by SDIO, to develop a nuclear 
engine for use *in the atmosphere*.  Reactor temperature 3000F, Isp 900 sec, 
sized for an ALS C-7 class launch vehicle (50-70 tons to LEO).  Project was 
approved by the Defense Science Board last year.  Fuel pellet tests are 
underway at Sandia.  Ground testing is scheduled for DOE Nevada Test Site.  
Flight vehicle to be tested in the southern hemisphere near Antartica.
Some utility for NASA civilian deep space missions is implied.

Project information was leaked to the Federation of American Scientists, who
in turn leaked it to Broad.  FAS is apoplectic at the thought of such a system,
as you might imagine.

RE     <<< Note 276.137 by DECWIN::FISHER "Pursuing an untamed ornothoid" >>>

>While I would guess that a free return might possible, I would also guess that
>the constraints on it would be such that the free-return version would not
>usually be used.

  I don't think anyone is arguing against that. However, there may well be
"almost free return" trajectories that could be done with a small subset of
engines if the spacecraft were moving near planet orbit speeds. Also, there
would be a good possibility of a rescue by either another spacecraft or
unmanned cargo ship with spare parts if the ship were in an Earth Mars Holman
transfer orbit. 

  However if the speed were cranked up to 120,000 to 160,000 mph leaving Earth,
an engine failure would be impossible to recover from. 

  I guess that having a larger number of small nuclear engines rather than
a few big ones would address this problem but my main point was that the
negative public reaction may well hurt the program more than the added
physical boost will help.

  George

Article         1630
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROB STEIN, UPI Science Editor)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.gov.agency,clari.tw.science
Subject: Panel proposes options for returning to moon, exploring Mars
Date: 11 Jun 91 18:24:35 GMT
  
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A White House panel Tuesday outlined four
strategies for future U.S. space exploration that call for returning
to the Moon early in the next century and completing the first human
trip to Mars in the year 2014. 

	The panel also outlined a number of bureaucratic steps and
technological programs, including developing a nuclear-powered rocket,
to enable the nation to continue manned space exploration into the
next century. 

	The group also endorsed NASA's proposed space station Freedom,
which has been struggling to win funding in Congress. 

	``Leading world powers have always explored and profited from
new frontiers and territories,'' said former Apollo astronaut Thomas
Stafford, who chaired the panel known as the Synthesis Group. 

	``Space is the new frontier of the industrialized world in the
21st century,'' he said at a news conference where the report was
released. ``As Americans, we must ask ourselves what our role will be
in man's expansion into the solar system: To lead, follow or stand aside.'' 

	Vice President Dan Quayle, chairman of the National Space
Council, appointed the 27-member group of experts from government,
industry and academia 10 months ago to explore how best to carry out
President Bush's proposed Space Exploration Inititative (SEI). 

	``By starting the Space Exploration Initiative now, we can
enable America to lead humanity on its inevitable path into space and
toward the brighter future,'' said Stafford, who orbited the Moon as
commander of the Apollo 10 mission in 1969.

	Quayle praised the 180-page report, ``America at the
Threshold,'' and said the National Space Council would begin weighing
the proposed options. He did not set a time frame for any decisions. 

	NASA Administrator Richard Truly also lauded the
recommendations and said he would work with his counterparts at the
Department of Energy and Defense Department to develop programs, as
the report recommends. 

	But John Pike, a space expert with the Federation of American
Scientists, questioned whether the proposals are feasible because they
would cost ``hundreds of billions of dollars.'' 

	``It's no accident there are no dollars attached to it (the
report).  People would have sticker shock at the price,'' he said,
adding that environmentalists would probably object to the proposal 
to build a nuclear-powered rocket. 

	The options are:

	--Mars Exploration, which would focus attention on Mars. The
plan calls for returning to the Moon in the year 2005 and using the
Moon to test technology for venturing to Mars in 2014 for a 20- to
100-day stay.  A 600-day Martian mission would occur in 2016. 

	At its closest point to Earth, Mars is 35 million miles away,
meaning it would take about 230 days to get there.  The Moon, by
comparison, is only a quarter-million miles away, which is only a
three-day journey. 

	--Science Emphasis for the Moon and Mars, which would focus on
both the Moon and Mars.  The first human mission to the Moon would
occur in 2003 to study the Moon and gather information about a Mars
mission in 2014. 

	--The Moon to Stay and Mars exploration, which would develop a
permanent human presence on the Moon beginning in 2004 and also
explore Mars in 2014. 

	--Space Resources Utilization, which would be aimed at
exploiting the resources on the Moon, specifically helium-3 and solar
power.  A robot probe would land on the Moon in 2003 and the first
human mission to the Moon would occur in 2004.  A human mission to Mars
would occur in 2016. 

	The panel proposed a variety of technological steps for such
efforts, including developing a so-called heavy-lift launch vehicle, a
nuclear-powered rocket, a new spacesuit, and new robots. 

	In addition, the panel recommended several bureaucratic steps,
including creating a new National Program Office at NASA with the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. 

	Stafford made a point of emphasizing the proposed space
station would play an integral role in such efforts by providing a
laboratory to conduct research into how humans adapt to long-term
space travel. 

	NASA and the Bush administration have been fighting to
maintain funding for the proposed station, which is set for
consideration by the Senate. 

>Vice President Dan Quayle, chairman of the National Space
>Council, appointed the 27-member group of experts from government,
>industry and academia 10 months ago to explore how best to carry out
>President Bush's proposed Space Exploration Inititative (SEI). 

  Does this strike anyone else as symptomatic of a lack of leadership in our
space program?  *27* members in this group.  Think of the last time you were
in a meeting that was anywhere near that size.  Then think about what you got
done.

  We need a dynamic visionary - badly.  Kinda like a cross between Carl Sagan
and Norman Schwartzkopf.  Normal Schwartzgan?

JB

  I'm sure that the group will accomplish exactly what Mr Bush wants them
to accomplish. They will come up with a concrete plan about the time Boston
harbor gets cleaned up and we all start calling Bush the Education President. 

  George

Article         1862
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (REBECCA KOLBERG, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.tw.science
Subject: Study: Mars might be made fit for life
Date: 7 Aug 91 23:03:32 GMT 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- With some atmospheric remodeling and a lot
of waiting, it may be possible to transform Mars from an apparently
lifeless planet into a home for plants and possibly even humans, a
study showed Wednesday. 

	So far, no signs of life have been found on Mars and the
average temperature is about minus 76 degrees, compared to Earth's 60
degrees.  But geological formations indicate that free-running water
once existed on the Red Planet, suggesting that conditions may once
have been suitable for life. 

	For years, scientists and laymen alike have been fascinated by
the possibility of turning Mars into a permanent outpost for humans
and other forms of Earth life.  Some have suggested moving comets or
asteroids into collision courses with Mars to quickly produce an
Earth-like atmosphere, while others have envisioned using giant
mirrors to warm the planet. 

	Now, calculations by NASA and Pennsylvania State University
scientists show it may be feasible to make the Martian atmosphere
hospitable to plants by using the greenhouse effect to subtly shift
the planet's environmental conditions. 

	That conversion could take anywhere from 100 years to 100,000
years -- most likely the latter -- depending partly on the abundance
and availability of key elements, scientists said. 

	However, creating an atmosphere to support animal and human
life would be a much more difficult, if not insurmountable, challenge,
the scientists cautioned. 

	``We wanted to see from a purely academic standpoint whether
it would be feasible to terraform (make suitable for Earth life) Mars
using modern-day technology.  Our conclusion is that maybe, if we are
very fortunate, we might be able to make a plant-habitable world,''
said Penn State's James Kasting, co-author of the study published in
the journal Nature. 

	However, he added that it ``looks like it would be very
difficult to make a human-habitable world with present technology.'' 

	In the study's scenario, Mars would be made habitable for
plants by exploiting the warming power of a ``runaway'' greenhouse
effect.  The greenhouse effect occurs when carbon dioxide or other
gases act like the glass windows of a greenhouse to trap heat and
prevent it from escaping back into space. 

	The major component of Mars' thin atmosphere is carbon
dioxide.  The gas is also believed by many to be a major component of
its ice caps and permafrost. 

	Kasting and colleagues from Ames Research Center in Mountain
View, Calif., suggest frozen carbon dioxide could be freed by using
elements on Mars to make artificial greenhouse materials like
chlorofluorocarbons  CFCs, to boost the temperature of the planet's
surface. 

	They said increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
would warm the planet still further, eventually pushing its average
temperature above the freezing point and melting polar ice caps
thought to contain water. 

	``This all depends strongly on the abundance of carbon dioxide
in the Martian surface and on how easily it is released,'' Kasting
said.  If the carbon dioxide is locked away in carbonate rocks rather
than permafrost, the process would be much more difficult, he said. 

	Mars receives only about half as much sunlight as Earth, but that 
is much more than is needed for plants to grow, the researchers said. 

	Unlike plants, which thrive on high levels of carbon dioxide
and actually prefer oxygen levels well below those of Earth's
atmosphere, humans and other animals need air rich in oxygen and
nitrogen gases in order to survive. 

	Scientists expressed doubts over whether there is enough
nitrogen on Mars to support animal life, but speculated that one
possible source might be nitrogen in the soil.  Without nitrogen in 
the air, animals develop oxygen toxicity and there is also a threat 
of spontaneous combustion. 

	``Clearly, the question of non-atmospheric reservoirs of
nitrogen on Mars is a critical, if not the most critical question that
must be answered to assess the feasibility of terraforming Mars,'' the
researchers wrote. 

	Researchers admitted their analysis is limited because it
assumes that the atmospheric process that occur on Earth will also
occur on Mars.  However, they said the latest results suggest that
further investigation of modifying Mars for Earth life would be fruitful 
and should be a prime goal for future explorations of the Red Planet. 

Article         1167
From: jeremy@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Jeremy M. Wertheimer)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Article on terraforming Mars
Date: 15 Aug 91 03:27:09 GMT
Sender: nanotech@planchet.rutgers.edu
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
 
    Those interested in a technical specification for a first project
in space colonization should check out the cover article in this
week's Nature [Making Mars habitable, C P McKay, O B Toon, J F
Kasting, Nature 352:489-496 (8 August 1991)].  The article contains a
wealth of data, models and schemes.  Their punchline seems to be that a
CO2-rich plant-habitable atmosphere might be obtained in 100 years, but
that it might take 100,000 years for the plants to transform this into 
an O2-rich human-habitable atmosphere.  This article might be a useful
point of departure for someone interested in coming up with a more
optimistic (nanotechnological) scenario. 
 
    Happy planet engineering!
 
Jeremy Wertheimer
MIT AI Lab, 545 Tech. Sq., Room 805, Cambridge MA 02139
(617) 253-5867, Internet: Jeremy@AI.MIT.EDU

Drucella Andersen
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       September 24, 1991

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Jim Doyle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

RELEASE:  91-153

     Scientists and engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL),  Pasadena, Calif., investigating low cost approaches to
exploring Mars, successfully tested a small robotic vehicle in rough
terrain nearly identical to the two Viking landing sites on Mars.  The
test of the mini-rover Rocky III in the Avawatz Mountains south of
Death Valley on Sept. 11 demonstrated one of several proposed
approaches to future Mars exploration.

     Mini-rovers and the even smaller micro-rovers provide NASA
planners with a new class of low-cost planetary exploration options,
said Roger Bedard, Manager of Rover Technologies at JPL.  Micro-rovers
are defined as robotic vehicles under 11 pounds in weight.  Mini-rovers
are larger, up to about 52  pounds, the weight of Rocky III.

     The rovers will carry cameras for close-up looks at the surface
and to scan the horizon of Mars.  In addition, they will carry micro-
machined sensors to test the atmosphere and soil, spectrometers to
gather geologic information and seismometers to capture data on crustal
motion.

     Dr. Matthew Golombek, principal science advisor on the project,
said the terrain used in the test has the rock size and distribution of
the Viking 2 site on Mars and features large boulders strewn across a
graveled surface.  Rocky III successfully traversed the rough terrain
in two tests, he said.  It also was successful in traversing a lava
field in the Mojave Desert.  "It was at least a starting point,"
Golombek said.  "We are certain there are basalt (lava) flows on Mars.
We are testing this rover for an unmanned sample-return mission."

     Don Bickler, an engineer and one of the designers of the rover,
said the group wanted also to "test the rover's configuration, the
suspension geometry, the ratios of levers and the wheel diameters.  We
wanted to see if it would confirm the tests we made in the laboratory,
to see if in the natural environment this thing would perform as the
lab tests said it would.  And it did."

     The next generation of micro- and mini-rovers, now being designed,
will include microsensors to help the machine measure some qualities of
its environment.  Because of their small size and low weight, micro-
and mini- rovers would be relatively inexpensive to launch to the moon
or Mars, Bedard said.

     "A new era of space exploration is made possible by advances in
miniaturization technology and in distributed communications," said Dr.
Giulio Varsi, manager of JPL's Space Automation and Robotics Program.
"I believe these advances will make possible less expensive missions
and broader participation of people."

     JPL developed and tested the micro- and mini-rovers for NASA's
Office of Aeronautics, Exploration and Technology, Washington, D.C.

Article: 38783
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Amateur Amsat Mars probe?
Date: 25 Dec 91 18:05:03 GMT
Sender: news@cbfsb.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
 
Copied from the amateur radio packet network:

From: G3ZCZ@N4QQ.MD.USA
To: SAT@AMSAT
 
Satgen143      Hearing A Mars Probe           By GM4IHJ        22nd Dec 91
 
Amsat may send a Mars probe on the Phase 3D Ariane launch planned for 1995
Several mentions of this have already been published but I have not yet
seen one which discusses what the ordinary radio amateur might need to
hear it. Looking at a 95 launch to a very high Earth parking orbit. Then a
boost from that orbit to an economic Mars transfer orbit in say Sept 96,
the probe could be expected to take about 260 days to arrive near Mars
when the Earth Mars separation is minimal around 100+ million kms approx.
Given these figures, the path between similar stations using 100 watts CW,
and 100Hz Rx bandwidth for 3 dBs sig to noise ,would require :-
 
Frequency GHz    Dish at each end    Dish Gain       Remarks
1.3 GHz             2m                26 dB      Freq may not be available
2.4 GHz             1.5m              27.5 dB    Good Rx gear exists
5.0 GHz             0.9m              32 dB
10  GHz             0.7m              35 dB      Possible adapted LNB Rx
24  GHz             0.4m              37.5 dB
 
Eg at 1.3 GHz we need a 2m dish at either end of the path. While at 24 GHz
we need 40cm dishes at either end for strong CW reception. Wideband
signals such as voice or FSK would need much bigger dishes.
 
But we probably cannot put a dish on the probe. It will be difficult to
stabilise to point at Earth. Perhaps we could get some gain by fitting say
a stacked slot waveguide antenna on the probe, gain at most perhaps,
about 16 dBs. So the 1.3 GHz case would be one dish minus 16 dB short in
gain = 10 dB. We might improve this by using a bigger dish on Earth
with 36 dB gain = 6m diameter. The 24 GHz case would be one dish minus 16
dB short = 21.5 dB. To regain this loss we need to increase our Earth
station 24 GHz dish to one of about 6m. So we seem to require a dish of
about 6m diameter whatever microwave frequency we send from the probe.
We could possibly improve the situation if operators are good enough to
copy CW below noise level. Some super Ops have been tested at -6dB and
some stations may use Digital Signal Processing to extract signal from the
noise . This might permit use of a 3m dish, or even 2m if DSP is very good
 
How do we get 100 watts on a small probe?  I suggest by having a transmit
cycle as low as 1 minute in 30. But what about the controllers who need
much more from this bird if they are to check any telemetry and
navigation. I suggest here we can compromise by having a second Tx period
where a wideband signal is sent. Naturally this will require reception
dishes with perhaps 20 db more gain Eg at least 8 times bigger than the
ones suggested for CW reception. Such dishes may be available at the Deep
Space Exploration Society site on Table Mesa near Boulder, Col, USA.
 
So if this project goes ahead, we might best use a dual approach. Complex
data for very big dish owners, and, simple CW and/or DSP for those of us
who might manage a 2, 3 or 6m dish. RSGB Space Radio Handbook p235 has a
worked example of maths for this type of path. 73 de John GM4IHJ@GB7SAN

Article: 38789
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Amateur Amsat Mars probe?
Date: 27 Dec 91 15:33:47 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
 
In article <ewright.693785939@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com
(Edward V. Wright) writes: 

>Can you tell us what type of instruments might be on this probe?
 
As far as I know, the Mars probe is still in the talk stage. Personally
I'd like to see a VLF receiver looking for whistlers in the solar wind.
Perhaps the probe can be designed to separate into two parts with a km
or so fine tether between that can serve as the VLF antenna. The gravity
gradient in solar space should be low enough that a very fine wire would
be strong enough. Just food for thought.
 
Gary KE4ZV

Article: 38796
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Amateur Amsat Mars probe?
Date: 28 Dec 91 15:43:19 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
 
In article <9169@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:

>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> Perhaps the probe can be designed to separate into two parts with a km or so
>> fine tether between that can serve as the VLF antenna. The gravity gradient
>> in solar space should be low enough that a very fine wire would be strong
>> enough. Just food for thought.
>
>If the probe will have a lifetime limited to several years (due to transmitter
>components, etc), then perhaps the cable could also provide power?
>
>Darn, I can't remember if Mars has a significant magnetic field.  Is whatever
>it has enough to make tethered satellite power production feasible?
 
I don't believe the probe will be sophisticated enough to actually go
into Mars orbit. Basically it's just a flyby mission. I don't think the
solar magnetic field would be useful for power production. The probe is
a piggyback on the main satellite and would probably be of Microsat size
with the addition of a kick motor. That's about a 9 inch cube covered 
with solar cells. Several of these Microsats are now in orbit acting as
packet store and forward mailboxes, digital voice systems, and one has
a CCD camera. The Mars probe would be much less sophisticated because
chances for telecommand and problem resolution would be much more limited.
I think a chance to listen to extraterrestrial whistlers would be a
fasinating use for this probe that isn't beyond it's limited capabilities.
 
Gary KE4ZV

Article: 38801
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Amateur Amsat Mars probe?
Date: 29 Dec 91 13:34:11 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
 
In article <1991Dec29.065813.5188@cs.ucla.edu> doug@lanai.cs.ucla.edu
(Doug Caldwell) writes: 

>In article <1991Dec28.154319.9091@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary
>Coffman) writes: 
>>
>>That's about a 9 inch cube covered 
>>with solar cells. Several of these Microsats are now in orbit acting as
>>packet store and forward mailboxes, digital voice systems, and one has
>>a CCD camera.
>
>What is the best source of info about the Microsats from the standpoint of
>their actual construction.  The "user" information is readily available
>(e.g., operating freqs) but what about physical data?  Mass, dimensions, 
>power consumption, orbital lifetimes, construction methods, cost?
 
AMSAT has published detailed information about each of it's satellites
in the AMSAT Technical Journal and in Space Symposium Proceedings. I
believe the ARRL still has those for sale. BTW I actually got to touch
one of the flight model Microsats at a Space Symposium. It's neat to
think my fingerprints might be in orbit. :-)
 
Gary KE4ZV

Article: 38818
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Amateur Amsat Mars probe?
Date: 30 Dec 91 17:49:48 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
 
In article <5730@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
mbaker@ucs.adelaide.edu.au (Matthew Baker) writes: 

>Can either yourself or someone else point me in the direction of
>where I can get details on frequency's, coding format etc for the
>Microsat with the CCD camera? (I take it that it is still up there
>functioning ok?) 
>
>Cheers,
>Matt Baker
 
The satellite you are interested in is WEBER-OSCAR-18 (WEBERSAT), a
joint venture of AMSAT and Weber State College. It transmits on
437.075 and 437.100 Mhz. The pictures are encoded in standard AX25 UI
frames. For further information, contact 
 
AMSAT
PO Box 27
Washington, DC 20044
 
or call Martha at 301-589-6062. Consider joining AMSAT while ordering
materials. AMSAT has available handbooks for the various satellites,
tracking software for most popular computers, and a wealth of other
information. If you join AMSAT, you may wish to participate in one of
the upcoming satellite efforts such as the Mars probe. You are not
required to be an amateur radio operator to participate. 
 
Other satellites of the Microsat series now in orbit are DOVE
(OSCAR-17), a voice synthesized payload for educational purposes
sponsored by BRAMSAT (Brazil AMSAT), LUSAT (OSCAR-19), a packet store
and forward satellite by AMSAT Argentina, two scientific satellites
from the University of Surrey called UoSAT-D (OSCAR-14) and UoSAT-E
(OSCAR-15), and FUJI (OSCAR-20), a project of JAMSAT (AMSAT Japan). In
addition, two satellites in Moylina orbits, OSCAR 13 and OSCAR 10 are
in service, though OSCAR 10 is no longer under complete ground control
thanks to computer failure. Plus there are two active RS (Radio
Sputnik) amateur satellites sponsored by our ex-Soviet colleagues. 
 
The RS birds and the two high orbit OSCARS are used for voice, CW, and
data realtime communications while all the Microsats have store and
forward packet capabilites, flying mailboxes, as well as their other
functions. Fairly simple ground stations that can fit in a briefcase
can be used with several of these satellites, the high orbit birds
require a bit more antenna. 
 
Gary KE4ZV
 
PS - OSCAR stands for Orbiting Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio.

From:	DECWRL::"usenet-space-news-request@ames.arc.nasa.gov"  9-MAR-1992 
        20:57:46.32
To:	usenet-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Subj:	JPL Proposes Small, Cheap Mars Landers

This is a summary of an article from the Space News newspaper titled 
"JPL Proposes Small, Cheap Mars Lander", March 2-8, 1992.

JPL is proposing to send 16 small spacecraft to Mars.  The spacecraft
would parachute down to the surface and collect information on the
atmosphere, weather and rock and soil composition.  Each spacecraft
will be about two meters (6.5 feet) in diameter and 315 pounds in
weight.  The spacecraft would be launched in groups of four from a
Delta launch vehicle.  If this project is started in 1996, then the
first four spacecraft can be launched in 1999, the next four in 2001,
and the final eight spacecraft in 2003.  Also, a Mars orbiter would be
sent in 2001 to relay data back to Earth at a higher data rate.  The
program is expected to cost $150 million a year with a total cost of
under $1 billion.  The program has already received $300,000 in the
1991 budget, $1.6 million in the 1992 budget, and is expected to
receive $6 million in the 1993 budget. 

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | In the middle of difficulty
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | lies opportunity  --
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | Albert Einstein

Mars visit 'will take decades'
------------------------------

CAPE CANAVERAL: The new chief of the United States' civil space program said it
would be decades before NASA was able to send astronauts to Mars. The agency's
new administrator Mr Dan Goldin said President Bush's goal of an astronaut
flight to Mars by 2019 was unrealistic. He gave no timetable but said: "I
certainly think it will take some decades before humans venture back to the
Moon and on out to the planet next door."

Mr Goldin was at the Kennedy Space Centre last week to watch the space shuttle
Atlantis land after a nine-day atmospheric research mission. He replaces former
astronaut Mr Richard Truly, who was sacked over a disagreement with Washington
on space policy.

In 1989, on the 20th anniversary of the 1969 Apollo 11 flight that put Neil
Armstrong on the Moon on July 20, President Bush challenged NASA to plant a US
flag on Mars by 2019.

NASA envisions a $US500 billion program would meet the challenge as early as
2014. But Mr Goldin predicted it would take longer than that to develop a
suitable spaceship and fly the robotic missions that must precede humans.
"We'll do it in a logical, sequential fashion," Mr Goldin said, "and understand
where we're going and show results as we're getting there."

Mr Goldin also said he was not sure sending a teacher into space was the proper
way to inspire children to choose science and technology careers. One of Mr
Truly's last acts was to recommend reviving the education project that led to
the inclusion of New Hampshire school teacher Ms Christa McAuliffe on the
shuttle Challenger in January 1986. When the shuttle exploded with seven crew
members aboard, NASA indefinitely canceled its plans to fly civilians in
space.

Mr Goldin, 52, denied rumours that his appointment completed a hidden agenda of
the National Space Council headed by Vice-President Dan Quayle. Mr Truly was
sacked because he disagreed with the council, which is said to favour smaller
and cheaper projects rather than the $US30 billion space station NASA wants to
build. "I sought and received assurances from the President of the United
States that I am going to be in charge," Mr Goldin said.

Ironically, the new regime at NASA is being put in place only weeks after the
death of former NASA chief, Mr James Webb, 85. He is attributed with guiding
the agency to its finest hour - putting a man on the Moon. Mr Webb led NASA
between 1961 and 1969, during which time the former Soviet Union launched the
first manned space flight, the US put its first astronaut in orbit and an
American performed the first spacewalk. A former Webb aide, Mr Julian Scheer
said: "He was a visionary. Under his leadership, the program was carefully
planned, facilities were built and the spacecraft were designed." In 1961,
president John F. Kennedy committed the US to sending a man to the Moon by the
end of the decade - and charged Mr Webb with leading the space program.

Reuters

  If this is true then the White House and National Space Council really have
their heads on backwards. Check it out: 

  This goal:

>In 1989, on the 20th anniversary of the 1969 Apollo 11 flight that put Neil
>Armstrong on the Moon on July 20, President Bush challenged NASA to plant a US
>flag on Mars by 2019.

  and this restriction:

>Mr Goldin, 52, denied rumors that his appointment completed a hidden agenda of
>the National Space Council headed by Vice-President Dan Quayle. Mr Truly was
>sacked because he disagreed with the council, which is said to favor smaller
>and cheaper projects rather than the $US30 billion space station NASA wants to
>build. 

... conflict. How do you put people on Mars with small projects?

  What's really going on here is that the White House wants to have their cake
and eat it too (what else is new). They want credit for making big plans to put
people on Mars while at the same time they don't want to spend the money today
that would make that trip a reality. 

  It would cost Bush a lot to ramp up a real space program but costs him
nothing to push for a program that would involve spending long after his 2nd
term is up. 

  Actually, I shouldn't be so hard on the "Education President". I'm sure that
he's dead tired from all that work cleaning up Boston Harbor. 

  George Bush: Promise the world and give'em a globe.
  George

Article: 2833
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.tw.science,clari.tw.space
Subject: Four men to spend month underwater
Date: 4 May 1992 16:27:46 GMT
 
	KEY LARGO, Fla. (UPI) -- Final preparations were under way
Monday for a space isolation experiment that will send four men
underwater for a month. 

	The foursome will descend in scuba gear to a pod the size of a
house trailer in 22 feet of water in a Key Largo lagoon on Wednesday
as part of a NASA experiment to monitor behavior during isolation. 

	Richard Presley, 33, Chris Olstad, 37, Bill Soeffing, 35, and
John Conant, 34 will each take a project with them, along with videotapes 
of such movies as ``The Abyss'', and ``20,000 Leagues Under the Sea''. 

	Albert Holland, chief of the Johnson Space Center's behavior
and performance laboratory, said the project will assist in planning
for NASA's goal of sending man to Mars. 

	NASA psychologists will record the men's behaviors over the
month-long submersion, Holland said, adding that the agency would not
manipulate the group's environment, but would passively record any changes. 

	Researchers will only watch the men by remote-control camera
as they eat dinner, which Holland said is a daily routine that
provides a good indication of mood. NASA researchers will be watching
for signs of withdrawal, anxiety, or depression. 

	The group will regularly be questioned by psychologists as
part of tests on fatigue and stress levels. The group also will
monitor and record the amount of light that enters the pod to help
determine how body and sleep rhythms are affected. 

	None of the men are in training to be astronauts, but rather
were chosen by the Marine Resources Development Foundation, a
non-profit research group based in Key Largo, which is working with
NASA on the project. 

	Several agencies, including the Navy have conducted similar
experiments as early as the early 1960s, but never for a month at a time. 

	James Miller, a retired scientist who directed several of the
early experiments, said a profile was developed for those best suited
to underwater isolation. 

	Miller described the best candidates to the Orlando Sentinel
as ``people who came from small towns, people who are first-borns, as
opposed to later-borns,...and people who were not particularly religious.'' 

	Subjects in the initial projects reportedly showed little
patience for taking psychological tests during their underwater stays.

	In this week's project, each man will be responsible for
carrying out research of their own choosing, as well as gathering data
on marine life in several underwater scuba expeditions. 

	Presley will conduct experiments on growing herbs
hydroponically, or without soil.  Olstad is a marine biologist at the
Marine Resources Development Foundation, Soeffing is a microbiologist
from Sioux Falls College in South Dakota, and Conant, from is a Fort Myers 
emergency medical technician specializing in diving-related conditions. 

	As would likely be allowed for in space, the men will be
permitted to telephone family or friends one day per week, likely
Sunday, Holland said. 

	Additional experiments are planned by NASA, involving longer
stays, and mixed-gender crews. 

	A second underwater pod, run by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is scheduled to be delivered to the
Florida Keys later this year. 

Article: 2890
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.tw.science,clari.tw.space,clari.tw.environment,clari.news.top
Subject: After two weeks under sea, researchers long for sunshine
Date: Thu, 21 May 92 14:37:28 PDT
 
	KEY LARGO, Fla. (UPI) -- After two weeks at 4 fathoms underwater, 
three researchers are yearning for a little sunshine and are learning how 
to grow herbs, stay fit and get along in watery isolation. 

	The aquanauts reached the midway point Thursday in a monthlong
research project at Jules' Undersea Lodge, a research module submerged
in Key Largo Lagoon. They are carrying out isolation experiments for
NASA and working on their own environmental studies. 

	``It's actually a very comfortable environment down here,''
Cmdr. Christopher Olstad said in a telephone interview to the surface.
``We really don't have that much input from the topside.'' 

	The researchers spend six or seven hours a day swimming around
the clear, greenish lagoon, breathing through hookahs connected to an
air compressor on the surface. 

	They are researching artificial reef development, ultrasound
techniques and methods of cleaning and aerating seawater. They are also 
practicing construction techniques that could someday be used in space. 

	``The extra-vehicular activities in space are very similar to
diving,'' said Olstad, who lives in Plantation Key. 

	When the researchers aren't swimming, their home is a 50-foot
by 20- foot module normally operated as an underwater hotel. It has a
common living and dining area and separate bedroom suites equipped
with videocassette players. 

	The men amuse themselves in their spare time by watching the
fish outside their portholes and viewing movies such as ``The Abyss.''
But they are kept busy carrying out their experiments. 

	Deputy Cmdr. Richard Presley is growing a hydroponic garden
inside the research module. 

	``Besides the beauty of the plants and the aroma of the herbs,
it is helping regenerate the atmosphere that we are consuming,
extracting the carbon dioxide from the air and replacing it with
oxygen,'' said Presley, of Miami. 

	The third team member, emergency medical technician John
Conant of Fort Myers, is examining the effects of underwater living on
the human body. 

	He measures and weighs his comrades daily. When the monthlong
sojourn is up, he will compare skeletal and muscular data to that
taken before they submerged. 

	Technicians on the surface monitor the undersea habitat round
the clock in case of emergency. Microwaveable food is delivered to the
men in airtight suitcases and they complete a specially designed
30-minute workout daily to keep fit. 

	``I'm probably eating more down here than I eat on the
surface,'' said Olstad. 

	The trio needs extra calories because their bodies must work
harder than usual to keep them warm while swimming. 

	``I've actually gained weight. This'll be the first time in
habitat history,'' said Presley, who listed weight gain among his
30-day goals. 

	A fourth researcher, William Soeffing of Sioux Falls College
in South Dakota, developed the flu and was forced to surface three
days into the mission.  The others are scheduled to surface June 5. 

	Named for Jules Verne, author of the thriller ``20,000 Leagues
Under the Sea,'' the undersea lodge sits at a more modest 4 fathoms,
or about 24 feet, under the surface. 

	There is no danger of developing decompression sickness, also
known as the bends, at that shallow depth. 

	But because of the pressurized atmosphere, the aquanauts are
breathing in more oxygen and nitrogen than they do on the surface. The
pulmonary effects of that are among the things Conant is studying. 

	The men are also providing data on human interaction in
extended, close environments. Despite their isolation and their
constant proximity to each other, they said they have managed to live
in harmony. 

	``I think the environment itself has sort of mentally and
physically reshaped us into a co-coperative team. You tend to rely on
one another,'' Olstad said. 

	Asked what they miss most, Olstad said, ``Other than giving my
wife a hug, I would say sunshine. We don't get a lot of sunshine down here.'' 

Article: 2963
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.tw.science,clari.news.top
Subject: Two of three aquanauts surface after 30 days
Date: 5 Jun 92 20:20:53 GMT
 
	KEY LARGO, Fla. (UPI) -- Two aquanauts surfaced Friday after a
30-day NASA experiment on the effects of underwater isolation, but one
plans to remain 22 feet down in a lagoon off the Atlantic Ocean for 30
more days. 

	The purpose of the experiment in the underwater habitat, which
is about the size of a house trailer, is to monitor behavior during
isolation.  Scientists hope the knowledge gained will assist in planning 
for the space agency's goal of sending man to the planet Mars. 

	Aquanauts Christopher Olstad, 37, and John Conant, 34,
surfaced at noon and began an extensive battery of physical and mental
examinations.  Richard ``Rick'' Presley, 33, will try to break the
underwater endurance record of 60 days, set in 1969. 

	Presley said through a telephone hookup in the habitat that 
he is ready for the next 30 days.  Looking back on the Chalupa 30
experiment which ended when his two collegues surfaced, he said it
appeared to be a success. 

	``It's been fantastic. I feel better than I've ever felt. 
I've probably eaten better than I've ever eaten,'' Presley said. 
``I've been involved in a weight program -- two-and-a-half hours on 
a Soloflex machine daily.'' 

	Pressley said he expected to miss his two companions, but did
not expect any problems.  During the 30-day experiment, the aquanauts
were limited to two to 10 minutes of daily conversation with their
colleagues on dry land, but those limits are off now. 

	``I believe I miss the team effort that took place down here
for the past 30 days but I'm sure that will continue with topside
now,'' he said.  ``I definitely will miss them (Olstad and Conant). 
I don't think they really wanted to go when it was time.'' 

	None of the men is in training to be an astronaut.  Each was
chosen by the Marine Resources Development Foundation, a non-profit
research group based in Key Largo, which worked with NASA on the project. 

	Each man was responsible for carrying out research of his own
choosing as well as gathering data on marine life in daily underwater
scuba expeditions. 

	Presley conducted experiments on growing herbs hydroponically,
or without soil. 

	He said the aquanauts were able to eat some of the herbs he
had grown, and said it was good. 

	``This is the first habitat program I know of that some of the
herbs received approval.  I've heard of some nightmares,'' Presley said. 

	``They are grown inside the habitat with a film technique
system.  The goal would be to grow your own food in space,'' he said. 

	He said the non-frozen food they ate was scheduled on a six-day 
rotation and consisted mainly of fish, chicken, pasta, and vegetables. 

	``The food program was the highlight of the day.  Sometimes
we'd hurry to get out of water so we could eat,'' he said.  ``My
favorite was salmon champagne.'' 

	He said they spent three to six hours ever day scuba diving,
cleaning up the environment, and working in an underwater space lab in
the same lagoon. 

	Presley said they had little time to get bored.  For
recreation they had video casette movies with them, but spent most of
their leisure time looking out the portholes. 

	``The lagoon has 120 species of marine life in it,'' he said.
``We didn't see any sharks but there are a few barracudas out there.''

Article: 23786
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,comp.robotics
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Rover article
Sender: news@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 09:04:15 GMT
 
This is an article about the micro-rover prototype that JPL will use
in the MESUR Pathfinder mission to Mars. 
 
From the JPL Universe - June 19, 1992
 
    'Rocky IV' Rover Display Honors Surveyor's 25th Anniversary
    
      By Diane Ainsworth
 
     Robotic-landed exploration of the solar system began 25 years ago
with the Surveyor missions to the Moon.  Many of the rover and lander
concepts developed during that era by the United States and Russia
contributed to rover mobility, control, and navigation, says JPL's Dr.
Lonne Lane of the Advanced Instruments Office within the Office of
Space Science and Instruments.  They continue to play a role in new
technology for future missions. 
 
     To commemorate Surveyor's silver anniversary and salute the
robotic technologies that will take scientists back to the Moon and on
to Mars, JPL will host a "Rocky IV" symposium form 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
on June 26 in the Von Karman Auditorium.  A demonstration will follow
at 11 a.m. in the Arroyo Seco test site adjacent to the Lab. 
 
     Rocky IV is the prototype for a small rover that will be part of
the MESUR (Mars Environmental Survey) Pathfinder mission.  The rover
is remotely controlled and designed to explore the surface of Mars,
along with a companion automated landers, as a precursor to Mars
sample-return missions. 
 
     "Rocky IV is our testbed for ideas about integrating lander
functions with the rover," said Lane, manager of the Rocky IV testbed
demonstrations and a member of the future MESUR Pathfinder mission. 
 
     "In the past, laboratory rovers have been controlled by small
computers without the benefit of an integrated system," he said. 
"Rocky IV, having its own behavorial control system, will be
integrated with a lander that has a camera system with increased
computer-processing capabilities, two-way radio communications, and a
command set that will be operated by a ground- controller. 
 
     "Rocky IV represents all of these elements that are now in
place," Lane said.  "We've gone from a laboratory prototype that
demonstrated certain kinds of driving and mission capabilities --
Rocky III -- to ideas about how the rover will interact with the
lander in a more complex environment.  We're now trying to emulate the
scenario for the MESUR mission." 
 
     Rocky IV is slightly smaller in size than its predecessor, Rocky
III. Rocky IV is 24 inces (61 centimeters) long, 15 inches (38 cm)
wide and 14 inches (36 cm) high.  The rover has six 5-inch-diameter
(13 cm diameter) wheels made of strips of steel foil and cleats to
provide traction.  It weighs about 16 pounds (7 kilograms), but
eventually will have to be scaled down to about 8 pounds (4 kg) for
inclusion in the final MESUR Network mission set. 
 
     "The six-wheel model is far more stable and mobile," Lane said. 
"This wheel arrangement is better adapted for the kind of environment
we think we will find on Mars.  There's a motor in the hub of each
wheel so each wheel is motor-driven," Lane said.  "In addition, the
front and rear wheels can steer the vehicle.  We designed it this way
so that if one wheel motor fails, there's more than enough strength,
or torque, in the existing motors to move the rover around." 
 
     The suspension system, called a "rocker-bogey" system, is unique
in that it does not use springs and provides the greatest degree of
stability for traversing rocky, uneven surfaces.  Don Bickler of JPL's
Mechanical Systems Development Section 352 developed the system, which
will allow Rocky IV to climb over rocks possibly as high as 7 inches
(18 cm). 
 
     Sensor along the frame of the rover will help Rocky navigate.  If
the front set of wheels encounters a cliff or a steep drop-off, the
rover can brake in time to prevent a tumble.  Excessive tilt is also
sensed and the rover can stop to prevent a rollover. 
 
     Rocky IV carries two "real" science instruments: a visible-light
spectrometer, with a range of 0.5 micron to 1.0 micron, and a color
camera. The spectrometer and camera will be boresighted (or "nested"
within each other) to view the same target.  They are enclosed by a
lightweight box in the center of the rover. 
 
     Other "instruments" include a chipper that will be able to chip
away the thin coverings of material on rocks; a soft-sand scoop to
take soil samples; and a seismometer on board the lander that Rocky IV
will be instructed to move to some designated place on the Martian surface. 
 
     "This technology really takes us one step further in robotic
exploration by giving us an extension of our hands and eyes", Lane
explained.  "With Rocky IV, we have moved into the role of field
geologist on another planet." 
 
     The Rocky IV testbed demonstration was a nine-month prototype
task to demonstrate the science capabilities that will be possible
using a micro- rover.  Contributing to this effort were technical
divisions 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.  JPL's Facilities and Procurement
Divisions were also instumental in arranging the demonstration. 
 
     The Rocky IV demonstration will be preceded by a series of talks
beginning at 9 a.m. (PDT) on June 26 in Von Karman Auditorium.  The
agenda will include presentations by Dr. Moustafa Chahine, JPL chief
scientist; Dr. Edward C. Stone, JPL director; and Dr. Eugene
Shoemaker, U.S. Geological Survey scientist and principal investigator
for the Survey television system. 
 
     Also on the agenda are Lennard Fisk, NASA associate
administrator; Dr. Wesley Huntress Jr., director of the NASA Solar
System Exploration Division; and members of the JPL's Automation and
Robotics Division. The Rocky IV demonstration will follow at 11 a.m.
in the Arroyo Seco test site. 
 
     [Photo of Rocky IV shown with article, P-40371A]

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Pound for pound,
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | grasshoppers are 3 times as
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | nutritious as beef.
 

Article: 23968
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,comp.robotics
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Rover Debut
Sender: news@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 03:39:46 GMT
 
Drucella Andersen
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.            June 24, 1992
(Phone: 202/453-8613)
 
Brian Dunbar
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
(Phone: 202/453-1547)
 
Jim Doyle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone: 818/354-5011)
 
RELEASE: 92-93
 
NEW NASA PLANETARY ROBOTIC ROVER SET TO DEBUT
 
	Robotics engineers and scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., will demonstrate a new planetary
lander and robotic rover at a specially-designed test site near the
laboratory on June 26. 
 
	"Rocky IV" is a prototype of a mini-rover that may be launched
to Mars in 1996 as part of the Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR)
Pathfinder mission.  The 16.5-pound testbed will let NASA researchers
study how to integrate planetary lander functions and science
instruments under conditions approximating those of a Mars mission. 
 
	The 11:00 a.m. PDT demonstration at the laboratory's Arroyo
test site will be part of the commemoration of the 25th anniversary of
NASA's Surveyor Project, which JPL managed. Five Surveyor spacecraft
successfully landed and operated on the moon from May 1966 through
January 1968 to pave the way for later missions by the Apollo astronauts. 
 
	"Rocky IV, having its own behavioral control system, will be
integrated with a lander that has a camera system with increased
computer-processing capabilities, two-way radio communications and a
command set that will be operated by a ground controller," said Dr.
Arthur Lane, rover development task manager at JPL. 
 
	Rocky IV is 24 inches long, 15 inches wide and 14 inches high.
It travels on six 5-inch-diameter wheels made of strips of steel foil
and cleats to provide traction. 
 
	Lane noted that the six-wheeled model is stable and mobile.
"This arrangement is better adapted for the environment we think we
will find on Mars," he said. 
 
	Each wheel hub has a motor and the front and rear wheels can
both steer the rover.  Rocky IV was designed that way so that if one
wheel motor fails, there is more than enough strength in the remaining
motors to move the vehicle. The rover's "rocker-bogey" suspension,
which uses no springs, gives it a high degree of stability when
rolling over uneven surfaces. 
 
	Rocky IV carries sensors that will help it avoid hazards such
as cliffs, dropoffs and excessive tilt angles.  It also has a
visible-light spectrometer and a color camera, a chipper to remove the
thin weathered coverings of rocks and a soft-sand scoop to take soil
samples.  The rover also can place a seismometer on the surface. 
 
NOTE TO EDITORS: A photograph of the Rocky IV mini-rover is available
to media by calling 202/453-8375. 
 
Color: C-92-HC-388
B&W: 92-H-436

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Pound for pound,
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | grasshoppers are 3 times as
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | nutritious as beef.
 

    Robert Zubrin (martin-Marietta) and Benjamin Adelman )Pro science
    writer) have and article inthe latest issue of Final Frontier. They
    claim they have devised a way to  have people on Mars before the end of
    the decade. AND for 1/4 the presently projected price.
    
     Their idea is to toss away the notion that you have to carry
    EVERYTHING you need to get there and back. What they want to do is the
    following:
    
    1) Send  a factory lander to Mars. This device will have a nuke
    generating plant to supply power. It also carries 6 tons of hydrogen
    (H2). mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2. Pump in the CO2 and react it with
    the hydrogen. This goves you methane (CH4) and water. The methane is
    the fuel needed for the return trip. Store the methane. Electrolyze the
    water to get H2 (which you use to make more methane) and O2 (which
    you store for use as an oxidizer for the methane).
    
     Then you have a different section of the factory suck in CO2 and make
    O2 and CO. throw the CO away (i.e. into the atmosphere - the Greenies
    will love that).
    
     This process gives you 108 tons of methane and O2 for the return trip.
    
    2) send a manned habitat to mars to land near the factory. after launch
    the habitat separates from the spent booster but is connected by a
    cable. Spin the thing to create moon level gravity. Land the HAB near
    the factory. Hang out doing experiments. 
    
    3) replicate the factory/HAB launches as required.
    
    4) find water on mars. Once waer is found, you needn't sen any more H2
    to mars.
    
     All this can be done with todays technology. They predict a manned
    landing in 1999.
    
    Gregg

    re: .157
    
    The predicted date of 1999 is nonsense for this proposal.  It takes
    more than 10 years to build a people-operated nuclear power plant,
    and they want to build a fully-automated plant and launch it by 1997?
    (I am estimating two years to get to Mars and operate the factory
    before people land.  It might have to launch sooner because the manned
    mission wouldn't start for Mars until the plant was observed to be
    working correctly, and there are only certain windows in which a
    mission to Mars is feasible with current boosters.)
    
    Other problems: getting the factory and its 6 tons of H2 fuel out of
    Earth's gravity well, developing the Artificial Intelligence necessary
    to run the factory reliably (DARPA has been working on this for 20
    years), soft-landing the factory on Mars, EPA permits for operating a
    nuclear facility that emits CO2 on Mars, etc.
        John Sauter

    John,
    
    I think the power plant they have in mind is a small one - just enough
    to run the factory.
    
     The factory itself is really a simple device. The reaction involved:
    
    co2 + h2 -> ch4 + h20 is fairly simple and common. As is the
    electrolysis of water. No AI ought to be required.
    
     Your points about the launch windows are well taken though.
    
    Since when does the EPA have anything to say about nuke plants on other
    planets? I didn't know they had jurisdiction. Do they?
    
    Gregg

    re: .159
    
    The EPA crack was intended as a joke.  The U.S. EPA does not have
    jurisdiction over Mars.
        John Sauter

re .159
    
>    I think the power plant they have in mind is a small one - just enough
>    to run the factory.
    
    How small is small, relative to current launch capacities?
    
    What is proposed for converting the 'nuclear energy' into useable
    energy that will power the factory? If one supposes a conventional
    steam turbine generating electricity then this is turning into quite a
    large affair. Anyone want to estimate the mass of a small but complete
    nuclear power station?
    
    I suppose the (uranium?) fuel would be supplied from Earth as a one-off.
    Is refuelling of the reactor core itself to be done automatically or
    tele-robotically? I am doubtful that current AI and robotic technology is
    quite up to operating a nuclear power plant.
    
    Due to round trip light time the first line of defense in the event of
    problems would have to be available locally i.e. presumably "if in
    doubt, shutdown and wait for command from Earth".
    
    Was it crucial to this idea that the power plant be nuclear and not
    solar-powered because the latter is certainly simpler and (in space)
    more proven technology?

    Re .161  (sceptical)
    
    Something along the lines proposed in Re.157 may indeed be done,
    both on the Mars surface and on one of its moons. Although maybe
    not for the first trip !!!
    
    (By the way the moons can be a source of H2 and O2, so it doesn't 
     have to be carried from Earth)
    
    As for the proposed Nuclear Powerplant, several US spacecraft
    are already powered with nuclear energy. Plus the SP-100 and the
    Russian plant (that the US is buying are almost here as well).
    
    Their output is small but no-one is talking about building anything 
    big, rather a small power plant together with a small chemical plant 
    will produce the 100 or so tons of stuff needed over time.
    
    If the plant does only one ton a day (that is only 0.7 Liters 
    per minute) 100 tons can still be ready in just over 3 months.
    There is no hurry, because no person will leave Earth before
    the thing is done, no matter how long it takes.
    
    Gil

Article: 45475
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Direct: Any Independent Evaluation?
Date: 30 Jun 92 04:31:43 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
 
In article <YAMAUCHI.92Jun28151931@heron.cs.rochester.edu>
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: 
 
>Mars Direct, Robert Zubrin's proposed plan for launching manned
>exploration missions to Mars directly -- without requiring either
>Freedom or a lunar base...
>
>The basic idea is to use native materials for fuel production,
>combining CO2 in the Martian atmosphere with stored hydrogen to
>produce methane and water.  The methane is stored for use as
>propellant.  The water is electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen...
>...after five months, this plant is supposed to be able to convert 6 
>tons of liquid hydrogen carried from Earth into 108 tons of methane 
>and oxygen for use in the return
>flight.
 
Mars Direct is a great proposal (see references below).  Zubrin is one of
the best thinkers in the space field today.
 
Zubrin's propellant manufacturing allows a small amount of hydrogen
to be converted into 18 times its mass in methane and LOX.
CO2 is compressed and liquified from the Martian air and reacted with 
hydrogen brought from Earth in the Sabatier process:
 
(1)   CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4 + 2H2O
 
The reaction is exothermic and spontaneous in the presence of a 
catalyst.  This process is quite old, and Hamilton-Standard has built 
an automated reactor for SSF life-support that has a shelf life 
greater than 12 years and 4,200 hours of qualification testing.  It 
reacts 3 kg CO2 per day, sufficient for the automated Mars Direct.  
The water is electrolyzed into oxygen for propellant and hydrogen.
 
Alas, rocket combustion requires another mole of oxygen:
 
(2)   CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
 
To get it, we pyrolize some of the methane from (1)
 
(3)   CH4 -> C + 2H2
 
and feed the hydrogen back to (1) to get more oxygen out of the
Martian atmosphere.  Graphite deposits are periodically removed by 
flushing the reactor with hot CO2 gas:
 
(4)   CO2 + C -> 2CO
 
Mars Direct comes in two varieties, astronaut and automated.
The automated version uses a single, existing Titan IV/Centaur 
($0.28 billion), and modifies the Mars Rover/Sample Return mission 
($3-5 billion) to return 100's of kg of samples from a wide variety 
of sites instead of 5 kg from a few sites.  All major components are 
off-the-shelf, including the SSF Hamilton-Standard reactor, so on a 
fast track this could launch before 1999.  It would be interesting 
to see a native-CO2 modification of the MESUR mission (c. $1 billion).
 
The astronaut version requires a new, special-purpose launch vehicle 
(Ares).  Based on the cost estimates for the similar NLS, this would 
cost $20 billion alone.  The money saved by needing only 2 launches 
is dwarfed by the cost to develop a new launcher.  The next problem is 
the habitat, which in duration and rad-protection needs to be a signficant
advance over SSF.  Fred costs over $60 billion just to build and launch.   
This gives a minimum pricetag of $90 billion, not the suggested 
$50 billion.  Since NLS develpment goes beyond 1999, the timeline is 
also improbable.  The astronaut version also requires new, scaled-up
chemical reactors, but this should be fairly easy.
 
In both cases, a CH4/LOX rocket can be obtained with minor modifications
of the RL-10 or RS-44 engines.
 
Here are the mass budgets for the astronaut Mars Direct launches:
 
Launch 1                              Launch 2
Earth Return Vehicle                  Trans-Mars and Surface Hab
---------------------                 --------------------------
crew cabin      10 tonnes             crew cabin          20 
H2 feedstock    18                    pressurized rover    2
nuclear reactor  4                    science equipment    3
CH4/O2 plant     1                    consumables          8
 
H2 launched from Earth is the bottleneck for Martian operations.  
Hydrogen feedstock makes up 27% of the launch payload to the Mars 
surface.  I am not sure if Zubrin accounts for sufficient tank mass or 
ullage (hydrogen lost during the outbound mission and stay on Mars).  
Consumables are 8% with full water and air recycling assumed.  Radiation 
shielding will also take a significant percentage, although I'm not certain 
if this has been adequately budgeted either.  
 
The mass of these items launched from Earth can be greatly reduced 
by taking native propellants another step.  I am working on what might
be called "Mars Indirect" :-), which puts caches of propellant-ready 
ice into orbit around both Earth and Mars.  The ice is extracted from 
comets or asteroids by automated equipment and moved to destination with 
its own propellants via nuclear or solar thermal rocket.  The key to the 
project is that ice can be stored without a tank brought up from Earth.  
This greatly reduces both up-front and ongoing costs and allows even 
high-energy missions to be feasible with low specific impulse.  For
Mars trips, the ice is used for both outbound and inbound shielding 
and propellant, life support needs including water and most food, and 
operations on the Martian surface.  
 
With this capability dozens of astronauts and thousands of tons of
equipment and samples can travel between Mars and Earth without
the need for a new, oversized launch vehicle.  "Mars-Indirect" takes 
much longer to get around to Mars itself, but the resulting missions 
can take much larger crews to many more places on Mars, and can get 
us far closer to a Martian colony.  Even better, the use of planetoid 
ice allows the project to benefit Earth orbit industries, lunar and 
asteroid operations as well as Mars missions.  
 
References:
 
Zubrin, "In Situ Propellant Production: : The Key Technology 
Required for the Realization of a Coherent and Cost-Effective
Space Exploration Initiative", IAF 42nd Congress (Oct. 1991)
 
Baker and Zubrin, "Mars Direct: Combining Near-Term Technologies 
to Achieve a Two-Launch Manned Mars Mission", JBIS v. 43, pg 519-525 (1990)
-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 

    Anyone know what LOX means in the previous note?
    
    Joe
    

Article: 45498
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Direct: Any Independent Evaluation?
Date: 30 Jun 92 16:53:09 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
 
In article <1992Jun30.043143.1392@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com
(Nick Szabo) writes: 

>Mars Direct comes in two varieties, astronaut and automated.
>The automated version uses a single, existing Titan IV/Centaur 
>($0.28 billion), and modifies the Mars Rover/Sample Return mission 
>($3-5 billion) to return 100's of kg of samples from a wide variety 
>of sites instead of 5 kg from a few sites.
 
It could also return the samples at any time: For example, in two batches,
the second batch being colected _after_ the first had been returned to 
Earth and analyzed (so that the second batch would be collected based on
this additional information...)
 
>The astronaut version requires a new, special-purpose launch vehicle 
>(Ares).  Based on the cost estimates for the similar NLS, this would 
>cost $20 billion alone.
 
Who's cost estimate is that? The Mars Direct launch vehicle (I _think_
Baker was using "Ares" to refer to a second-generation version), was
essentially a Shuttle-C with a few changes: It's launched by four, 
instead of two Space Shuttle Main Engines; the carge is carried over,
instead of beside the External Tank, and a second stage hydrogen/oxygen
rocket (derivitive of those on the Saturn Vs) would be reruired.
 
>The money saved by needing only 2 launches 
>is dwarfed by the cost to develop a new launcher.
 
Mars Direct isn't a two launch project. The proposal is for a continuing
series of missions, one every second year (each mission requiring two
launches). A single mission might not justify the development costs, but
a series of five or ten (which is what Zubrin and Baker are proposing)
would easily.
 
>The next problem is 
>the habitat, which in duration and rad-protection needs to be a signficant
>advance over SSF.
 
No, the proposed habitat (in terms of living space, radiation protection,
etc.) is _not_ derivitive of the Space Station Freedom. Time spent in zero
gravity isn't an issue, since the plan is to spin the habitat (using the
spent upper stage as a counter weight) to create an artificial gravity.
 
In general, Zubrin is working from differen assumptions that NASA: The
astronauts are willing to, can and should take risks, suffer from discomforts,
etc. From this, he doesn't see it as a problem that his habitat modules
would be untested (in real use, there would be ground testing, of course),
crowded, and probably with insufficient radiation shielding.
 
>Fred costs over $60 billion just to build and launch.   
>This gives a minimum pricetag of $90 billion, not the suggested 
>$50 billion.  Since NLS develpment goes beyond 1999, the timeline is 
>also improbable.
 
The whole point of Mars Direct (as the name suggests) is that is goes
directly to Mars. Freedom isn't involved. As for the timeline, Martian
Marreta's launch vehicle experts thought they could have a Shuttle-C
variant ready in time. That estimate assumed starting work in 1990, so
I'd assume the timetable has slipped two years...
 
>H2 launched from Earth is the bottleneck for Martian operations.  
>Hydrogen feedstock makes up 27% of the launch payload to the Mars 
>surface. 
 
Personally, I'd prefer carbon monoxide/oxygen as a martian in-situ fuel.
It's specific impules isn't as good as methane/oxygen, but it is both
easier to produce on Mars, and requires on raw materials from Earth.
 
_If_ a water supply can be found on Mars (permafrost, etc...) or is
water is being extracted directly from the atmosphere (power intensive
and requiring a fair amount of machinery, but possible), then Mars
Direct can work without transporting hydrogen from Earth.
 
>Consumables are 8% with full water and air recycling assumed.  Radiation 
>shielding will also take a significant percentage, although I'm not certain 
>if this has been adequately budgeted either.  
 
His radiation shielding is solar flare/storm shelter only protection. Refering
to Ben Clarke's paper (I'm afraid I only have a xerox of his viewgraphs, 
without a reference to the paper itself), the cosmic background radiation
should be at a livable level druing the solar max. Flares would be a pain,
but Zubrin accounts for them. "Safe" in this context, means the crew would
be unimpared druing the mission; they would have a heightened chance of 
radition-related cancers decades after the mission.
 
By the way, the last time Mars missions came up (a few months ago), someone
suggested I either quit complaning about the Synthesis Group architectures
or suggest (in detail) an alternative. I got about 2/3 of the way through
such an alternative architecture, but I couldn't find manpower use numbers
to finish it (how many man-hours does it take to assemble a pre-fabricated
greenhouse, for example?). If anyone's interested, I can post what I have, 
filling in the manpower with a best guess.
 
						   Frank Crary
						   UC Berkeley

Article: 45499
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Direct - One Way
Date: 30 Jun 92 16:56:51 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
 
In article <l4vv8hINN6es@nunki.usc.edu> rone@skat.usc.edu writes:

>>there is some unpleasent soil chemistry that released oxygen when water
>>was added to the samples.
>Er, what's so unpleasant about that? I thought oxygen was our friend. :)
 
Releasing oxygen (in and of itself) would be fine. However, the chemical
that does it, is a strong oxidized (no big supprise) and fairly reactive
in a terrestrial environment (like if dust got into a manned mission's
habitat.) It would probably be similar to getting (say) paint stripping
chemicals on your hands.
 
						       Frank Crary
						       UC Berkeley

Article: 45501
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Mars Direct: Any Independent Evaluation?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 17:22:36 GMT
 
In article <1992Jun30.043143.1392@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com
(Nick Szabo) writes: 
 
>The astronaut version requires a new, special-purpose launch vehicle 
>(Ares).  
 
The "special purpose launch vehicle" is a derivitive of Shuttle-C. There
is little new or special purpose about it.
 
>Based on the cost estimates for the similar NLS, this would 
>cost $20 billion alone.  
 
Closer to $2 billion. BTW, the NLS budget is only about half
the $20B you claim above.
 
>The money saved by needing only 2 launches 
>is dwarfed by the cost to develop a new launcher.  
 
Nonsense.
 
>The next problem is 
>the habitat, which in duration and rad-protection needs to be a signficant
>advance over SSF.  Fred costs over $60 billion just to build and launch.   
 
This does not address Zubrin's design and is therefore meaningless.
 
>This gives a minimum pricetag of $90 billion, not the suggested 
>$50 billion.  
 
Since your estimates are off by a factor of two to ten, it looks like
$50B is indeed reasonable. 
 
BTW, since you seem to accept the $90 billion figure may we assume we will
hear no more half trillion $$ estimates from you for Moon/Mars?
 
  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "Giving power and money to government is like giving   |
|  aws@iti.org     |  whiskey and car keys to teenage boys"                 |
+----------------------297 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

Article: 45556
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Direct: Any Independent Evaluation?
Date: 1 Jul 92 07:54:27 GMT
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
 
In article <12q3hlINNkpc@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Frank Crary) writes: 
 
>[Ares] was
>essentially a Shuttle-C with a few changes: It's launched by four, 
>instead of two Space Shuttle Main Engines; the carge is carried over,
>instead of beside the External Tank, and a second stage hydrogen/oxygen
>rocket (derivitive of those on the Saturn Vs) would be reruired.
 
Also some ASRMs, as I recall.  Basically, they are taking one
and a half Shuttles, substituting a nonexistant upper stage and 
a nonexistant 4-man crew capsule for the Orbiter structure, and
_throwing it away_.  This is supposed to save money? 
 
This concept is practically the same as the NLS proposals, and 
the estimates to first NLS launch are in the $20 billion range.
Among other things, they need to combine ASRM's and Shuttle
components in ways they were never designed for, and build brand 
new launch pads and vehicle assembly building (unless we're 
going to scrap Shuttle).  Finally, there are no customers for 
HLV's besides SEI, whose budget is 1/500th (one-five hundredth) the 
NLS pricetag, in case somebody wants to suggest "sharing costs".
 
Face the facts: we don't have an launch system good enough for
this purpose now, and we're not going to get one by mixing up 
the jigsaw pieces and trying to fit them together in a new way.  
To make launching these kinds of missions reasonable, we need
new technology: probably SSTO and high-energy upper stages, though
we need to explore the many other options as well.  The technology 
should be designed for the bulk of the market, and ultimately
be used and payed for by them, instead of single-purpose, throwaway 
vehicles like NLS/Ares.  Mars missions should use that military/commercial 
infrastructure, instead of purporting to build their own dead-end 
machines.
 
>> [Habitat with greater functionality than SSF will cost
>>  more than SSF's $60 billion to build and launch]
>
>No, the proposed habitat (in terms of living space, radiation protection,
>etc.) is _not_ derivitive of the Space Station Freedom.
 
In other words, _yes_, the proposed...  :-)
Of course we can't use Fred modules; we need something much more
functional.  In the real world, added functionality means added cost.
 
>...working from differen assumptions that NASA: The
>astronauts are willing to, can and should take risks, suffer from discomforts,
>etc...
>His radiation shielding is solar flare/storm shelter only protection...
 
Putting aside the political improbability of this in a world where 
astronauts are heroes, Mars Direct/astronaut _adds_ three kinds of
functionality to SSF capabilities: rad sheleter, extended duration,
and artificial gravity.  It does not specify any functionality _taken 
off_, nor enumerate the savings therefrom.  Your above explanation is 
just the kind of vague Magic Improvement I have claimed plagues world of 
space advocacy; thank you for providing a good example.  
 
>(how many man-hours does it take to assemble a pre-fabricated
>greenhouse, for example?).
 
For that matter, how do we design a greenhouse sealed from the
cold, low-pressure Martian atmosphere?  Interesting problem.
 
I'd love to hear about the CO/O2 option for native propellant, 
if anybody has some technical information on that. 
-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 

Article: 45562
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Mars Direct: Any Independent Evaluation?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1992 17:42:26 GMT
 
In article <1992Jul1.075427.6305@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com
(Nick Szabo) writes: 
 
>This concept is practically the same as the NLS proposals, and 
 
Which NLS proposal? Currently NLS is a MLV titan replacement. Now Martin
did make a NLS proposal but that was different in some key ways. The
most important difference was the engines used in each vehicle (STMS
VS SSME).
 
>the estimates to first NLS launch are in the $20 billion range.
 
Also wrong. Current estimates are on the order of $12B for the
vehicle and they added on a $3B OTV about a year ago. When you
realize that NLS is a regular government procurement and that
NLS is developing new engines from the ground up you will
realize a streamlined off the shelf HLV can be build for a
couple billion tops.
 
This is to some extent confirmed by McDonnell Douglas and a
separate Martin Marrietta division with their HLV proposals which
cost under $1B to develop.
 
>Finally, there are no customers for HLV's besides SEI
 
Kind of like the days of early avation in the 20's. Back then they
built their aircraft with no commercial market, just government
subsidized mail routes. Maybe the end result here will be the same?
 
>Face the facts: we don't have an launch system good enough for
>this purpose now, 
 
If we argue based on superinflated costs maybe. But since the
assumptions of your arguement have been shown to be false, you
cannot say that you have proven your case.
 
   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "Giving power and money to government is like giving   |
|  aws@iti.org     |  whiskey and car keys to teenage boys"                 |
+----------------------296 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

    radiation from flares can be handled by piling dirt on top of
    emergency shelters.
    
     I don't think we need new technology for this plan. I think we need
    new vehicles using simpler, less powerful, but more reliable engines.
    
    Gregg

    Re .164 
    
    	LOX  =  Liquid Oxygen
    
    	&
    
    	LAX  =  Legal Axe (much used in space budgets), the main reason
    		that no one has yet gone to  Mars or  back to the  Moon. 
    		Or a dozen other places...  (-;
    
    
    One thing gets to me, I keep reading that the reason that many big
    space projects get delayed and become more expensive overall 
    (ex: the Shuttle) is that congress refuses to let any budget peak 
    more then X in any year.
    
    Why can't NASA get fixed yearly budget from congress, for a project,
    then use loans, bonds or whatever other finacial mechanism to cover 
    those peak years.
    
    Private Companies use borrowing all the time, the federal, state, city
    governaments do it too, all the time. So why can't NASA do it too. Is
    there any law that prevents a federal agency from borrowing ?
    
    Gil

    
    Sounds like a great idea but ...
    
    Assuming that things are the same in the States as they are in Canada,
    in general private companies can raise funds in this fashion because
    they are expected to make a profit (with the exception of government
    agencies. ;-)   Hence, the big financial institutions are willing to
    lend them the money.  On the other hand, making the exploitation of
    space a profitable venture is a long way off.  Chances are money will
    be made by the companies which are using the shuttle as an
    experiment platform (e.g. crystal growth in micro-gravity).  It is
    these companies who are likely to raise funds through bonds, etc.
    When these companies can make a profit in space it will have positive
    repercusions for NASA.  i.e. Those companies may start to invest in
    NASA in a big way (or start their own civilian or private space
    program).
    
    Chris Baldock
    London (That's Canada, eh?)

    re .169
    
    Making a profit is not specifically the issue. What .168 was suggesting
    (I think) is that loans were used to match available funds with actual
    requirements for the year i.e. loans supplement the constant level of
    funding against, say, a couple of years when say, twice the amount of
    funding would bring the project in earlier and for a lower total cost. Of
    course the debt servicing (interest charge) adds to the cost but that
    *could* be balanced out by savings due to the project not stretching out.

    Re .169
    
    As Re .170 explains, making a profit is not the issue. Governaments
    issues bonds and they aren't for profit organizations.  All that is
    required is a predictable source of revenue, for NASA its budget.
    
    And yes, I have calculated that if the congress gives NASA a fixed
    yearly budget, and lets NASA take care of any peaks by supplementing
    its funding with loans (either bonds, or banks, or any other kind),
    The total project cost can be less, AND the project gets completed
    much earlier.
    
    I have attached a little example, I have caculated:

	Example  of how to handle peaks and valleys in a project, that
	in itself requires variable funding from year to year and has
	some unaceptable cost peaks.  By using fixed budget regimes and 
	investing and borrowing as needed.

	In example Investment gives 8 % interest, and borrowing pays 12 %. 
	All figures in Billions of 1971 dollars, and acording to same year
	cost predictions. 

	* All costs, except the totals and the peaks, are made up data.
	If anyone has the real year by year costs, I could use them here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	*** Optimal shuttle option, using reusable orbiter and booster
	that was rejected because of too high yearly peak budget (1.6 B).
	Could have been implemented with a fixed yearly budget of .763 B.
	And for a total program cost no bigger then the non-optimal
	option taken.


Fixed yearly budget ? .763
year  1  Costs = 0.3  Budget_to_date =  0.763  Balance_of_funds =  0.463000
year  2  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date =  1.526  Balance_of_funds =  0.758410
year  3  Costs = 1.0  Budget_to_date =  2.289  Balance_of_funds =  0.574499
year  4  Costs = 1.2  Budget_to_date =  3.052  Balance_of_funds =  0.177714
year  5  Costs = 1.6  Budget_to_date =  3.815  Balance_of_funds = -0.646846
year  6  Costs = 1.0  Budget_to_date =  4.578  Balance_of_funds = -0.961468
year  7  Costs = 0.8  Budget_to_date =  5.341  Balance_of_funds = -1.113840
year  8  Costs = 0.7  Budget_to_date =  6.104  Balance_of_funds = -1.184510
year  9  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date =  6.867  Balance_of_funds = -1.063650
year 10  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date =  7.630  Balance_of_funds = -0.928284
year 11  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date =  8.393  Balance_of_funds = -0.776678
year 12  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date =  9.156  Balance_of_funds = -0.606879
year 13  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date =  9.919  Balance_of_funds = -0.416704
year 14  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date = 10.682  Balance_of_funds = -0.203709
year 15  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date = 11.445  Balance_of_funds =  0.034846

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

	*** Current shuttle, choosen because had an yearly peak budget
	of only 1.1 B, in spite of a higher total budget of 11.5 B 
	instead of only 10 B, and much bigger operational costs after 
	developement.

	Here too the yearly budget peak could have been lowered to a
	fixed .765 B, while keeping its total cost around the same. 


Fixed yearly budget ? .765
year  1  Costs = 0.3  Budget_to_date =  0.765  Balance_of_funds =  0.465000
year  2  Costs = 0.5  Budget_to_date =  1.530  Balance_of_funds =  0.762550
year  3  Costs = 0.8  Budget_to_date =  2.295  Balance_of_funds =  0.780929
year  4  Costs = 1.0  Budget_to_date =  3.060  Balance_of_funds =  0.600593
year  5  Costs = 1.1  Budget_to_date =  3.825  Balance_of_funds =  0.307635
year  6  Costs = 1.1  Budget_to_date =  4.590  Balance_of_funds = -0.005831
year  7  Costs = 0.9  Budget_to_date =  5.355  Balance_of_funds = -0.141530
year  8  Costs = 0.9  Budget_to_date =  6.120  Balance_of_funds = -0.293514
year  9  Costs = 0.7  Budget_to_date =  6.885  Balance_of_funds = -0.263736
year 10  Costs = 0.7  Budget_to_date =  7.650  Balance_of_funds = -0.230384
year 11  Costs = 0.7  Budget_to_date =  8.415  Balance_of_funds = -0.193030
year 12  Costs = 0.7  Budget_to_date =  9.180  Balance_of_funds = -0.151194
year 13  Costs = 0.7  Budget_to_date =  9.945  Balance_of_funds = -0.104337
year 14  Costs = 0.7  Budget_to_date = 10.710  Balance_of_funds = -0.051857
year 15  Costs = 0.7  Budget_to_date = 11.475  Balance_of_funds =  0.006920

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

  One problem is that your proposal may be unconstitutional. Remember, every
dime spent by NASA, which is part of the Executive branch of government, is
considered "government spending". And according to the U.S. Constitution, all
government spending is based on bills originating in the U.S. House of
Representatives. If NASA were to go out and borrow money, then they would be
spending money obtained by the executive branch of government, not money
authorized by Congress. 

  Another problem is that borrowing money for government spending is a form of
deficit spending and the Graham, Rudman, Hollings act restricts and caps the
size of the deficit for any given year. Overriding GRH is much more difficult
than just passing an authorization bill in the 1st place.

  Finally, the budget process is an annual process. That means that each year 
an agency shows an excess is a year that money would have to be returned to the
U.S. Treasury and every year they show a loss covered by borrowing would be a
year that they would have to override GRH to increase the U.S. deficit. There
is no provision for passing a multi-year budget. 

  The idea as proposed might get through Congress and might get signed by the
President but it would probably get thrown out by the Supreme Court as a
violation of the U.S. Constitution. 

  George

    
    Come on "Unconstitutional",  where is there on the constitution
    that congress can't pass a bill authorizing a project with such
    a fixed budget and financial package included. I agree that the
    project's spending would still be constrained in the governament's
    total spending, but "unconstitutional" !!!
    
    I agree that it would be a new thing, but this is after all only
    a new financing technique (for governament projects that is) the
    rest of the world has been using borrowing for centuries.
    
    Another thing you mentioned is that the USA federal total budget 
    is re-authorized yearly. It just happens that this is another area
    of the governament that could use some improvements. I know that
    yearly budgets give the president and congress something to do,
    but its too much to pay just to keep them busy.
    
    At least half the yearly budget work and hagling could be avoided
    by having congress aprove budget items in toto (for their total life).
    Only interfering if the particular item gets into some serious.
    trouble, or if some unrelated reason they decide to cvancel it.
    
    This would not only half the work of congress, but it would give
    services/industries that depend on governament money a much more
    stable economic work enviroment. Thus more predictable and profitable.
    
    I belive this is something that would greatly benefit everyone
    directly or indirectly. And should be implemented (just a dream)
    even if it requires a constitutional change.
    
    Gil

  From the Constitution of the United States:

>Article. I.
>    .
>    .
>    .
>Section. 7.  All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of 
>Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on 
>other Bills. ...

  Now add to that the Graham, Rudman, Hollings, bill which limits the amount of
borrowing that can be done by any Federal government agency and you have a
system where by spending, even through new borrowing, has to be figured into
the budget each year and can only originate in the House of Representatives. 

  Where your system falls down is that each budget cycle (currently one year)
things are proposed which require new spending. If there were multi year
programs, a certain amount of the spending would already be used up and people
would have to haggle over what was left. 

  Now you may like that idea but the problem is that there is no provision
under the constitution to prevent Congress from retracting a spending agreement
made in previous years. Even if they had made a commitment to spend $10
billion at 1$ billion a year for 10 years to go to Mars, there's nothing to
prevent them from changing their mind after 3 years and withdrawing the
spending. Spending bills are law and Congress has the right to repeal a law by
passing a new one at any time. The only way that can be changed is by a
constitutional amendment. 

  And before you go proposing a constitutional amendment to allow a provision
which allows Congress to commit the nation to a multi year spending program,
keep in mind 2 things. First, it has to have some sort of provision for
national emergencies like war or recession. Second, the odds that they would
use it to commit the nation to a major space program are very unlikely. 

  More likely it would be used to commit the nation to either a massive multi
year defense build up or a new round of social programs depending on who was in
office at the time. Were that the case, your amendment would probably do more
to hinder the space program than to advance it.

  George

re .174
    
>>Section. 7.  All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of 
>>Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on 
>>other Bills. ...
    
    Um, I'm no con. lawyer but the way I read this, it must be talking
    about taxes'n'things since it says *raising* revenue. Did you make a
    typo?
    
re .general
    
    Ignoring the actual financing, what is the bottom line cost of the
    official proposed mission to Mars and what is the bottom line cost of
    the "Mars on the cheap" idea?

    George is correct.
    
     for example, Since the U.S.S. Constitution is a comissioned vessel
    ofthe U.S. Navy it is not possible to gather funds that people would
    like to donate and use them for her upkeep. This is different than the
    situation over 100 years ago when people could send intheir pennies.
    
     The only money that can be used for Constitution is Federal money

  That section has been interpreted as meaning that all spending bills must
originate in the house. The tax section is the following section:

>Section. 8.  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, 
>Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and 
>general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
>shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...

and of course the 16th Amendment

>     The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from 
>whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and 
>without regard to any census or enumeration.

  As for how much, no one knows. There are probably estimates but I'd start
by multiplying them by four.

  George

Article: 46350
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:33:59 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
 
Dr. Zubrin pointed out some interesting facts in his luncheon talk at
the 1992 ISDC. 
 
If you raise the temperature of Mars by ~ 5C, it will go into a
runaway greenhouse that will not stop until all the CO2 is gaseous. 
 
This will leave you with ~ 5psi CO2 atmosphere at ~50F with most  
water in the liquid state. It will take less than 10 years to occur.
 
He had some very interesting graphs that showed how very close Mars  
is to a lower of two unstable points. I pointed out to him that  
because of the orbital changes in Mars over time, this could well  
happen naturally during the peak of the next "warm" cycle.
 
He stated that a nuclear power plant in the GW range synthesizing and  
releasing NH4 would be sufficient to raise the temp by the requisite  
5C in a short time.
 
He suggested a faster method would be to use 4 Nerva class engines to  
move a large comet to impact. The extra gases would be enough to  
raise the temparture past the unstable point.
 
Once the runaway occurs, the system is stable in the new  
configuration. Ie, Mars is metastable, it is in the lower  
"uninhabitable" state and it is very close to the pushover to fall  
into the the "habitable" state.
 
An O2 atmosphere would take generations however. But with free water  
and lots of CO2 and mild temperatures, plants will get on just fine  
and will do the job with no further intervention.
 
Humans could walk freely with nothing more than a scuba mask.
 

    I don't know if I buy all of the previous arguments.....what about
    gravity?  Wouldn't Mars have to be bigger in order to hold any of this
    new atmosphere?  Also, Mars has a wide temperature range today, so I'm
    not a believer that another 5 degrees will make a major change.
    
    Joe
    

Notice that it is still only a 5 psi or so atmosphere.  Probably not enough for
humans unless it is nearly pure oxygen.

Burns

      Actually, at sea level on earth, the partial pressure of O2 is around
    3psi. A 5psi atmosphere would be prefectly breathable if it was only
    50% oxygen. However, humans can't tolerate more than a few % of CO2
    content (at 15psi I think the limit is around 4-5%, and even 1-2% will cause
    breathing discomfort - any physiologists out there?), so the masks would
    still be necessary. If you got the CO2 down to a tolerable level, you
    would lose most of the greenhouse effect, and the temperature would start
    to go down again. There is evidence that the earth underwent just this
    process, with a major and prolonged ice age (the Hercynian? I'll have to
    check) occurring at just about the time that free oxygen appeared in the
    atmosphere. This was about 2 billion years ago, so the evidence is pretty
    sketchy, but there is some.
    
      It is not clear how they have calculated the surface pressure.
    'Terraforming' enthusiasts often seem to forget that gravity is
    important in determining this. A column containing a mass of air
    sufficient to produce a surface pressure of 5psi on earth will give
    a much lower surface pressure on Mars, because it will *weigh* less.
    The pressure is essentially a measure of the weight of air above each
    square unit of surface area, not its mass. For each square inch of
    Mars' surface area, you would need a much greater mass of 'air' to
    produce a given surface pressure than would be required on earth. It
    would be interesting to know how they arrived at their figures.
    
    Ken                        

    re .-1 (FYI)
    
    From the Astronomy conference, Mars has about 10% the mass of Earth
    but, because of its lower radius, the surface gravity is 38% of Earth.

    Asteroids probably hit Mars with some frequency, since they hit
    Earth every hundred million years or so and Mars is right next to
    the asteroid belt.  There should be historical evidence for the kind 
    of disruption Zubrin is talking about.  We just have to go there
    and find it...   /jlr

Article: 47968
From: jetson@vab02.larc.nasa.gov (Greg Fruth (JIAFS))
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Martian Chronology
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:42:15 GMT
Sender: news@news.larc.nasa.gov (USENET Network News)
Organization: VAB, NASA Langley
 
One proposal for a Martian time scheme can be found in AAS paper
87-269, "Metric Time for Mars" by Bruce A. Mackenzie.  This paper may
be found in _The Case for Mars III_.  In it, the author presents a
possible time convention for human settlers on Mars, which I shall
summarize: 
 
unit		equivalent Mars units	equivalent Earth time   use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mars day	1 day = 25 hora		24 h 39 m 35.238 s	~ day
		1 day = 1000 millidays	1.0275 Earth days
 
Mars hour	25 hora = 1 day		0.9864 hours		~ hour
or 'hora'	1 hora = 4 centidays	59.184 minutes
		1 hora = 40 millidays
 
centiday	100 centidays = 1 day	14.796 minutes		~ quarter of
or 'quarter'	4 centidays = 1 hora				  an hour
 
milliday	1000 millidays = 1 day	1.4796 minutes		~ minute
or 'mil'	40 millidays = 1 hora
		10 millidays = 1 centiday
 
beat		100 beats = 1 milliday	0.88775 seconds		~ second
(as in
 heartbeat)
 
I do not necessarily espouse this proposal; I just thought I'd mention it.
 
-- 
Greg Fruth                                      jetson@vab02.larc.nasa.gov
 ___            ___  ____               __      ____        ___  __  
/   \|   |  /\  |  \ |        /\  |\  | | \     |    |\  |   |  /  \ \   /
\___ |___| /__\ |__/ |__     /__\ | \ | |  \    |__  | \ |   |  |  |  \_/

    Re .-1
    
    Changing our time units to fit Mars is the wrong way to go.
    It took the human race a long time to agree on the ones we
    have  (for erxample: only in the last decades has everyone 
    gone to the same calendar). 
    
    Lets not go backwards... 
    
    People on Mars or anywhere else outside of Earth, should
    use Earth times units. For example for Mars, it will be a 
    lot simpler to keep Earth hours and just reprogram your
    watch to start a new day every 24:37 h instead of 24:00 h. 
    
    You have heard of the "Happy", "Owl", "Witching" Hours,
    well the extra 39 minutes in Mars will be the "Mars Hour".
    
    Dates will be something else, but once again your trusty
    watch will easily keep track of two calendars the Mars
    calendar/time and the Earth calendar/time. 
    
    I would sugest that they keep the Mars calendar simple,
    don't clog it up with all the historical garbage we have
    on the Earth's calendar. Just let Mars year be equal to
    669 or 670 Mars days, and number the days from 1 to 670.
    
    Has for leap years and stuff, same thing, keep it simple
    just state that if the astronomical new years falls in
    a day then that day is new year's day. And all the leap
    years will fall in place...
    
    Gil

From:	DECWRL::"yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov" "Peter E. Yee" 15-SEP-1992 
        14:18:23.53
To:	sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	NASA-developed "telepresence" key to Antarctic expedition 
        [Release 92-147] (Forwarded)

Drucella Andersen
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                        September 15, 1992
(Phone:  202/453-8613)

Michael Mewhinney
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
(Phone:  415/604-3937)

RELEASE:  92-147

NASA-DEVELOPED "TELEPRESENCE" KEY TO ANTARCTIC EXPEDITION

	NASA scientists will use "telepresence" technology in the
Antarctic this fall to see if life that existed millions of years ago
on Earth can provide clues about organisms that once may have lived on
Mars.

	A 5-member research team will travel to Antarctica in October to study
sediment on the bottom of ice-covered Lake Hoare on Ross Island.  They will
examine the physical and biological nature of the lake, including its
temperature, chemical composition and the gas content of the water. The key
research tool will be a mini-submarine mounting a camera that researchers
will control with a video headset.

	"Antarctica is the most Mars-like environment on Earth," said Dr. Carol
Stoker, a scientist and expedition member from NASA's Ames Research
Center, Mountain View, Calif.  "We're taking this technology to a hostile
environment to conduct research that has direct applications to NASA's goal
of exploring Mars."

	The team also plans to continue studies of ice-covered lakes started
earlier this year during a joint NASA-Russian expedition in the Bunger Hills
Oasis of Eastern Antarctica.  That study was part of Ames' research into
microbes living in extreme environments.

	The telepresence technology relies on a video headset that lets
researchers use head movements to point the camera on the underwater
vehicle.  Team members will steer the vehicle by remote control with
joysticks or body motion.

	"There are lots of work going on in the Silicon Valley using
telepresence in various engineering applications," Stoker said. "But we are
the only ones using this technology for field science."

	The 2-month expedition is a joint NASA-National Science Foundation
project.  Team leader is Dr. Robert Wharton, a scientist from the Desert
Research Institute at the University of Nevada.  Other team members are Dr.
Scott Tyler of the Desert Research Institute and Ames researchers Stoker,
Dale Andersen and Don Barch.

	The Telepresence-Controlled Remotely Operated Vehicle was built by
Deep Ocean Engineering Inc., San Leandro, Calif.

-end-

NOTE TO EDITORS:  A video clip is available to media by calling 202/453-8594.
Still photos to illustrate this release are available by calling 202/453-8373.

		  Color:                            B&W:
		  92-HC-598                         92-H-653

Article: 51386
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
Sender: news@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:46:29 GMT
 
Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                          November 10, 1992
(Phone:  202/358-1547)
 
Mike Fluharty
National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C
(Phone:  202/357-9498)
 
RELEASE:  92-200
 
FIRST STEPS TO MARS TAKEN BY SIMULATION IN ANTARCTICA
 
	Scientists from NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are
taking the first steps to Mars this winter in the most unearthly place on the
planet -- Antarctica.
 
	NASA and NSF researchers are conducting several unique science and
technology projects developed under a joint effort called the Antarctic Space
Analog Program.  The program uses the harsh, frigid conditions of the
Antarctic continent to test technology and techniques for future missions to
the Moon and Mars.
 
	"Our current work stresses exploration by robots and tests of the
equipment needed to support humans in a remote environment.  We're also
studying how humans interact with those technologies," said Dr. John D.
Rummel, NASA Program Committee Co-Chairperson.
 
	"The U.S. Antarctic Program, under NSF management, is interested in
testing NASA-developed technologies, such as telescience, which could help
reduce the number of people who run our scientific experiments," said Dr.
Carol A. Roberts, NSF Program Committee Co-Chairperson.
 
	"Also," she continued, "we are very much interested in preserving the
pristine Antarctic environment through improved waste processing and
energy production technologies."
 
     	The Antarctic, known for its physical challenges, isolation and rugged
terrain, is an excellent place to evaluate exploration technologies and human
factor questions because scientists live and work under conditions similar to
those that planetary explorers will encounter.
 
"Telepresence" and Power
 
	From October through December, researchers are studying a
permanently frozen Antarctic lake using "telepresence" technology developed
at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.  Telepresence lets an
operator, wearing a video headset, see through cameras on a remotely-
controlled robot.  The researcher's head movements direct the camera's
movements.
 
	In the project, a remotely operated "rover", connected to the surface
by a cable, will descend into Lake Hoare to study the lake's life forms.  The
goal is to demonstrate the scientific use of telepresence while gaining further
insight into the Mars environment that may have existed several billion years
ago.
 
	The scientists' field camp is supported by an advanced solar power
system that can be deployed easily in remote field locations.  NASA's Lewis
Research Center, Cleveland, developed the system.
 
	The NASA Office of Space Science and Applications and Office of
Advanced Concepts and Technology and NSF's Division of Polar Programs
jointly sponsor the expedition.
 
"Dante" to Descend into Volcanic "Inferno"
 
	Later this season, NASA plans to send an eight-legged robot into the
crater of Antarctica's Mount Erebus, the world's only easily-reached volcano
with a permanent lava lake.  The rover, appropriately dubbed "Dante," will
photograph the crater, measure the temperature of the lava lake and sample
the gases it releases.
 
	The Erebus project will test technology for future robotic explorers
that could cross the rugged Martian landscape.  It also will collect science
data to help understand Earth's environment, since some scientists think that
gases from volcanic eruptions may play a role in depleting Earth's ozone layer.
 
	Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, built Dante under a $2 million
NASA grant.
 
[NOTE:  This rover test has been postponed to next year.  Last week, Dante
        damaged four its legs during a test run and has been sent back to
        Carnegie Mellon for repairs.  Ron Baalke  ]
 
Fresh Food for Future Explorers
 
	In another experiment, the NASA/NSF researchers are trying to
produce fresh food and to a significant extent, recover water under controlled
conditions at the South Pole.
 
	The Closed Ecological Life Support System Antarctic Analog Project
addresses crop productivity, the effect of fresh food on humans' well-being
and how the integrated system performs.  Scientists believe that having fresh
food during the long South Polar winter will be good for their physical and
psychological well-being -- benefits that would apply to long-duration human
space missions as well.
 
	The project's waste management system also will reduce the impact of
humans on the pristine polar environment.  In January, scientists will travel
to the South Pole to evaluate the site and to analyze waste materials that will
be recycled by the system.
 
	The program is managed by the Advanced Life Support Division at
NASA's Ames Research Center and is co-sponsored by Ames' Life Sciences
Division and the NSF Division of Polar Programs.
 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third. 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Article: 51465
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:21:46 GMT
Sender: news@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
In article <1992Nov10.224620.15116@news.arc.nasa.gov>,
baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes... 

>"Dante" to Descend into Volcanic "Inferno"
> 
>	Later this season, NASA plans to send an eight-legged robot into the
>crater of Antarctica's Mount Erebus, the world's only easily-reached volcano
>with a permanent lava lake.  The rover, appropriately dubbed "Dante," will
>photograph the crater, measure the temperature of the lava lake and sample
>the gases it releases.
> 
>	The Erebus project will test technology for future robotic explorers
>that could cross the rugged Martian landscape.  It also will collect science
>data to help understand Earth's environment, since some scientists think that
>gases from volcanic eruptions may play a role in depleting Earth's ozone layer.
> 
>	Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, built Dante under a $2 million
>NASA grant.
> 
>[NOTE:  This rover test has been postponed to next year.  Last week, Dante
>        damaged four its legs during a test run and has been sent back to
>        Carnegie Mellon for repairs.  Ron Baalke  ]
 
I've just been informed by someone associated with the Erebus project that
the repair work on Dante will only cause a 4 week delay.  So the rover
will be sent into Mount Erebus later this year. 

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third. 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

RE: 276.181 by REPAIR::RICKETTS "Somewhere right of Genghis Khan"

> If you got the CO2 down to a tolerable level, you would lose most of the 
> greenhouse effect, and the temperature would start to go down again. 

Correct,  and a key point is that to complete the terraforming process 
artificial gases would need to be manufactured and released continually to 
maintain a reasonable surface temperature.  Mars would need to maintain an
civilization to stay livable!  These gases need to have good absorbation in 
IR,  reasonably  non-toxic,  easy and cheap to manufacture and fairly long 
lived.  Methane and CFC's are some examples.  For that matter,  carbonate 
rocks would need to be mined and roasted to maintain the CO2 level.


Phil

From:	DECWRL::"baalke@kelvin.Jpl.Nasa.Gov" "Ron Baalke" 12-FEB-1993 
To:	sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	U.S., Russian Rovers Take Their First Run Together

From the "JPL Universe"
February 12, 1993

U.S., Russian rovers take their first run together
By Karre Marino

     A lunchtime crowd gathered Jan. 29 for a demonstration of
the Russian planetary rover, called Marsokhod, and JPL's
mini-rover, Rocky IV, both of which will head for Mars in
separate missions in late 1996.

     The demonstration was spur of the moment, according to Donna
Pivirotto, the Microrover team leader. "It was really just a bit
of fun for everyone," she said. "We exchanged information and
essentially were able to verify for the Russians that they were
on the right track.

     "We actually came away with a general feeling that they
think what we're doing is very interesting, but at the same time,
they didn't appear to want to use our technology. They'd prefer
we give them money or buy their products."

     The rovers were strikingly different in appearance, as the
Russian effort, at 80 kilograms, was several times larger than
the JPL prototype, which weighs 7 kilograms. Marsokhod (Russian
for Mars rover) is 60 centimeters (24 inches) wide by 90
centimeters (36 inches) long, and has six cone-shaped titanium
wheels. It runs on RTG (nuclear) power of 20 watts.

     Rocky IV is 61 centimeters (24 inches) long by 38.5
centimeters (15 inches) wide by 36 centimeters (14 inches) high.
It has six 13- centimeter (5-inch) diameter wheels made of strips
of stainless steel foil, which offer stability and mobility;
cleats provide traction.

     Rocky runs on 5 watts of solar energy, which is used during
the day to power the electronics, stored inside a warm electronic
box. At night, the electronics are turned off, and the keep-alive
batteries run the unit, Pivirotto explained. "The idea is that
the electronics get warm enough during the day and while they
cool down at night, it doesn't cause problems. Batteries also
enable us to run science instruments at night, or if Rocky is
driving along and goes into a shadow, the batteries -- which are
non-rechargeable flashlight types --  drive us out. They also aid
in climbing, providing an added boost to get over a big rock."

     The microrover uses Ackerman steering, Pivirotto noted.
"It's like your car; one wheel turns the same way the other wheel
turns. It tracks without skidding." However, Marsokhod uses skid
steering; the left and rightside wheels turn in opposite
directions. The rover can turn sharply, but it takes more energy
to do so, she said.

     Rocky, which is controlled by a Macintosh Powerbook,
features sensors that help it avoid cliffs, dropoffs or excessive
slopes (though the rover can ascend slopes of 26 degrees). An
on-board visible infrared spectrometer and color camera will
record and send back images and rock spectra, while a chipper is
designed to remove a thin layer of rock surfaces and may
determine if Mars' "rocks" weather as Earth's rocks do. A
soft-sand scoop takes soil samples, and a video and radio modem
transmit data and images. The rover can also place a seismometer
on the surface.

     Pivirotto noted that just as the two rovers designs are
different, so too are the nations' approaches to testing and
building prototypes. "(The Russians) are very empirical in their
work. Their philosophy is not one of system engineering -- as
ours is. They don't have much analysis. They build it and try it,
which means they'll make lots of changes. We do more
requirements, design and analysis before we build."

     The Russian philosophy, she admitted, has led to failure
with all of their Mars missions, but success with each Venus
mission. "The problem seems to be in the design of the landing
system. That's why they expressed interest in our dynamicists
talking to theirs."

     Information exchange was not the only success of the
demonstration here. The exercise itself gained high marks. Both
rovers made impressive runs, up stairs and across constructed
barriers, as audience members applauded. Then the prototypes
headed for the pit behind Visitor Control, maneuvering over
grass, boulders, pebbles -- and, at times -- each other. (The
large Marsokhod ran into a small Russian lunar rover.) As
expected, Marsokhod handled the large boulders with ease, while
Rocky IV struggled; of course, a few times, seeming to have a
mind of its own, and being the innovation of Americans, the
micro-rover simply went around a large boulder that seemed like
so much bother!

     Rocky IV is part of the Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR)
project, which will place a network of landers, each equipped
with a seismometer, in varying locations on the Martian surface.
Recordings of Marsquakes by seismometers at different locations
will help determine the internal structure of the Red Planet.
Deployment of the network is planned for three Mars launches.

     The demonstration continued what have been informal
discussions between American and Russian scientists and
engineers, as they explore possible opportunities for future
cooperation between the two nations in planetary studies.

     The seven-member Russian team was curious about more than
scientific data, said Pivirotto. "They wanted to know about our
lifestyle. They thought it was interesting that I owned my own
home. They were also big fans of pizza and Budweiser."

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never yell "Movie!" in a
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | crowded fire station.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: baalke@kelvin.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Ron Baalke)
% Subject: U.S., Russian Rovers Take Their First Run Together

Article: 58516
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: WHITEMAN%IPFWVM@UICVM.UIC.EDU ("S.K. Whiteman")
Subject: Road & Track road tests 1996 JPL Rocky IV Microrover
Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 15:05:41 GMT
 
For anyone who in interested the April 1993 issue of Road & Track
contains a road test of the Microrover. Some of the stats:
 
Price as tested: $2,500,000
Top speed        0.037 MPH
0 to 0.037 mph  like right now
1/4 mile        24,139.0 sec
 
All-in-all the article is not as tongue in cheek as one might expect.

        \       /___________________          Sam
         \_____/                   |          IBM Systems Programmer
Chicago/ |                     *   |  O       Indiana University -
    I    |               Ft. Wayne |  H       Purdue University at Fort Wayne
    L    |               1794-1994 |          Fort Wayne, Indiana USA

Article 3622 of sci.space.news:
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: baalke@kelvin.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Exploration Lecture
Message-ID: <28APR199320193673@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
To: sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Mars
Sender: digester@news.arc.nasa.gov
Nntp-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 20:19:00 GMT
Approved: sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Lines: 45

     The AIAA San Gabriel Valley Section is sponsoring the following lecture
on Mars exploration at the Jet Propulsion Lab.  Admission is free and open to
the public.

                           The Next Frontier:
                    The Challenge of Mars Exploration

                      DATE:     May 6, 1993
                      TIME:     6:00PM - 8:30 PM
                      LOCATION: Von Karman Auditorium
                                Jet Propulsion Lab
                                4800 Oak Grove Drive
                                Pasadena, California

     The following five speakers will be featured:

              A Science Fiction Perspective
              Tom McDonaugh
              Science Fiction Writer

               Mars Observer
               Dr. Arden Albee
               Project Scientist, Mars Observer - JPL

               Mars '94
               Dr. Arthur L. Lane
               Instrument Manager, Mars '94 - JPL

               Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR)
               Richard Cook
               Mission Designer - JPL

               Manned Mission to Mars
               Dr. Robert Zubrin
               Senior Engineer, Martin Marietta Astronautics

     For more information, contact AIAA at 800-683-2422 or Mark Leon at
310-332-1098.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

Article: 62739
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,comp.robotics
Subject: Ames to Drive Russian Robot Via Satellite
Date: 15 May 1993 04:48 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
May 14, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-1757)
Noon
 
Michael Mewhinney
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
(Phone:  415/604-9000)
 
RELEASE:  93-84
 
NASA AMES TO DRIVE RUSSIAN ROBOT VIA SATELLITE
 
	Scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., will
use a satellite video link, provided by Brown University, next week to try to
maneuver a Russian robotic "rover" in a Moscow laboratory.  This test is being
conducted at the request of McDonnell Douglas Space Systems.
 
	"We will be steering the rover around remotely," said Project Leader
Dr. Butler Hine, an Ames electrical engineer.  "We will be able to see through
the rover's cameras and also through cameras looking at the rover," Hine said.
 
	Hine will use a "telepresence interface" developed at Ames to control
the prototype of a rover which Russian scientists hope to land on Mars in 1996.
Hine will wear a video headset and use head movements to point the rover's
camera.  He will use joysticks to steer the rover.
 
	The objective of this test is to verify that this technology could be
used in future missions such as Mars 96.
 
	During the tests, NASA scientists will use the same technology they
used in February to test the rover when Russian scientists visited Ames.
 
	"During their visit, we drove the rover around our lunar terrain
simulation and controlled it from our laboratory," Hine said.
 
	"We call this a 'tele-operator interface' because it is a combination
of virtual reality and telepresence," he said.  "We can drive the vehicle by
looking through the rover's cameras, which is telepresence.  We also can drive
it using a computer-generated graphic simulation, which is virtual reality,"
Hine said.
 
	Hine said the "tele-operator interface" is designed to be a general
purpose control mechanism for robotic vehicles.  "So far, we have controlled
surface rovers, underwater vehicles in the Antarctic and now the Russian
rover," Hine said.
 
	Hine will have a model of the Russian test environment as well as a
model of the rover at Ames.  Depending on weather conditions, the Russians
may test the rover outdoors or in a laboratory.
 
	"This is a team effort," Hine said.  "There's a large group of people
at McDonnell Douglas and a large group of people here at Ames working together.
Hine calls this project a good example of technology transfer between the
federal government and private industry.
 
	"We've been doing a series of experiments with McDonnell Douglas over
the past month to prepare for this test.  They are benefiting from the
technology transfer.
 
	"We've had experience operating long-haul links to the Antarctic, so
we don't expect any major barriers," Hine said.  "It is costing us almost
nothing," Hine said.  "We're re-using the infrastructure developed for other
projects."
 
	Scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Institute for
Space Research and the Russian Space Agency also will participate in the test.
 
	Hine is the Project Leader at Ames, and John Garvey is the project
leader at McDonnell Douglas.
 
- end -
 
Editors Note:  Video and photos of the Russian rover are available by calling
the NASA Headquarters Broadcast And Imaging Branch at 202/358-1741.

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Once a year, go someplace
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you've never been before.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 
 

Article: 63268
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,comp.robotics
Subject: Russian Mars Rover Telepresence Test - 05/21/93
Date: 21 May 1993 15:22 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
Status report on Russian Mars rover telepresence test between Ames and
Moscow: 
 
Dave Lavery, Headquarters Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology
robotics program manager, reports that Ames conducted the first test
on Wednesday afternoon of a remote virtual reality control system
which is being tested to operate a prototype Mars rover located in
Moscow. 
 
This first test involved establishing a computer connection from the
control workstation located at Ames across the Internet to the CNES
facility in Toulouse, France, and from there through a repeater to the
IKI laboratory in Moscow. 
 
The first test was to drive the rover down a hallway in the
laboratory.  A scene description model (a computer representation of
the physical conditions) of the hallway was downloaded from the
Internet from Moscow to the workstation at Ames and was used to
construct a virtual environment at Ames of the Moscow hallway.  The
computer environment was then used by the Ames operator to visually
command the rover to drive down the length of the hallway. 
 
(of note:  This same methodology was used in this past December's
Dante robot experiment by operators from Carnegie Mellon University
located at Goddard Space Flight Center to perform a robot control test
of the Dante robot located on the rim of Mt. Erebus in the Antarctic. 
In this instance, though, the computer link was made through the TDRS
satellite.) 
 
The only feedback to the Ames operator during the Mars Russian rover
test was a set of numerical position sensor readings being displayed
on the operator's computer workstation monitor.  Video compression and
transmission hardware and software will be installed on the rover next
week to allow the Ames remote operator to view the actual operation of
the rover as commands are sent over the Internet. 
 
Chas Redmond
OACT PAO
5/21/93

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 
 

Article: 3152
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.education,clari.tw.space,clari.local.ohio
Subject: OSU drill may analyze Mars ice
Date: Mon, 31 May 93 22:15:54 PDT
 
	COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) -- A solar-powered drill used to bore
deep into icecaps on Earth could be used on a mission to Mars to
collect ice samples from that planet's north pole. 

	Ohio State University polar scientist Lonnie Thompson, his
wife and other researchers will use the drill this summer to sample
two ice caps in the Peruvian Andes. 

	David Paige, a space scientist at UCLA, wants to transfer some
of the OSU expertise to make a much smaller drill, which could be
launched on a two-year mission to Mars that will be proposed to NASA
in 1994. 

	The OSU drill is powered by solar collectors that heat the tip
of a hollow metal tube to the boiling point of water.  It is designed
to drill at least 3,000 feet. 

	The drill, which weighs 1.5 tons, is the successor to a less
powerful drill developed at the university in 1983.  But Paige said the
Mars drill can weigh no more than 10 pounds. 

	``Technology being developed on these high-altitude glacers on
Earth can be transferred to these missions,'' said Thompson. 

	Paige said the mission would be similar to a Mars Pathfinder
mission scheduled for 1996. 

	The drill would sample a core about three feet deep in Mars'
polar ice.  The ice would be analyzed on the spacecraft, with the data
beamed back to Earth. 

	Paige, the principal investigator of the Martian north pole,
said the polar trip to Mars would leave in July 2000 and arrive in
November 2002. 

        The Health/Science section of today's (June 7) Boston Globe has 
    two articles on the planet Mars.  One deals with cheaper ways to
    reach the Red Planet with manned space missions than Bush's $500 
    billion idea of 1989 (note how quickly that dream faded away); the 
    other is about terraforming Mars as debated at the recent Case for 
    Mars V meeting.  The front page of that section has some impressive 
    color images of the planet.

        Larry

Article: 67184
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: MESUR Pathfinder (Was Re: space news from April 12 AW&ST)
Date: 12 Jul 1993 15:49 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
In article <CA1BCz.Gor@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) writes... 

>Set of feature articles on low-budget Mars exploration, notably MESUR
>Pathfinder.  MESUR itself is originally an Ames concept, since given
>to JPL to execute, which was planned to land 16 small surface stations
>to study geology and climate.  NASA management now wants MESUR's costs
>cut, preferably in half (to $500M), before seeking a new start for it,
>and this may involve cutting the number of stations to 12 or less.
 
The MESUR Pathfinder and NEAR are the next two NASA projects most
likely to get approved.  MESUR may get approved as early as next
October. Also, the MESUR spacecraft has undergone considerable changes
and no longer resembles the original Ames design, and a rover was
added to the mission. 
 
>NASA is pinning considerable hopes on flying the MESUR Pathfinder
>mission first for engineering development.  This is a slightly tricky
>mission.  MP will make a steeper and faster reentry than Viking (it
>doesn't go via orbit as an intermediate stop), yet must hold entry
>and landing forces down to 50G to go easy on the instruments, and
>must land within a 100x25km ellipse without aeromaneuvering capability.
>(The scientists would like a smaller ellipse, in fact.)  The baseline
>concept uses an aeroshell for deceleration to subsonic speed, a
>parachute for further deceleration, and airbags for the landing.
 
The spaceraft will be totally enveloped in air bags when it lands; in
fact, it kind of looks like a huge beach ball.  The air bags will
deflate, and the spacecraft will open up like petals on a flower.  The
air bag design was tested out on a small scale version of the
spacecraft in the desert a couple of months ago.  The current landing
site is just West of Olympus Mons, about 15 degrees North. 

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | There is no such thing as
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | a "temporary" tax increase.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Article: 40998
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: MESUR Pathfinder Imaging PI Named
Date: 12 Aug 1993 18:07 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
Donald Savage
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    August 12, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-1600)
 
Jim Doyle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif
(Phone:  818/354-5011)
 
RELEASE:  93-146
 
NASA NAMES IMAGING PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR MESUR PATHFINDER
 
     Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tuscon, has been
named Principal Investigator for the imaging system for the MESUR
Pathfinder lander, NASA announced today.
 
     MESUR (for Mars Environmental Survey) Pathfinder is a small
Discovery-class mission that NASA proposes to launch to Mars in
1996 which will place a lander and rover on the surface of Mars
in 1997.  Once on the surface, the camera will obtain a 360-
degree panoramic image of the landing site and also will acquire
images of specific areas at intervals during the year-long mission.
 
     Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, Denver, Colo., was named
as the prime instrument contractor.  The Max Planck Institute for
Aeronomy, Lindau, Germany, will provide the image detector and
its supporting electronics.
 
     Smith's proposal for an imaging system for the MESUR
Pathfinder lander was submitted earlier this year in response to
a NASA announcement of opportunity for the mission.  Dr. Wesley
Huntress, NASA Associate Administrator for the Office of Space
Science, Washington, D.C. was the selecting official.
 
Imaging System Description
 
     The camera is a side-by-side charged-coupled device (CCD)
stereo imager which sits on top of a "jack-in-the-box" mast that
pops up one meter above the lander.  The camera has a 12-position
color filter wheel and is fully controllable in both elevation
and side-to-side (azimuth) motion.  The optics do not require
active focusing.
 
     The field of view for each eye is 14.4 degrees square and
has a resolution of six-tenths of a millimeter near the lander.
 
     The filter wheel contains eight color filters optimized for
Mars geology, three color filters for atmospheric water vapor and
dust measurements and one broadband filter for stereo imaging
with both eyes.
 
     The camera will be used for science experiments, including
filter-wheel spectral mapping of the landing site to determine
its composition and to identify rocks which may be designated as
targets for further investigation.  Spectral mapping also will
study weathering processes and products in the dust, soil and
rocks of Mars.
 
     Images also will be taken to study phenomena which occur
over time, such as frost, dune formation and seasonal changes.
 
     NASA also announced the selection of Dr. Jens Martin Knudsen
of the University of Copenhagen as a co-investigator, to provide
a magnetic properties investigation for the mission in
conjunction with Smith's team.  He will provide five magnets of
varying strengths to capture wind-blown magnetic dust particles.
 
     Other co-investigators for the imaging experiment are Drs.
Robert Singer, Martin Tomasko, Lyn Doose and Daniel Britt, all of
the University of Arizona, Tuscon;  Dr. Larry Soderblom, U.S.
Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., and Dr. H. Uwe Keller, Max
Planck Institute for Aeronomy.
 
     The Arizona team proposed to develop and deliver camera
hardware and one flight instrument, accompanied by operational
and data compression software.  The effort, estimated at $5
million in fiscal year 1992 dollars, will culminate with the
delivery of the flight imaging system in late 1995.
 
     The MESUR Pathfinder will use a small robotic rover to
explore the region within about 50 meters of the landing site.
In contrast to the three-color imaging provided by the two Viking
landers in the late 1970s, the MESUR Pathfinder lander imaging
system will be capable of imaging in a variety of spectral bands
to determine mineral content within view of the lander.
 
     The spectral channels are particularly sensitive to iron and
pyroxene minerals -- dark, silicon-based, crystal-like rocks.
 
     The primary mission is for 1 month on the surface of Mars,
with a goal of 1 year of extended mission.
 
     NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., will
manage the MESUR Pathfinder mission for NASA's Office of Space
Science, Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab | 
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | When given a choice between
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | two exciting things, choose
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | the one you haven't tried.

From:	US1RMC::"baalke@kelvin.Jpl.Nasa.Gov" "Ron Baalke" 17-AUG-1993 
To:	sci-space-news@uunet.uu.net
CC:	
Subj:	MESUR Study Contract Awarded

Aviation Week & Space Technology
August 16, 1993

NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab has selected Rockwell and a Hughes/TRW team
to study the Mars Experimental Survey (MESUR) network of 12-16 small
spacecraft set for launch at the end of the century.  The $1.8
million, 15 month contracts cover conceptual design, cost and mission
planning and will start in November.  MESUR is expected to be a $1
billion effort, and these study contracts put Rockwell and Hughes/TRW
in a good position to compete for the 1995 award of the full contract.

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab | 
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The hardest thing to learn
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | in life is which bridge to
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | cross and which to burn.

Article: 69706
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MESUR Contractors Selected
Date: 19 Aug 1993 20:31:19 GMT
Organization: Retro Aerospace
 
In article <1993Aug19.140023@IASTATE.EDU>,
David W Hall <dwhall@IASTATE.EDU> wrote:

>>      Part of NASA's proposed Discovery program of small, low-cost
>> planetary missions, MESUR Pathfinder will place a lander and a
>> microrover on the Martian surface in 1997.  [...]
>
>      To keep with the theme, may I suggest future MESUR landers 
>be named Deerslayer, Hawkeye, and Leatherstocking? (Hey, can I 
>help it if I'm a huge James Fennimore Cooper fan?)
 
I'm not going to try and dissuade you from the naming scheme (I've
heard lots worse 8-), but that's not why the first one is named "MESUR
Pathfinder". 
 
The MESUR Network, as currently planned, is a net of really small
science stations to be dropped around Mars to get good global
atmospheric science and some surface science data.  The concept is for
a cluster of 8-12 small (200 kg class) landers to be launched together
on a Titan-Centaur and independently targeted for landing at various
sites around the planet. 
 
Since this is a large, expensive undertaking, and they want to use
some untested landing methods (no retrorocket; use a airbag instead
for terminal impact energy absorbtion) among other things, they want
to fly an engineering test mission first.  Hence MESUR Pathfinder;
it's the engineering test mission.  It's about twice as heavy, but
uses the same landing technology, the same righting technology, and is
indended as a testbed for the MESUR Network lander bus.  If MESUR
Pathfinder demonstrates that the basic bus concept is viable, then the
MESUR Network mission will fly with more advanced landers with a more
scientific intent. 
 
Btw, the little rover on MESUR Pathfinder is along as part of the test
mission requirements, nothing scientific.  JPL was trying to figure
out how to get a good external view of the MESUR's landing attitude
and such.  Camera-on-extensible-pole wasn't really cutting it, and
someone noticed that the JPL "Rocky" minirover series was lighter than
the camera-on-pole concepts they were working with.  So, the rover
gives them 360 degree from arbitrary distance imaging of the lander's
position, and once it's done with that can run off and play science.
It's going to carry some scientific payload too (I think it's got a
mini-spectrometer, but the paper from Case describing the rover's
mission is at home...). 
 
-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
 

In article <mcdonald.1306.746481360@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> J. D. McDonald, mcdonald
@aries.scs.uiuc.edu writes:
>If this proves to be true, the lesson for NASA is simple:
>
>"don't put all your eggs in one basket"
>
>That is, launch several small craft, each with only a couple of instruments.

In today's New York Times John Noble Wilford reports that BMDO has been asked
to determine whether several Clementine scale spacecraft can be developed in tim
e for the next Mars launch opportunity in Oct/Nov 1994.  2-4 vehicles, each
about 500 lbs and costing $75 million each are evidently being contemplated.
the article mentions the second Clementine vehicle and "similar small satellites
 being developed by the Air Force" as possibly being adapted for the mission.


Pete Banholzer
NASA/Goddard
pete@denali.gsfc.nasa.gov

 
Donald Savage
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  September 1, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-1600)  
 
RELEASE:  93-157
 
NASA NAMES TEAM TO STUDY RETURN TRIP TO MARS 
 
     NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin today announced the 
establishment of a study team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
(JPL), Pasadena, Calif., to explore possibilities for a return 
mission to Mars to recover some of the scientific objectives of 
the Mars Observer mission, if communications with that spacecraft 
cannot be reestablished.
 
     The study team, led by Dr. Charles Elachi, Assistant 
Laboratory Director at JPL, will look at a variety of low-cost 
spacecraft, instrument and launch options, with the objective of 
returning to Mars in 1994 or 1996.
 
     The team will review available spacecraft and instrument 
options from industry and government, including Mars Observer 
spares and possible international contributions.  The team is 
expected to present potential mission options to NASA within the 
next 2 months.
 
     Members of the study team currently include:
 
Arden Albee	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Carl Sagan	Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Bruce Murray	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
John Casani	JPL
Tom Coughlin	Applied Physics Laboratory, Baltimore
Steve Paddock	Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Eugene Giberson	JPL (retired)
Ray Heacock	JPL (retired)
Jonathan Lunine	University of Arizona, Tucson
Rich Matlock	Ballistic Missile Defense Office, Washington, D.C.
Donna Pivirotto	JPL
Rob Staehle	JPL
John Beckman	JPL
Larry Soderblom	U.S. Geologic Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz.
Carolyn Porco	University of Arizona, Tucson
Bud Wheelon	Hughes Aircraft Co. (retired), Los Angeles
 
- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab | 
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Nobody notices when things
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | go right.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

 
    More on the possibilities for using a Clementine low-cost approach:
    
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: lsw@bonnie.jsc.nasa.gov (Lou Wheatcraft)
Subject: Re: MO II Rumors
Sender: usenet@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News Client)
Organization: Barrios Technology, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 13:40:20 GMT

>  BST> Besides, there's no guarantee that the Titan III/IV will even be
>  BST> operational one year from now. If they find that the solids require
>  BST> another redesign (re: August 4 Titan IV explosion) then it will be
>  BST> hairy. Hmm... could an Atlas 2AS do the job?
> 
>  If NASA really truly *has* to fly the Mars Observer flight space, then
>  an Atlas 2AS (or possibily just a 2) could send the probe to
>  Mars. 
> 
>  However, it may be simpler just to use a Clementine/PFF class spacecraft
>  to generate *some* Mars data, and thus allow a Delta or Taurus to
>  serve as a launcher.
> 
>  My heart says to go with MO II. My wallet says go with Clementine.
> 
Studies show that with modifications, Clementine II can meet >70% of the
Science Objectives with a smaller spacecraft at reduced cost. These studies
and design changes are already complete - parts could be on order within
weeks of turn on. By using Clementine II the launch costs are much smaller
- the baseline is a Titan IIG, the same as for Clementine I. (Clementine II
will also use BMDO light weight technology resulting in a appoximate dry
weight of only 630 pounds)  The advantages are great - all launch base
documentation and procedures are already in place, the DSN interface is
also in place, the engineering team is in place, spacecraft design
complete, contracts for parts are in place, flight software is already
developed, launch vehicle available, etc.

==========================================================================
Lou Wheatcraft            Barrios Technology, Inc.        Ph:(713)280-1892
lsw@bonnie.jsc.nasa.gov                                  Fax:(713)283-7903
========================================================================== 
  

Article: 73732
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: MESUR Network paper abstract
Date: 25 Sep 1993 08:26:25 GMT
Organization: Retro Aerospace
 
This is the first installment of what I hope will be some more
significant materials about Mars exploration planning.  The first
entry below is the abstract from the overview paper on the MESUR
Network and Pathfinder missions given at Case for Mars V earlier this
year.  I am going to enter the rest of the paper as time allows and
will at least make the whole thing FTPable from somewhere, probably
the anon ftp server ocf.berkeley.edu .  I may post it if there's that
much interest. I have promised the FAQ an appropriate description of
MESUR Network and Pathfinder, and will write that up hopefully in time
for the next FAQ release. 
 
Note that I have had nothing to do with the paper or the MESUR
project, nor with JPL or NASA, and am merely forwarding this paper for
informational purposes.  Have a Nice Day 8-) 
 
-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
 
(the following is hand-transcribed from the listed paper, which was
presented at the Case for Mars V conference in Boulder, CO, on 28 May 1993)
(note: misspellings are likely mine -gwh)
 
     THE MARS ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY (MESUR) NETWORK AND PATHFINDER MISSIONS
 
		MESUR Project Staff
		Edited and Compiled by J.B.McNamee
		Jet Propulsion Laboratory
		California Institute of Technology
		Pasadena, California
 
		Abstract
 
The objective of the Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR) Network mission
is to establish a global network of small science stations on the
surface of Mars to operate concurrently over a minimum of one martian
year.  MESUR Network is viewed as an evolutionary and affordable step
in the scientific characterization of the martian environment
following the Viking and Mars Obserer and preceding sample return and
human exploration missions.  The full network is envisioned to consist
of 10-20 landers providing pole-to-pole coverage of the planet.  The
broad science objectives of the MESUR Network mission are to
characterize the martian environment in terms of atmospheric
structure, internal structure, global atmospheric ciculation, surface
chemistry, and surface morphology.  The strawman science payload for
the Network mission includes an atmospheric structure package
(pressure, temperature, and accelleration measurements during
descent), cameras for descent and surface imaging, 3-axis seismometer,
meteorology package (surface pressure, temperature, and wind
velocity), Alpha/Proton/X-Ray Spectrometer, Thermal Analyzer/Evolved
Gas Analyzer, radio science experiments, and others.  The MESUR
Network project start is targeted for FY 1996 with the first launch
anticipated in 1999. 

A precursor to the MESUR Network mission, designated MESUR Pathfinder,
is targeted for an FY 1994 project start. The objective of the
Pathfinder mission is to conduct the engineering demonstrations
required to the full commitment of funds to develop and proceed with
the MESUR Network mission.  The primary engineering test performed by
the Pathfinder will be of an entry, descent, and landing approach
which employs an aeroshell, parachute, air bags, and a lander petal
system; but no propulsion.  This passive entry, descent, and landing
system is required to decellerate the vehicle from high entry
velocity, achieve a semi-hard landing on the martian surface, and
establish an upright configuration for the surface operational phase
of the mission. 
 

From:	US1RMC::"yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov" "Peter Yee"  5-OCT-1993 00:43:09.39
To:	sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	Antarctic to become laboratory for future Mars missions
        [Release  93-178] (Forwarded) 

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  October 4, 1993
(Phone:  202/358-0883)

Michael Mewhinney
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
(Phone:  415/604-9000)

RELEASE:  93-178

ANTARCTIC TO BECOME LABORATORY FOR FUTURE MARS MISSIONS

     NASA scientists will spend October and November in Antarctica
testing "telepresence technology" which may be used in the future to
explore Mars. 

     Antarctica, like Mars, has remote and hostile locations that are
difficult for humans to explore, but can be reached by sophisticated
robots.  "We will be able to catalog a previously unexplored ecology
at a depth nobody has seen before," said Dr. Carol Stoker, a scientist
at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., who is the
expedition leader. 

     The research expedition is sponsored by the a joint NASA-
National Science Foundation (NSF) Antarctic Space Analog Program
(ASAP) and funded for NASA by the Offices of Space Science and
Advanced Concepts and Technology. 

     "Both NASA and NSF have an interest in conducting scientific
research in remote and hostile environments," said Dr. John Rummel,
NASA's ASAP co-chairman.  "This project will enhance the capabilities
of both agencies." 

    Scientists will use a modified mini-submarine called a
Telepresence-Controlled Remotely Operated Vehicle (TROV), to explore
800 feet below the surface of McMurdo Sound near Ross Island. 

     Telepresence technology allows scientists on land to use head
movements to point the cameras on the underwater vehicle. They will
steer the TROV by remote control.  This year's expedition will concentrate 
on steering the TROV, not from the icy shore, but from California. 

     A second team of scientists will be able to control the TROV 
from an Ames laboratory.  Scientists at Ames will steer the TROV by
computer, both directly and by linking the TROV to a "virtual reality"
underwater terrain model of Antarctica, which will be much like
steering an aircraft in a video game.  Ames laboratory scientists will
help insure that useful scientific samples are being retrieved. 

     Virtual reality lets people react with a 3-D computer-generated
"world" as if it were real.  In virtual reality, people move and act
naturally within the computer environment as if they were actually there. 

     The expedition's research will yield scientific data on Antarctic
aquatic life while demonstrating the capabilities of virtual reality
in controlling remote vehicles.  The TROV is attached to a 1,000-foot
tether.  The tether consists of integrated electrical and fiber optic
cables.  The electrical cable sends power down to the TROV. 

     The fiber optic cable sends digital data and video signals to the
surface, where they are combined into stereo imagery scientists can
see wearing special stereo glasses similar to sunglasses. 

     "This works by alternately displaying the left and right frame
and shuttering the liquid crystal glasses in sync at a high enough
speed so that your brain integrates the left and right images together
to perceive stereo," Stoker said. 

     To produce stereo imagery, two cameras are mounted on a "pan and
tilt platform" on the front of the TROV.  Motors on the platform allow
the cameras to pan left or right or tilt up and down. 

     Stereo video images will be transmitted to Ames via satellite
along with position information from the TROV's navigation system. 
Computers will process this information to create a three-dimensional
virtual reality model of the sea bottom. 
                                                          
     NSF-sponsored scientist James Barry, a researcher for the
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, will use the TROV to plot
how the dominant bottom-dwelling lifeforms change from shallow to deep
water in McMurdo Sound, giving a picture of the underwater community. 
Barry is the Chief Scientist for the expedition. 

     In addition to the stereo camera system, the TROV also has a
manipulator arm to collect biological samples from the icy depths of
the Antarctic Sea.  "This will enable samples to be collected in
Antarctica by scientists who never leave California," said Rummel. 

     James McClintock of the University of Alabama will use the arm to
collect bottom-dwellers such as bryozoans (small colonial animals) and
deepwater sponges to use in studies of how these organisms use
chemical defenses.  Using the manipulator arm in an actual study will
help test its practicality for use in Antarctic science.  His work
also is supported by NSF. 

     The improved depth perception afforded by stereo vision will
enable scientists to effectively manipulate the TROV's robotic arm. 
Extending from the front of the TROV, the two-foot-long metal robotic
arm has a claw to grip with.  Although the arm has no lateral
movement, it can flex, rotate and grasp small objects. 

     "It's unbelievable how much difference depth perception makes
when you try to pick things up," Stoker said.  "Without stereo vision,
you just don't have a sense of where things are." 

     In addition to Stoker, the NASA Ames Antarctic expedition team
includes exobiologist Dale Andersen and engineers Don Barch, Jay
Steele and Roxanne Streeter.  Team members remaining at Ames are
Butler Hine, Terry Fong and Darryl Rasmussen.  NASA team members will
work closely with the two scientists sponsored by the NSF. 

     Last October, NASA and NSF conducted their first ASAP joint
research project in ice-covered Lake Hoare, Antarctica.  There they
studied telepresence, exobiology and tested a solar power system built
by NASA's Lewis Research Center, Cleveland.  NSF's Office of Polar
Programs is now using the solar power system in an Antarctic field camp. 

- end -

EDITORS NOTE:  A video news release on the Ames telepresence
technology is available by calling NASA Headquarters Broadcast and
Imaging Branch at 202/358-1734. 

From:	US1RMC::"Admin@ccmail.jpl.nasa.gov" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 22-OCT-1993 
To:	sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	MESUR Pathfinder fact sheet (long)

FACT SHEET:

          MARS ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY (MESUR) PATHFINDER

     The Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR) Project will first
place a lander and rover on the surface of Mars in 1997, and in
the years 2000 and 2001 will send multiple landers to several
regions on Mars. It is an extension of a series of studies by
NASA's Ames Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
which defined missions to place a network of weather stations and
seismology stations on Mars.

     The proposed missions are designed to extend the results of
Mars Observer to continue global characterization of Mars. The
unique aspect of the MESUR concept (developed by the Ames
Research Center) is that the landers will go directly from Earth
to Mars, enter the atmosphere and land without first going into
orbit about Mars.

     The MESUR pre-project was transferred from Ames to the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in 1991 after which it was divided into two
activities, MESUR Pathfinder and MESUR Network. The concept of a
direct Earth-Mars mission is new and the capital investment in a
multi-lander network is large, so MESUR Pathfinder was conceived
as a technology demonstration for MESUR Network. It will,
however, have the capability to perform important science
experiments in the atmosphere and on the surface of the planet.

     MESUR Pathfinder is planned for a fiscal year 1994 start by
NASA's Office of Space Science with a cost cap of $150 million in
fiscal year 1992 dollars.  It is the first in NASA's Discovery
Program series of low-cost planetary missions.

     A small (10-kilogram or 22-pound) rover will be carried by
MESUR Pathfinder.  Funded by the NASA Office of Advanced Concepts
and Technology, the rover will perform technology, science and
engineering experiments on the Martian surface.

     Several innovations studied and developed at JPL during
recent years, including the use of miniaturized electronics, led
to the micro-rover concept demonstrated in June 1992. The rover
was called Rocky IV, the fourth in the development series of
small rovers. It was so named because of its six-wheeled "rocker-
bogie" suspension.

     The Rocky IV demonstration proved the concept of an
integrated micro-rover system capable of conducting useful
science experiments in rugged terrain.  An Earth operator would
designate targets and tasks, while the rover would autonomously
execute tasks, following a path and avoiding hazards.

     MESUR Pathfinder will be launched in November or December
1996 aboard a Delta rocket.  The single spacecraft will cruise
directly to Mars, enter the atmosphere with a Viking-derived heat
shield and land with the aid of parachutes, rockets and airbags.
Landing is scheduled for July 1997.

     The rover will be mounted on one of three panels on the
tetrahedral-shaped lander and tied down with a connector that can
be separated. During cruise (launch through landing) the lander-
cruise stage will provide the rover with structural and thermal
support and limited data collection and transmission.

     The entry and landing are planned to minimize gravitational
forces, called "g levels," on the payload to about 50 g's with
the combination of parachutes, solid rockets and airbags. To
provide a large margin of reliability, the payload will be
qualified to 100 g's.  (A "g" is the measurement of the
acceleration of gravity, such as a swiftly climbing elevator, or
in the case of the Pathfinder, deceleration.  "G's" are measured
relative to Earth gravity although the gravity on Mars is about
one-third of that on Earth.)

     After impact on the surface of Mars, the lander will deploy
its three solar panels for power, the camera will view the
surroundings and the rover will be positioned for deployment to
the surface.

     First, the lander will transmit the engineering and science
data collected during descent through Mars' thin atmosphere.
Then its camera will take a panoramic image of its surroundings
and begin transmitting it directly to Earth at a few hundred bits
per second.

     The rover, which will have been carried in a stowed
configuration with the body lowered, will extend to its full
height before it leaves the lander.  It will roll down a
deployment ramp to the surface and will then be independent
except for using the lander data and communications functions for
contact with Earth.  After the lander transmits its engineering
data and panorama image to Earth, much of its mission will be
focused on supporting the rover with imaging telecommunications
and data storage.

     The rover with its mounting and deployment equipment is
constrained to a weight of less than 14 kilograms (30.8 pounds).
Its anticipated weight in action will be 9 kilograms (19.8
pounds).  Another 5 kilograms (11 pounds) is allocated to lander-
mounted rover telecommunications equipment, structural support of
the rover and its deployment mechanisms.

     The rover's volume is constrained by the lander's shape and
the fact that it must compete for space with the lander's thermal
enclosure, parachutes and other systems.  So during cruise from
Earth to Mars, it is flattened and does not resume its operating
shape until just before it is deployed to the planet's surface.

     The rover has a normal height of 280 millimeters (10.9
inches), with ground clearance of 130 mm (5 inches).  Its stowage
space in the lander allows only 200 mm (7.8 inches) forcing it to
squat to a height of 180 mm (7 inches) when stowed.

     The rover is 630 mm (24.5 inches) long by 480 mm (18.7 inches) wide.

MISSION OBJECTIVES

     The rover, technically named the Micro-rover Flight Experiment,
or MFEX, has three main mission objectives: technology experiments,
science experiments and mission experiments. 

     The rover is primarily a technology experiment itself, designed
to determine micro-rover performance in the poorly understood Martian
terrain so that future rovers may be designed to be effective in
navigating and moving about the surface of Mars. 

TECHNOLOGY EXPERIMENTS

     -- Mars Terrain Geometry Reconstruction from Imagery:
Lander and rover imagery will be analyzed on Earth to determine
terrain feature classes, such as soils, rocks, hills, etc., as
well as their size and distributions on the surface.

     -- Mars Basic Soil Mechanics:  Determine basic Martian soil
mechanics such as cohesion, internal friction angle, slippage and
driver resistance.

     -- Mars Dead Reckoning Sensor Performance and Path
Reconstruction/Recovery:  Measure position errors on Mars arising
from using dead reckoning sensors to control mobility.

     -- Sinkage in Each Martian Soil Type:  Wheel tracks will be
viewed with the rover camera or proximity sensors to estimate the
depth the rover wheels sink into the soil.  One goal is for the
lander camera to image the total trail left by the rover during
its mission.

     -- Logging/Trending of Vehicle Performance Data:  Drive,
torques, current, revolutions per minute, voltage, etc., will be
logged and timed to determine performance.

     -- Rover Thermal Characterization:  Rover thermal behavior
will be monitored by thermal sensors in the wheels, on the solar
panels, and inside the warm electronics box.

     -- Rover Imaging Sensor Performance:  Terrain, motion and
track measurements derived from the rover camera will be
correlated with direct measurements from proximity sensors and
engineering instruments.

     -- UHF Link Effectiveness:  Determine whether the ultra-high
frequency (UHF) link between the rover and lander will function
effectively on Mars by observing signal strength and noise as the
rover moves away from the lander.

     -- Material Abrasion:  Measure the abrasive qualities of
Martian soil and dust by painting one wheel with a fluorescent
paint and covering it with an opaque paint and observing the
wheel with a photo cell to see when the outer paint wears away.

     -- Material Adherence:  Observe the tendency of Martian dust
to adhere to rover surfaces, especially solar arrays and
detectors.  (Material adherence and abrasion experiments were
developed by NASA's Lewis Research Center.)

     -- Rock Hardness (if feasible):  The constraints on the
rover mass prohibit it from carrying a rock-chipping tool. One
concept is for the rover to claw at a rock with a wheel, using
the wheel's metal tread or an abrasive strip to erode the rock
face.  That concept, however, depends on further testing.

SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS

     Although the information gained from the rover technology
experiments such as soil mechanics and materials adherence are of
scientific interest, the rover's main science objectives are to
deploy an alpha-proton-X-ray spectrometer (APXS) and take close-
up images of Martian features.

     -- APXS:  The primary science objective is to place the APXS
against a rock, collect a spectrum to determine the rock's
composition and transmit the spectrum to the lander for return to
Earth.  A full APXS measurement of a rock requires 10 hours,
which need not be sequential, but the rover must keep the
instrument fixed on the rock until 10 hours of data are obtained.
The APXS also may measure soil types.  (APXS is provided by the
Max Planck Institute of Mains, Germany and the University of Chicago.)

     -- Imaging: The micro-rover will make a black-and-white image
of any rock on which the APXS is used and transmit the image to
the lander for return to Earth.  The rover computer is capable of
compressing and storing a single image on-board.

MISSION EXPERIMENTS

     Because MESUR Pathfinder is primarily an engineering demonstration, 
assessment of the lander's condition is very important.

     The rover will image the lander at least once to assess its
condition after landing.  The image will be transmitted to the
lander for return to Earth.  The image will be black-and-white
and will encompass the entire lander cross section.

     The goal is to acquire three images of the lander spaced 120
degrees apart. The mission could be revised to permit the rover
to take close-up images, possibly in stereo, of any damaged areas
of the lander.

MISSION DESIGN

     Because of cost constraints, both the lander and rover have
limited redundancy.  Also, the Martian environment is harsh, with
temperatures averaging about 0 to -100 C (32 to -148 F) daily. 
Therefore, the surface mission is designed to achieve the important
objectives in a relatively short time. 

     The direct communications link between the lander to Earth
is limited to a few hundred bits per second.  The landing site
only faces Earth for 12 hours per day or less.  The lander and
rover are solar powered, but have batteries.

     The most important objectives are planned for the first
three Martian days (called sols, 24.6 hours). By the end of the
seventh or eighth day of operations, many lander images will have
been transmitted and the primary rover experiments accomplished.
The prime mission is envisioned to be accomplished within 10
meters of the lander to take advantage of the highest resolution
lander images.

     For an extended mission following that period, the rover can
be risked on longer trips away from the lander, and may even go
over the horizon and out of range of the lander's camera by using
its own camera for navigation.

ROVER OPERATIONS

     The rover is controlled by an Earth-based operator, but
because of the time delay between Earth and Mars (variously from
6 to 41 minutes) some autonomy is needed in the rover.

     The operator on Earth views the work station with a stereo
display of the lander's image of the terrain through three-
dimensional glasses.  The work station's software places an icon
of the rover in the scene and the coordinates of the placement
are determined.  Those coordinates form the basis of the rover
commands to traverse the surface.  Other commands, which enable
the rover to perform tasks, are interspersed with traverse commands.

     The commands will be sent shortly after sun and Earth rise
on Mars and are received first by the lander which stores them
until notified by the rover it is ready to receive the data.  The
rover then stores the commands until ready for execution.

POWER

     Lander power during cruise requires 178 watts, provided by
2-1/2 square meters (27 square feet) of silicon solar cells. On
the surface, a little more solar cell surface will be exposed to
the sun than during cruise and, with batteries, will provide 850
watt hours on clear days and half that amount of power on days
when the sun is obscured by dust.

     Rover power is provided by 0.2 square meter (1.9 square
feet) of solar array.  That is sufficient to power the rover for
several hours per sol -- a Martian day or 24.6 Earth hours --
even in the worst conditions of atmospheric dust.  As a backup
and augmentation, lithium sodium dioxide D-cell batteries are
enclosed in the rover's thermally protected warm electronics box.
The lander's batteries are rechargeable; the rover's batteries
are not, but the rover mission can be accomplished on solar panel
power alone, if necessary.

CONTROL

     During cruise the lander will be controlled by a
commercially available control computer.  It will be based on 32-
bit architecture with 4 million bytes (eight bits to a byte) of
static random access memory and 64 million bytes of mass memory
for storing images prior to transmission to Earth.  Much of the
information control system design will be inherited from the
Cassini Project, a future mission to Saturn.

     The rover control system features operator designation of
targets and autonomous control to reach the targets and perform
the tasks.  The on-board control system is built around an Intel
80C85 processor, selected for its low cost and resistance to
single-event upsets from certain types of radiation.  It is an 8-
bit processor which runs at about 100,000 instructions per second
(100 kips).  Development to date indicates that this is ample for
rover needs, provided that rover motion remains slow.

     A commercial version of the 80C85 was acquired for system
and software development, and flight parts also are available at
JPL in the form of Cassini Project spares available for purchase
by the rover project.

     The MESUR Pathfinder project manager is Tony Spear; Roger
Bourke is the mission engineer; Dr. Matthew Golombek is the
project scientist; and Donna Pivirotto is the micro-rover
development manager.

                              #####

7/22/93 JJD

Article: 76811
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Skylab,EMPIRE,interplanetary missions?!
Sender: usenet@abo.fi (Usenet NEWS)
Organization: ABO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY, FINLAND
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 09:39:08 GMT
 
Does anyone have information on the old EMPIRE project...? This was an
old NASA study from 1967, exploring the feasibility of launching a
Skylab-like habitat module towards Venus or Mars on a 1-year mission.
Unfortunately, the project was cancelled because of budget cutbacks. 
---
Would it have worked? The Saturn V was capable of launching 46 metric
tons towards the Moon. As for a Venus/Mars mission, the maximum
payload would have been roughly 40 & 35 metric tons respectively.
Therefore, the habitat module and its S-IV-B stage would have been
launched separately and assembled in low Earth orbit to save fuel. The
theoretical maximum payload would now have been ~60 metric tons -
approx. the same as Skylab minus the ATM telescope. At fairly typical
trajectory Earth-Venus flyby mission would last 14 months, with a
Venus flyby/gravity assist some five months after launch. A Mars flyby
would be far more difficult, the duration would be close to two years
and the velocity requirements would be higher -> less payload. 
 
Comments?
 
MARCU$
 
                                   ////
                                  (o o)
------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------------------------
                           Computer Science Department
                       University of Abo Akademi, Finland
 
Email: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI
       MLINDROO@ATON.ABO.FI
MAIL:  Marcus Lindroos, PL 402 A, 07880 Liljendal, FINLAND

Article: 76886
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Skylab,EMPIRE,interplanetary missions?!
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 23:43:43 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
In article <1993Nov2.093908.2398@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI
(Marcus Lindroos INF) writes: 

>Does anyone have information on the old EMPIRE project...? This was an old NASA
>study from 1967, exploring the feasibility of launching a Skylab-like habitat
>module towards Venus or Mars on a 1-year mission...
 
The EMPIRE that I've seen stuff on was considerably earlier than that, and
planned on-orbit assembly of multiple Saturn V payloads to do manned
planetary missions, mostly with nuclear propulsion.  There's a paper on
some of the EMPIRE concepts in the May issue of JBIS.
-- 
Study it forever and you'll still       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
wonder.  Fly it once and you'll know.   |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Article: 75764
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!news.funet.fi!aton.abo.fi!usenet
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: AT LAST:a manned Mars mission plan that makes sense!!
Message-ID: <1993Dec1.165613.1844@abo.fi>
Sender: usenet@abo.fi (Usenet NEWS)
Organization: ABO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY, FINLAND
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 16:56:13 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
Lines: 71
 
Any comment on Robert Zubrin's new Mars mission plan?! Zubrin, a senior
engineer at Martin Marietta, has come up with a truly revolutionary (IMO)
approach. If he had his way, four humans would be launched towards Mars
on a 3-year mission. The mass of the total payload would be a mere 120 tons -
"Apollo times two" as Zubrin puts it in the November issue of POPULAR
MECHANICS. "You don't need giant interplanetary spaceships from the realm of
science fiction. This is something you could actually conceive of us doing."
(Pun intended? Martin Marietta was the main Mars Observer contractor:-)
---
The plan is as follows: a heavy-lift rocket hurls a single unmanned 36,000kg
(40 ton) payload toward Mars. The package contains an unfueled Earth return
vehicle (the illustration shows a Delta Clipper-like thing on the Martian
surface), a 50kW nuclear reactor, a few tons of LH2 and an automated
chemical-processing plant. The last item goes to work as soon as the payload
lands, producing methane and oxygen from the liquid hydrogen on board and 
carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere. The resulting methane/LOX rocket
fuel has 18 times the mass of the LH2 brought from Earth, and will be used for
the return trip. Zubrin is confident the method -"19th century chemical
engineering"- can't fail.
---
Two years later, two more HLLVs leave Earth. One carries a duplicate of the
first payload in case anything goes wrong, the second carries four astronauts
in a surface habitat (=a 6m high cylinder having a diameter of approx. 8
meters) protected by a huge heatshield for aerobraking around
Mars. The Mars habitat also carries a surface rover and three years of
provisions.
---
Both payloads touch down near the original Mars landing site, where a fueled-up
Earth return vehicle is now standing by. The astronauts explore for a good year
and a half, then ride home in one of the two return vehicles. (Original or
backup).
 
There are several good things about this plan:
1.EXTREMELY FEW HLLV LAUNCHES WILL BE NEEDED. This is great, even if we decide
to use Russia's Energia for the job, a Mars mission will cost a fortune if we
have to launch 6-12 Energias to carry the payload into space. Zubrin's plan
would need just three - two if we compromise a bit on safety.
2...YET DEVELOPING NEW TECHNOLOGY IS UNNECESSARY. Previously, keeping down the
mass of the spacecraft meant nuclear rockets or ion propulsion had to be used.
There is no need for either - the only significant challenge will be
aerobraking. The in-situ propellant manufacturing process can be tried out on
an unmanned sample return mission.
3.NO ASSEMBLY/IN ORBIT NECESSARY. Previous plans assumed that several
spacecraft modules had to be assembled and fueled in orbit, perhaps over 
several years. Zubrin's mission is as simple as Project Apollo - you go 
straight to Mars, you explore, then you go home. No need for a dedicated space 
station in low-Earth orbit either.
4.SETTING UP A BASE ON MARS WILL BE EASY. The "mothercraft" becomes a small
permanent Mars base after touching down on Mars. It would presumably be 
possible to use it again after the astronauts have left - just bring in more 
supplies from Earth. 
5.NO NEED FOR A SEPARATE CRAFT ORBITING MARS. Most other Mars mission plans
assume an orbiting mothership in orbit around Mars will be necessary. The
result is two sets of living quarters etc. (the lander & the orbiter) will have
to be launched. Part of the crew must remain in orbit around Mars for a good
year and a half. This is bad because of weightlessness-related problems. Far
better, as Zubrin does, to keep the entire crew on the Martian surface at 
..38G.
 
 
MARCU$
 
                                   ////
                                  (o o)
------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------------------------
                           Computer Science Department
                       University of Abo Akademi, Finland
 
Email: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI
       MLINDROO@ATON.ABO.FI
MAIL:  Marcus Lindroos, PL 402 A, 07880 Liljendal, FINLAND

I see one possible gotcha in this plan... Apollo 13. Coming home
without landing must be possible. If you use aerobraking for 
part of the decelleration at Mars, the landing propellant might 
not be enough to loop around and head straight back home.

I like the idea of a DC-X style landing vehicle since it would 
allow you to make bunny hops around the planet and still get 
back to the return home site. Especially good if the lander can 
use the methane/LOX fuel from the redundant return ship. Of 
course the redundant ship can be considered the first for the 
second mission...

Article: 79644
From: Ben.Muniz@launchpad.unc.edu (Benigno Muniz Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Direct
Date: 10 Dec 1993 03:44:35 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the 
              Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
 
In article <michael.48.2D07A1A9@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au>,
Michael Quinn <michael@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au> wrote:

>Can anyone, especially here in OZ, tell me where I could get a copy ?
 
Zubrin, R. and Baker, D., "Mars Direct: A Simple, Robust, and Cost
Effective Architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative, AIAA paper
91-0326, 29th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, Nevada, Jan. 7-10, 1991.
 
Zubrin, R. and Baker, D., "Humans to Mars in 1999", Aerospace America,
Aug. 1990, p. 30-32, 41.
 
Also of interest:

Walberg, G., "How Shall We Go to Mars? A Review of Mission Scenarios",
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 30, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1993, p.129-139.
 
For info on above, contact AIAA at 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20024 (see FAQ for more info)
 
There have been several articles in places such as the Case for Mars
conferences, *Analog*, etc. but I don't have them handy.  Anyone else?
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Article: 80120
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: malin@esther.la.asu.edu (Mike Malin)
Subject: Re: Mars/Moon landing (or How MESUR Pathfinder Lands)
Sender: news@ennews.eas.asu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Mars Observer TES Project, ASU, Tempe AZ
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 00:42:50 GMT
 
Several people commented on Frank Crary's posting about using a rocket
stage to land on Mars, noting that MESUR (or actually, MESUR Pathfinder) 
was using an aeroshell, parachute, and airbags to land, but no rocket.  
While this was the plan not too long ago, it has changed: 
 
From Pathfinder Project MISSION PLAN (Preliminary Version), JPL
D-11355, December 1993, Section 2.3.2.3 Deceleration Subsystems
 
"Deceleration subsystems are required to reduce Pathfinder's direct
atmospheric entry velocity of 7.65 km/s to a near-zero vertical
velocity component at impact in order to accomplish a survivable
landing on the Martian surface.  The deceleration subsystems consist
of an aeroshell, engineering instrumentation, a parachute, an
incremental tether, retrorockets, and airbags. 
 
[Material describing the Viking heritage heat shield and parachute deleted]
 
During the parachute descent, the heat shield is jettisoned, the lander
is lowered below the backshell on a 20 to 40 meter tether, and the
lander vertical velocity is reduced to about 55 m/s in the vicinity of
the surface.  The tether provides separation between the retrorockets
and the lander and improves stability during the rocket firing.  A
radar altimeter on the lander is used to determine when to ignite the
three retrorockets mounted on the backshell above the lander.  The
retrorockets are identical to military ejection seat rockets and are
sized to reduce the lander velocity to less than 20 m/s at surface
impact.  Four airbags attached to the faces of the tetrahedral lander
are inflated concurrently with the rocket firing and are designed to
eliminate all remaining vertical and horizontal velocity components,
while limiting landing loads to less than 50 Earth g's.  The coated
Kevlar airbags provide 82 m3 of protective volume surrounding the
lander and are inflated with an organic based propellant via a gas
generator mechanism."
 
There are probably several reasons for this change, although I suspect
it is driven primarily by the desire for low g-forces during impact
and reduced horizontal velocities.  I also believe that, since most of
the interesting places on Mars are at atmospheric pressure altitudes
not accessible to the "airbag-only" terminal system, science
objectives played at least some small role in changing the system.
Since the airbags obscure the final descent (e.g., from descent
imaging systems), some other technique is likely to be needed for
Pathfinder follow-ons.  In this regard, the small, powerful thrusters
developed for BMDO interceptor projectiles may be of considerable use,
since they are lighter and nearly as powerful as the tractor rockets
proposed for Pathfinder, and use fuel sparingly.  They are also
throttleable, making them useful for landing vehicles at different 
altitudes.
 
Mike Malin
ex-Mars Observer Camera Principal Investigator

Article: 80224
From: GLANDIS@lerc.nasa.gov (Geoffrey A. Landis)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Mars/Moon landing (or How MESUR Pathfinder Lands)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 17:22:57 -0500
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
 
malin@esther.la.asu.edu (Mike Malin) writes: 

> >From Pathfinder Project MISSION PLAN (Preliminary Version), JPL 
> >D-11355, December 1993, Section 2.3.2.3 Deceleration Subsystems 
> > 
> >"Deceleration subsystems are required to reduce Pathfinder's direct 
> >atmospheric entry velocity of 7.65 km/s to a near-zero vertical 
> >velocity component at impact in order to accomplish a survivable 
> >landing on the Martian surface.  The deceleration subsystems consist 
> >of an aeroshell, engineering instrumentation, a parachute, an 
> >incremental tether, retrorockets, and airbags. 
 
gwh@crl.com (George Herbert) writes:
> Hmm.  The Airbag-based thump landing system had the advantage of 
> simplicity and low cost.  Rockets are a failure mode and cost 
> driver that would have been nice to keep out of the equation 
> (which is why they weren't there to start with). 
 
For reference, the MESUR probe is supposed to impact at about a
hundred miles an hour.  Equipment is to be designed to expect a
loading of 50 G's for 0.1 second along any axis (any axis because it
will bounce and roll), and is *supposed* to be designed to take 100
G's.  50 G for 0.1 second is the acceleration you would feel if you
jumped off of a 125 meter high building (in vacuum), and landed on a
trampoline that deflected 2 1/2 meters. 
 
There has been some serious discussion about using a retro-rocket
instead of the airbags. 
 
Scientific instruments on the MESUR pathfinder include a spectroscopic
camera that should identify rock types within its field of view, a
small rover, and (from memory) two chemical analysis experiments, and
(probably) some meteorological experiments.  It was also intended to
have a seismograph; I'm not sure if this is in the final package or not. 
 
Geoffrey A. Landis           NASA Lewis Research Center mailstop 302-1
GLANDIS@LERC.NASA.GOV
Currently reading: _West With the Night_, Beryl Markham
_Count Geiger's Blues_, Michael Bishop
 
Article: 80228
From: michael_c_o'neal@ccmail.jpl.nasa.gov (Spaceman Spiff O'Neal)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Mars/Moon landing (or How MESUR Pathfinder Lands)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 16:29:03
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
 
In article <9312201722.AA57751@Phobos> GLANDIS@lerc.nasa.gov (Geoffrey
A. Landis) writes: 

>For reference, the MESUR probe is supposed to impact at about a hundred miles 
 
Actually, only around 45 miles per hour.
 
>an hour.  Equipment is to be designed to expect a loading of 50 G's for 0.1 
>second along any axis (any axis because it will bounce and roll), and is 
>*supposed* to be designed to take 100 G's.  50 G for 0.1 second is the 
>acceleration you would feel if you jumped off of a 125 meter high building 
>(in vacuum), and landed on a trampoline that deflected 2 1/2 meters.
 
>There has been some serious discussion about using a retro-rocket instead of 
>the airbags.
 
Not instead, in addition to.  And this change has been baselined.
 
>Scientific instruments on the MESUR pathfinder include a spectroscopic camera 
>that should identify rock types within its field of view, a small rover, and 
>(from memory) two chemical analysis experiments, and (probably) some 
>meteorological experiments.  It was also intended to have a seismograph; I'm 
>not sure if this is in the final package or not.
 
Current instruments - Camera (with several filters to perform numerous
experiments); A rover; Alpha proton Xray spectrometer, deployed by the
rover; Magnetic dust properties expt; and a atmospheric structure/
meteorology package with an accelerometer and pressure and temperature 
sensors. 
 
>Geoffrey A. Landis           NASA Lewis Research Center mailstop 302-1
>GLANDIS@LERC.NASA.GOV
>Currently reading: _West With the Night_, Beryl Markham
>_Count Geiger's Blues_, Michael Bishop
 
-Mike
 
Article: 80367
From: michael_c_o'neal@ccmail.jpl.nasa.gov (Spaceman Spiff O'Neal)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: How MESUR Pathfinder Lands
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 09:25:41
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
 
In article <CIF1t3.FMx@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) writes: 

>From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>Subject: Re: How MESUR Pathfinder Lands
>Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 03:03:03 GMT
 
>What's disturbing is the _number_ of late changes in 
>design and engineering requirements and how long it takes NASA
>to forward the information to the people who need it. If something 
>as basic as landing acceleration changed at this point in the MESUR 
>Pathfinder, there is a serious problem: Someone wasn't doing their job 
>(either the preliminary designers who thought airbags alone would work, or
>the people in charge of developing the airbags.) Regardless
>of the blame, the changes should have been distributed _immediately_
>to everyone building instruments. This sort of thing isn't a hallmark
>of a well-managed program. I also remember that the Challenger disaster
>was largely the result of piss-poor information distribution: The
>knowledge to prevent the accident was available; it just didn't get
>to the right people in time.
 
>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder
 
Actually, you have it backwards.  Here is they way it happened, for
those interested in the history of the development.  We (the
preliminary designers, and those responsible for developing the
airbags are the same people, of which I am one) started with the
airbag concept as a much cheaper approach than Viking.  In the process
of building test prototypes to crash into the New Mexico desert, we
learned many things about Airbags, notably their performance on Earth
and Mars.  A vented airbag that works well on Earth will actually have
choked flow on Mars due to the low atmospheric pressure.  In order to
achieve the 50 G landing spec. for the terminal velocity on the chute,
venting is required.  We did a trade study and determined the most
straight forward approach was to go with non vented airbags (for many
reasons too numerous to mention here unless people really care) and
augment the parachute with retro rockets to reduce the terminal
velocity.  This was done to AVOID changing the landing spec, and give
us more confidence in achieving it.  However, if the spec. was
changed, we would have informed everyone. 
 
-Mike
 

    Re: .207, EMPIRE

    Somewhere I have a photocopy of the EMPIRE (Early Manned Planetary
    Mumble Mumble Mumble) study, authored by Krafft Ehricke and team at
    General Dynamics Astronautics in 1963.  It is pretty amazing from a
    1990s perspective, describing missions not only to the inner planets,
    but the gas giants as well.  Ehricke expanded on these ideas in a paper
    published by the AAS in 1965, part of a volume entitled "Space in the
    Fiscal Year 2001".  I don't remember the title of the paper, but it 
    described a plan to explore all of the planets, and the associated
    technologies and infrastructure.

    If I can ever find it, I'll post a summary here.

    Re: .209, Mars Direct  

    One of Zubrin's follow-on ideas envisioned a Martian lifting body
    powered by a  rocket engine using NIMF (Nuclear-synthesized Indigenous
    Martian Fuels).  This vehicle would be used by Mars Direct crews for
    wide-ranging exploration of Mars and, discounting the nuclear fuel in
    the reactor, would have essentially unlimited range.

    Zubrin is also the guy who's proposing a methane-acetylene (!) Earth to
    orbit launch vehicle.

From:	US1RMC::"ASTRO%GITVM1.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu" "Astronomy Discussion 
        List"  7-FEB-1994 16:44:54.49
To:	Multiple recipients of list ASTRO <ASTRO%GITVM1.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
CC:	
Subj:	NASA Begins Development of Mars Surveyor Program

Donald L. Savage
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

February 7, 1994
(Phone:  202/358-1547)

Diane Ainsworth
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone:  818/354-5011)

RELEASE:  94-20

NASA BEGINS DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MARS EXPLORATION PROGRAM

     NASA will continue to explore Mars with a new exploration
strategy in fiscal year 1995.  The Mars Surveyor program calls for
start of development of a small orbiter that will be launched in
November 1996 to study the surface of the red planet. 

     The Mars Surveyor orbiter will lay the foundation for a series of
missions to Mars in a decade-long program of Mars exploration.  The
missions will take advantage of launch opportunities about every 2
years as Mars comes into alignment with Earth. 

     NASA requested $77 million in development costs in FY 1995 for
the new Mars orbiter.  The announcement was made during NASA's press
briefing on the 1995 budget request.  The 1995 fiscal year runs from
Oct. 1, 1994, to Sept. 30, 1995. 

     The Mars Surveyor program will be conducted within the
constraints of a cost ceiling of approximately $100 million per year. 
The orbiter will be small enough to be launched on a Delta expendable
launch vehicle and will carry roughly half of the science payload that
flew on Mars Observer, which was lost on Aug. 21, 1993.  The specific
instruments will be selected later. 

     NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., will
issue a request for proposals to industry in mid-March to solicit
potential spacecraft designs.  Selection of a contractor to build the
spacecraft will be made by July 1. 

     NASA envisions an orbiter/lander pair of spacecraft as the next
in this series of robotic missions to Mars. 

     The orbiter planned for launch in 1998 would be even smaller than
the initial Mars Surveyor orbiter and carry the remainder of the Mars
Observer science instruments.  It would act as a communications relay
satellite for a companion lander, launched the same year, and other
landers in the future, such as the Russian Mars '96 lander.  The U.S.
Pathfinder lander, set to land on Mars in 1997, will operate
independently of the Mars orbiter. 

     The 1998 orbiter/lander spacecraft would be small enough to be
launched on an expendable launch vehicle about half the size and cost
of the Delta launch vehicle. 

     JPL will manage mission design and spacecraft operations of the
Mars Surveyor for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. 

- end -

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date:         Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:30:05 +0000
% Sender: Astronomy Discussion List <ASTRO%GITVM1.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
% From: Ron Baalke <BAALKE@KELVIN.JPL.NASA.GOV>
% Subject:      NASA Begins Development of Mars Surveyor Program
% X-To:         astro@gitvm1.bitnet
% To: Multiple recipients of list ASTRO <ASTRO%GITVM1.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>

Article: 5306
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry)
Subject: Mars Surveyor Fact Sheet
Sender: digester@news.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 20:30:27 GMT
 
FACT SHEET
MARS SURVEYOR PROGRAM
Mars Orbiter Spacecraft
 
 
The Mars orbiter will be a polar-orbiting spacecraft at Mars whose 
mission is to fulfill the Mars science objectives of the failed Mars 
Observer mission. 
 
Launched with a Delta II vehicle from Cape Canaveral in November 1996, 
the spacecraft will cruise 10 months to Mars, where it will be initially 
inserted into an elliptical capture orbit.  During the following 4-month 
period, thruster firings and aerobraking techniques will be used to reach 
the nearly circular, polar mapping orbit with a 2-hour period.  Mapping 
operations are planned to begin in late January 1998. 
 
Aerobraking, which uses atmospheric drag forces on the spacecraft to 
remove orbital energy, provides a means of minimizing the amount of fuel 
required to reach the low Mars orbit.  
 
The spacecraft will carry a subset of the Mars Observer instrument 
payload and will use these instruments to acquire data of Mars for a full 
Martian year (2 Earth years).  The spacecraft then will be used as a data 
relay station for signals from U.S. and international landers and low 
altitude probes for an additional 3 years.  
 
The orbiter is the first mission of a new, decade-long program of robotic 
exploration of Mars -- the Mars Surveyor Program.  This will be an 
aggressive series of orbiters and landers to be launched in every Mars 
opportunity.  It will be affordable, costing about $100 million per year;  
engaging to the public, with global and close-up images of Mars; have 
high scientific value; employ a distributed risk strategy so that no 
single element loss will result in the total loss of data planned in a 
given opportunity; and use significant advanced technologies. 
 
Landers launched in future years -- in 1998 and 2001 -- will capitalize 
on the experiences of the Pathfinder lander mission to be launched in 
1996.  Small orbiters launched in the 1998 and 2001 opportunities will 
carry the remainder of the Mars Observer payload instruments and will 
serve as data relay stations. 
 
The spacecraft will be acquired from industry through a competitive 
procurement.  The science payload will be provided by government-
furnished equipment built as copies of the instruments that flew on Mars 
Observer.  JPL will manage the project for NASA's Solar System 
Exploration Division and will provide the mission design, navigation and 
will conduct the mission operations.  Tracking and data acquisition will 
be provided by a 34-meter subnet of the Deep Space Network. 
 
 
February 1994
 

Article: 202
From: meszena@ludens.elte.hu (Geza Meszena)
Newsgroups: sci.space.science
Subject: Mars Direct: a less demanding version
Date: 15 Feb 94 10:31:10 +0100
Organization: Eotvos University, Budapest, Hungary
 
Mars Direct: a less demanding version
 
     A "conventional" Mars mission scenario usually requires 10
or so launch of a Saturn V class heavy launcher and on-orbit
assembly of the craft. The "revolutionary" Mars Direct plan
requires only two launch without on-orbit assembly, but relies on
producing fuel for the return trip from the Martian atmosphere.

     Zurbin's Mars Direct proposal uses two different craft for
sending people to Mars and back, so two interplanetary habitat
module is needed for a single expedition. In this way we loose a
considerable fraction of the advantage of the Martian fuel production 
by abandoning the trivial mothership/lander configuration.

     I would like to point out, that producing fuel there is not
a prerequisite for a direct mission using only two launches.
Cryogenic propulsion and aerobreaking are the only necessary
technologies.

     We need two 40 tons crafts: a Mars Orbiter and a Mars
Lander. The Mars Orbiter is supposed to host the crew during the
interplanetary travel, while the Mars Lander takes them to the
surface and back to low Mars orbit. Both of the crafts are
launched by an Energia or a Shuttle-derived heavy launcher
directly to the Mars. They make orbit around Mars by
aerobreaking, rendezvous, and the crew takes seats in the Lander.
The Lander lands on the usual Viking way by using aerobreaking,
parachutes, and, finally, rocket breaking. Astronauts are
returned to the orbiter by the ascent stage of the Lander. The
Orbiter with the crew leaves the Mars orbit by its own
propulsion. It reach LEO by aerobreaking again in the atmosphere
of the Earth. In LEO they have to wait for a Shuttle/Soyuz/DC-1
flight or have to make a rendezvous with the Mir/Alpha/anything
space station.

     This concept requires 3 rendezvous: 2 in Mars orbit, and 1
in LEO. Failure of the first one between the Orbiter and the
Lander makes the landing impossible, but does not threat live.
(This rendezvous is quite demanding, because it requires accurate
aerobreaking.) The second rendezvous between the Orbiter and the
ascent stage is life critical, as it was in the Apollo missions.
The third one in LEO is the least problematic, because the crew
can wait for an another Shuttle/anything in LEO. So this scenario
is not more dangerous, than the Apollo flights (+the inherent
danger of the long travelling time).

     An alternative possibility is, that the Mars Orbiter
includes a small Earth Lander capsule to land on Earth. In this
case there is no need for an additional launch to take the crew
back to the Earth from LEO. Aerobreaking of the whole craft in
the atmosphere of the Earth and the rendezvous manoeuvre in LEO
are unnecessary, too. Additional advantage of this option is,
that the crew sits in this capsule during launch, so an escape
rocket can rescue them in case of launch emergency. The price is
the smaller habitat space during the travel.

     A crew of 4 forming two pairs in the surface seems to be
optimal for a small expedition by safety reason. Both of the
pairs has a Apollo-type rover on the Martian surface. The members
of a pair can help each other in the case of necessity, and the
other pair can arrive, if one of the rovers breaks down. So their
trips will not be limited to walking distance from the Lander like 
in the Apollo missions. I do not feel to be necessary to leave 
people in the Orbiter during the others' stay in the surface.
 
     Mass considerations:
 
1. The Mars Orbiter

     The propulsion system must deliver a single major fire: the
escape from the Mars orbit to the Earth transition trajectory.
The DeltaV necessary for this step is around 2 km/sec leading to
1.6 mass ratio (LH/LOX). It means, that 15 tons from the 40 must
be fuel. The remaining 25 tons for dry mass must be enough for
the hab module, the propulsion system and the aerobreaking shell.
It seems to be O.K., because 20 tons is a typical weight of a hab
module (Mir) without using composites. The mass constraints are
more strict in the alternative option, if the craft must include
an Earth Lander capsule. The weight of such a capsule is around 4
tons. (A Soyuz return capsule is 2.8 tons only, but we have to
return 4 men/women rather than 3 + the soil samples.) But we can
save some of the fuel, because the aerobreaking shell can be
jettisoned in Mars orbit before the escape firing. Moreover, the
capsule would be an integral part of the craft and takes over
some roles from the hab space. The crew will sit it the capsule
during the launch and the manoeuvres and control the craft from
here during the whole journey.
 
2. The Mars Lander

     From the 40 tons of full mass we allow 4 tons for the mass
jettisoned before the descent fire (aerobreaking shell,
parachutes). The propulsion of the remaining 36 tons craft has to
deliver DeltaV 0.8 km/sec for safe landing (deceleration from 0.5
km/sec + levitation for around 100 sec. It requires mass ratio
1.2, that is 6 tons fuel for descent. So we have 30 tons for the
dry mass of the descent stage (including the equipment necessary
during the stay in the Mars surface) + the full mass of the
ascent stage.

     The ascent stage must deliver a small capsule (say: 4 tons,
we do not need heat shield and parachutes, but does need a
docking port) to low Mars orbit. 15 tons seems to be enough for
the total mass of the ascent stage. (The necessary DeltaV is
around 4 km/sec, because the circular velocity is 3.3 km/sec, and
some more is needed because of the gravity loss. It requires mass
ratio 2.5. 2 tons is allowed for the fuel tank and the propulsion
system.) The remaining 15 tons is the dry mass of the descent stage.

     If we allow 5 tons for the propulsion system, the fuel tanks
and the legs, 10 tons is available for the surface equipment. The
largest part of this mass is the core of an inflatable habitat.
We also need large solar array panels (delivered in rolled up
state like at the HST, and deployed on the soil by the astronauts) 
and the two rovers and scientific equipments. But the latter items 
can be made quite light.
 
     There are two possibilities for trajectory. If one use a
Hoffman trajectory back and forth, the astronauts have to wait
one and a half year on the surface of the Mars for the return
trip. The second possibility is using a Venus fly-by trajectory
onward to Mars and coming back in Hoffman orbit after waiting
only for month. The second possibility seems to be the more safe
for the first manned expedition, while the longer stay is the
more economic option for the subsequent, regular missions. The
small equipment mass delivered to the Mars surface by the
scenario above is better suited to the short-stay first
expedition. In the subsequent trips one can send more equipment
to Mars using an additional unmanned lander. (Using the figures
above it can deliver 25 tons to the surface, that may include a
small nuclear reactor, larger habitat, a pressurized rover and
more scientific instruments.) The ascent stage of the manned
lander can as large as 25 tons (with fuel) and becomes able to
take back more sample, because there is no need to carry
equipment to the surface. (If the two landers fail to land near
enough, astronauts have to return to the Orbiter, and wait there
for the opening of the return window.)
 
     The 2-launch version of this scenario is obviously inferior
to the Zurbin's Mars Direct in terms of surface equipment. But
the 3-launch version with the additional unmanned lander is
already superior! So I am not sure, that in the early phase of
the exploration Martian fuel production is worth developing and
taking the additional risk. The next step may be a reusable
orbiter and lander with a single fuel-producing factory on the
Martian surface.
 
Geza Meszena
Department of Atomic Physics
Eotvos University
Budapest, Hungary 

Article: 3742
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Reuter/Walker Simon)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space
Subject: NASA's ``Ultimate Vision'' is to Put Man on Mars
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 20:10:19 PST
 
	 NEW YORK (Reuter) - The U.S. space agency's long-term goal is
to put a man on Mars, but it was still too early to say when it could
launch the project, its chief said. 

	 ``Clearly the long-term vision is Mars,'' NASA administrator
Daniel Goldin told an independent group of business executives Tuesday
night. ``If I didn't say it, I wouldn't be representing the situation.'' 

	 Assuming scientists laid the technical groundwork and
economic and political conditions were right, Goldin said a proper
duration for the project would at most 10 years, like the Apollo
project which first put men on the Moon in 1969. 

	 Goldin dismissed former President George Bush's Mars project
as too costly at $500 billion, and too long at 30 years. ``It has to
have a reasonable time frame, eight to 10 years, I would say is a
reasonable time frame,'' he said. 

	 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration chief said
scientists could cut the project's price tag through innovative technology. 

	 For example, NASA was looking at an idea at cutting the space
vehicle's mass by half by its drawing methane from Mars to use as fuel
for the return trip home, he said. 

	 To evaluate the idea's feasibility, NASA will retrieve a
sample of methane in 1996 from Mars that one of its probes will bring
back to Earth. 

	 He did not set a start date for the Mars project, citing what
he said was the Bush administration's ``false start.'' 

	 ``Issue number-one is that before we set out to go to Mars
again, we better do our homework and put our brains into motion before
our mouths into gear. And there are ways of going to Mars.'' 

	 Once underway, the Mars project could not be America's alone,
Goldin said. 

	 ``This is such a big program no one nation could afford it,''
he said, adding geopolitical considerations were also paramount. 

	 ``What if the United States goes to Mars and plants a flag
over here, and what if Russia goes to Mars and plants a flag over
there and Japan goes to Mars and plants a flag over here?'' he asked. 

	 ``You know, we had a millenia of war here and now we can
expand it to Mars and make even bigger weapons,'' he added. 

	 Goldin said that the United States was anticipating long-term
cooperation with Russians. 

	 ``The ultimate vision is we go to Mars,'' Goldin continued. 
``And the vision today is that we learn how to work together, the
Russians, the Europeans,the Japanese, the Canadians and some newly
developed countries.'' 

	 He said NASA had already signed a $400 million, four-year
accord with Moscow in December. 

	 The eventual goal would be to work on a space station
together before the Mars trip. 

	 Also important was overcoming fundamental medical problems
that weightlessness would cause on a round trip, which would take from
two to three years. 

	 In today's spacecraft, astronauts would lose 40 to 50 percent
of their bone mass, given current technology. 

	 Muscles would atrophy, kidney stones would develop and the
inner ears could not provide proper direction. 

	 He countered criticism that Russian technology was unsafe by
recounting the success and failure of space ventures in 1993. 

	 Of America's 19 space launches, at least three failed, he said. 
The Russians had one loss out of 49. 

RE: <<< Note 276.215 >>>

>From: meszena@ludens.elte.hu (Geza Meszena)
>Cryogenic propulsion...

Gee, how is the cryogenic fuel maintained for time periods of the order of a
year?

Back in Saturn V days, the S-IVB third stage had cryogenic fuel for its J-2
engine. It was fired once during launch (for Earth orbit injection), and then
fired a second time an orbit or three later (for trans-lunar injection). There
was worry that it's second firing would not work due to the cryo fuel sitting
and warming up for a couple of hours. Of course it did work, but it was a
relatively big deal.

I'm sure insulation technology has progressed in the intervening 25 years, but
how would the fuel be kept cold for the extended period required by the
proposed Mars mission? 
						-- Tom

Tom,

Well, a copuple of ways.

1) it is cold in space.  Put the fuel behind a shade, with a selective radiating
surface (to keep the heat the sun imparts to the sail and is then radiated to
the fuel) between the sun and the fuel.

2) use power.  They should be able to use solar power the whole way.  Some
pannels dedicated to a refredgerator (how ever it is done to keep things cryo on
earth), shoudl be possible.

3) better insulators.  Some of the newer technologies cut heat loss
dramatically, they are essentially huge super dewar's.

Tony

This is not certain knowledge, but:

I believe that there is little enough matter in space that you can pretty much
discount heat conduction out to it.   Essentially, most of the tank is
surrounded by a "perfect" conduction insulator, i.e. a vacuum.

However, radiation is a big problem.  You can shield it from the sun, but the
shield itself, unless it is a perfect reflector, will get warm, the warmth will
be conducted through, and then it will be re-radiated to the tank.  Less than
direct sun, but still some heat gain.

Refrigeration equipment would be, I would think, very heavy.  Besides, in order
to be able to cool LH2, the working fluid would have to evaporate at a temp even
lower than LH2 at some reasonable pressure.

I think we have trouble storing cryo material, even in space, for an infinite
time (which means a time longer than the time it takes everything to stablize).
I can think of three possibilities, which all begin with "Insulate as much as
possible and..."

1)  ...let the tank be very strong; strong enough to allow a pressure high
enough to keep the contents liquified at any temp that it might reasonably get
to.

2) ...make sure there is enough liquid so that you can occasionally boil some
off when the temp gets too high.  Boiling it off would bring the temp back down.

3)  ...have some sort of expanding tank which would have ultimately enough
volume to allow the cryos to be stored as a gas at moderate temperature.  When
you need to use it, you have to have a pump to compress it, and time to let the
compressed gas cool back off and repeat the cycle till it is liquified.  I'm not
sure but what you would not need both the tank strength of (1) and the extra
material of (2) in order to pull this off.

Burns

	re 276.217-.220

	A Sun-Shield should be enough, the vacum temperature behind
	a permanent shadow is just a few degrees above absolute zero.
	(i.e. the cosmic background temperature)

	Thus by puting the tank behind a simple screen, well behind 
	(about 100 meters should do) to avoid re-radiation problems. 
	And insulating it from the rest of the warmer spacecraft is
	all you should need to do to keep H2/O2 liquid/solid forever. 

	If active cooling is ever needed for whatever reason I heard
	lots of good things about mechanical micro-cryo-coolers.
	But most likelly you would need warmers rather then coolers.

	Gil

From:	US1RMC::"Admin@ccmail.jpl.nasa.gov" "JPL Public Information" 
        21-FEB-1994 14:43:52.06
To:	sci-space-news@uunet.uu.net
CC:	
Subj:	JPL/MESUR Pathfinder information system

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                           February 21, 1994

     The Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR) Pathfinder project at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has begun using a project
management computer information network system to streamline its
work flow to help it meet the challenge of "faster, better,
cheaper" missions.

     MESUR Pathfinder is one of the first missions under NASA's
Discovery program of smaller, low-cost missions.  It is planned
for launch in 1996 with a landing on Mars in July 1997.

     The management system is from Aaron-Ross Corporation, a
small, woman-owned business in Glendora, Calif.

     The Aaron-Ross project management information system will
help the project meet its critical deadlines by connecting all
members of the team via the computer network.  The system will
operate under a client-server architecture with common access,
storage and retrieval to information using Macintosh, MS-
DOS/Windows and Unix applications.  It also features enterprise-
wide workflow process and document/image management.

     Apple Computer will provide the system software, building
upon its virtually integrated technical architecture lifecycle
(VITAL) approach.  Tandem Computers will provide a Non-Stop POSIX
parallel server to run the system.  Aaron-Ross will perform the
system development and system integration.

     The team began development of the system in January in a
"proof-of-concept" trial basis for one year.

     MESUR Pathfinder is managed by JPL for NASA's Office of Space Science.

                             ##### 

2-21-94 MAH
#9413

     Note to journalists:  Aaron-Ross Corporation can be reached
at (818) 963-4119.  Tandem Computers Incorporated can be reached
at (408) 285-6000.

Article: 1067
From: dmckiss@lims.lerc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Comments on Student Martian Proposals
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 13:51:25 +500
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
 
I'm a mentor for the 1994 NASA/NSTA Space Science Student Involvement
Program. I'm to review four proposals from semi-finalists for an
expedition to Mars, and provide comments to the High School authors so
they can improve their proposals prior to their resubmission for the
final stages of judging. 
 
Given the diverse group of space experts on the net, I thought I'd
solicit comments/ideas/recommendations/suggestions for improvements
from this newsgroup. 
 
Here are short summaries of the four proposals I'm to review:
 
1. "Mars Scientific Expedition Proposal with An Experimental
Investigation Into the Possibility of Life on Mars" by Matthew L.
Horner, 9th grader at Montgomery Blair Math and Science School in
Silver Spring, MD 
 
"This is a proposal to send a crew of six people to Mars to perform a
modified version of the Viking labeled-release experiment. The Viking
labeled-release experiment returned positive results, which have been
attributed to life. This experiment will use the same nutrients as the
Viking lander in an attempt to duplicate the Viking results and
determine which nutrients cause the Martian agent to react.  The
scientists performing the experiment will attempt to isolate and
identify the agent responsible for the positive readings.  This
mission is proposed to be a 3-year journey to Mars, taking 6 crew
members. ... Hypothesis [for Mars experiment] The problem that this
study will examine is the possibility of life on Mars.  It is
hypothesized that life will be found on Mars." 
 
2. "Search for the Lost Waters of Life" by Ryan O. Feddersen, 10th
grader at East High School, Siox City, Iowa 
 
"Where there is water there is the possibility of life. Perhap's not
'little green men from Mars,' but fossilized remains of ancient
microbes. Viking missions failed to find life forms on Mars, but a
manned mission would add a new variable to the experimental procedure.
Machines do not feel, therefore uncertainty exists.  Only when man is
able to experience, explore and experiment on Mars, will the question
of existence of life on Mars be answered. ... Construction of the Mars
spacecraft will take place [at the] space station. ... Travel with a
crew of 12 will take seven months each way. Surface experiments will
last four months, for a total mission time of 18 months. Hypothesis
[for the Mars experiment]: 1) Microbal life did exist on Mars. 2)
Water does exist in large amounts in deep permafrost and underground
reservoirs." 
 
3. "The Viability of the Conolization of Mars" by James G. Schaefer,
12th grader at Glenbrook North High School, Northbrook Illinois 
 
"The overall plan for this expedition is to use the joint resources
available through international cooperation to journey to Mars, engage
in experiments which will determine the viability for the conolization
and exploitation of Mars and it's resources, and to return humans to
Earth.  Through international cooperation, humankind will be taking
the social and political first steps toward uniting the Earth and
reaching out for a new frontier.  This two year mission, will use a
rotating Mars Expedition Craft to fly by Venus on it's way to Mars.
... My proposed expedition will be a two year journey, with all but
two months time spent traveling. Two crewmembers each will be chosen
from the United States, Japan, European Space Agency, Canada, and
Russia. ... Problem/Hypotheses: The purpose of this experiment is to
investigate the Martian atmosphere, soil, and permafrost layers to see
if they will be useful in building structures, producing food, and
obtaining resources which will be needed if colonization is to take
place on Mars. Therefore, I hypothesize the following: ... Terrestrial
seeds will grow using Martian soil and re-proportioned Martian
atmosphere; Water will be found within the permafrost layers of Mars;
The Martian atmosphere will be capable of producing O2 ..." 
 
4. "The Mars Satellite Probe System" by Bridgette Katherine Robinet,
12th grader at Sauk Rapas High School, Sauk Rapas Minnesota. 
 
"The Mars Satellite Probe System is a photographic satellite with
probe deploying capabilities.  The satellite will orbit Mars in a
geosynchronous orbit and deploy probes equal distances apart around
the planet.  These probes will be capable of collecting
meteorological, seismic, and volcanic data, in addition, the probes
will analyze volatile substances and will try to determine future
power sources, such as wind power or solar power, for future human
missions. The probes will also be capable of locating possible fossil
life and analyzing it.  The probes will continuously transmit data to
the orbiting satellite which will relay the information to earth. ...
The MSPS will be launched by a Titan III and will take approximately 1
year to reach Mars." 
 

Article: 54841
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Mars Observer II?
Date: 23 Mar 1994 16:42 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
In article <MALIN.94Mar21210739@esther.la.asu.edu>,
malin@esther.la.asu.edu (Mike Malin) writes... 

>JPL has, or is about to, issue(d) a request for proposals from
>industry for the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, intended to recover
>some (but not all) of the science objectives of the Mars Observer
>mission.  As the spacecraft must be launched from a Delta 2, it will
>be smaller than the original Mars Observer.  There isn't likely to be
>enough money to send two in 1996.  A second mission is slated for
>1998, on an even smaller launch vehicle (the so-called Medium Lite
>Vehicle, about 1/2 of a Delta 2), so that spacecraft will be even
>smaller (and carry even less payload).  
 
Bear in mind that Mars Surveyor is a Mars exploration program, not
just a single spacecraft.  A series of spacecraft (both orbiters and
landers) will be launched at every Mars opportunity starting in 1996.
Here's the preliminary schedule. 
 
1996 - Mars Global Surveyor orbiter (will carry about half of MO's instruments)
1998 - Orbiter (carrying the remainder of MO's instruments)
       Neolander (based on MESUR technology)
2001 - 2 Neolander or 4 MiniGeolanders
2003 - Orbiter, 1 Neolander or 2 MiniGeolanders
2005 - 4 MiniGeolanders
 
>It will be hard to recover all of the Mars
>Observer objectives within the limitations now faced by the Mars
>Surveyor Program.
 
It is true that not all of the Mars Observer objectives will not be
accomplished by the 1996 launch.  The instrument load (consisting of
mostly MO spares) is split between the 1996 and 1998 launches.  When
you consider the landers and orbiters, the Mars Surveyor program will
exceed the Mars Observer objectives. 

     ___    ____      ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab | 
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   Galileo S-Band     | A mind stretched by a new
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | idea can never go back to
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | its original dimensions.

Article: 55103
From: malin@esther.la.asu.edu (Mike Malin)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: More Re: Mars Observer II?
Date: 24 Mar 94 20:41:02
Organization: TES Project, ASU, Tempe AZ
 
I missed Ron Baalke original comment on my post concerning the Mars
Global Surveyor spacecraft RFP, but Duane Binschadler reposted part of
it, in which Ron noted that Mars Surveyor was a PROGRAM, not a single
spacecraft, and that over the next ten years the PROGRAM would do much
more than Mars Observer would have done.  Duane noted that the PROGRAM
only exists on paper and is not authorized or funded.
 
This note is to make a couple of other points:
 
1)  The 1996 orbiter spacecraft is called the Mars Global Surveyor.
It is NOT called the Mars Global Surveyor Orbiter.  Anytime you see
the word "Global" between "Mars" and "Surveyor" it is referring to the
1996 orbiter and nothing else.  This is by NASA HQ edict, and has been
passed down to me by JPL.  The RFP to be released only addresses the
1996 orbiter.
 
2)  The 1998 and 2003 orbiters, as presently envisioned, are smaller
than the 1996 orbiter, and are further envisioned primarily as
communications relay satellites.  In that context, no commitment has
been made to either the Mars Observer gamma-ray spectrometer or the
pressure modulator infrared radiometer that they will be flown.  In
their Mars Observer configurations, the two may not fit together on a
spacecraft small enough to be launched on the hypothetical "Med Lite"
vehicle.  The GRS COULD be configured in a smaller package and use a
smaller boom.  PMIRR would need substantial redesign (I believe) to
shrink much in mass and volume, which isn't surprising--its 40+ kg
already represents a nearly unprecedented shrinkage from its
earth-orbiting predecessors (like a factor of over 5!).  The real
question is whether NASA is carrying in its budget for the 1998
mission money for building any payload, and if so, how much.
 
3)  While the Mars Surveyor Program COULD recover the Mars Observer
science objectives, I think it is going to be hard to do so.  It DOES
address other science objectives, but these are a substantial
downscaling from the originally conceived Mars Observer follow-on
mission, the Mars Environment Survey (MESUR).  You might remember that
the Pathfinder Lander in 1996 was originally called MESUR Pathfinder.
The reference to MESUR has been dropped (as it has for the 1998
lander, called the "Neolander" which is now said to be based on
Pathfinder technology).  Rather than a network of stations aimed at
geophysical measurements (seismology and meteorology), a series of
very small and limited payloads will be deployed (if we're lucky); a
meeting at JPL in May will try to figure out what to do with them.
 
I, for one, am having a difficult time adjusting to a system that
involves establishing mission requirements programmatically rather
than on the basis of science objectives.  This is not to say
programmatic issues are not relevant or even the appropriate way to
establish mission requirements.  If anything, given today's political
economics, it would be silly to insist on doing science for science
sake.  Rather, it is just hard to then have to dream up science
rationales for these essentially programmatic decisions, and then in
addition to be told that what is clearly a quarter-filled glass is full.
 
Mike Malin
Principal Investigator
Mars Global Surveyor Camera (MOC 2)

Article: 55232
From: malin@esther.la.asu.edu (Mike Malin)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: More: Re: Mars Observer II? (Hi Res Camera)
Date: 27 Mar 94 19:21:52
Organization: TES Project, ASU, Tempe AZ
 
In his post <1994Mar25.000135.24029@picker.com>, John Halan expresses
the view based in part on my description of the small Mars Surveyor
spacecraft that "...somehow [he gets] this feeling that there just
won't be enough room for a high-resolution camera on board....  one
that could answer the open questions on the "anomolies"..."
 
The spare Mars Observer Camera was chosen to fly on the Mars Global
Surveyor in 1996, along with the Thermal Emission Spectromenter (TES),
the Mars Observer Laser Altimeter (MOLA), the Magnetometer/Electron
Reflectometer (MAG/ER), the Mars [Balloon] Relay (MR), and the
Ultrastable Oscillator (USO).
 
The orbit will be the same as that of Mars Observer (380 km circular,
polar, 2 PM local time).  The MOC 2 will be able to get better than
1.5 m/pixel over a 3 km wide by roughly 6 km long field of view.
Essentially, all parameters for MOC remain the same.
 
Mike Malin
Principal Investigator
Mars Global Surveyor Camera (MOC 2)

From:	VERGA::US4RMC::"rocks-and-fossils@world.std.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon  
        30-Mar-1994 0217" 30-MAR-1994 02:11:31.06
To:	rocks-and-fossils@world.std.com
CC:	
Subj:	NASA Develops Plan to Search for Martian Fossils

Don Savage
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.       March 22, 1994
(Phone:  202/358-1547)
 
Diane Farrar
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
(Phone:  415/604-9000)
 
RELEASE:  94-49
 
NASA DEVELOPS PLAN TO SEARCH FOR MARTIAN FOSSILS
 
	A scientist at NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View,
Calif., has developed a strategy to search for microfossils on the
planet Mars.  His criteria are helping to guide site selections
related to the search for evidence of past life on Mars during
upcoming Mars missions planned for later this decade. 
 
	"Our focus in the search for life (exobiology) on Mars has
shifted to the search for ancient life because of the formidable
conditions on the martian surface," said Dr. Jack Farmer.  Farmer is a
paleontologist and geologist at Ames. 
 
	Exobiology is the study of the origin, evolution and
distribution of life in the Universe.  Farmer calls his newly invented
discipline exopaleontology. 
 
	Farmer, with colleagues at Arizona State University, has
catalogued and prioritized the sites on the martian planet most likely
to conceal well-preserved microbial fossils.  He bases his strategy on
the principles of Precambrian paleontology, the study of Earth's
earliest fossil record. 
 
	The Precambrian era includes more than 90 percent of Earth's
history.  Beginning before the time of the oldest Earth rocks dated
3.9 billion years ago, it continues to the explosion of complex
multicellular life of about 540 million years ago. 
 
	Many scientists think that ancient Mars was a much warmer, more 
volcanically active planet with a dense atmosphere and abundant water. 
 
	The largest volcano in the solar system is on Mars. Olympus
Mons, probably now dormant, is three times the height of Mt. Everest. 
River channels and lake basins carved into Mars' now-dusty terrain
show vast amounts of water were once present on the planet's surface. 
 
	The channels and lake basins are concentrated in the oldest,
most heavily cratered terrains of Mars.  These areas are believed to
be the same age as the earliest microbial fossils on Earth -- about
3.5 billion years old, Farmer said. 
 
	Since microbial communities developed on Earth in less than a
billion years, it is plausible that organisms also developed on an
early warm and wet Mars, he said. 
 
	If life developed on Mars, it is likely to have left a fossil
record.  According to Farmer, the best locations to hunt for martian
fossils are where nutrient-rich water once bubbled to the surface as
hot springs. 
 
	Farmer, with Drs. David Des Marais of Ames and Malcolm Walter
from Australia, has studied hot spring deposits in Yellowstone
National Park to learn how to recognize them on Mars. 
 
	"Where organisms coexisted with early mineralization, we have
the potential for preserving soft-bodied microbes, sometimes for
billions of years," he said. 
 
	"The hot water bubbling off carbon dioxide gases creates
alkaline conditions.  This encourages minerals like silica and
carbonate to separate out.  The precipitating minerals encase and bury
organisms and even entire microbial mats," he said. 
 
	Silicous thermal springs are the best places to look because
silica is relatively stable and has a long residence time in Earth's
crust, Farmer said.  Carbonates are more soluble than silica, he said,
but can still preserve soft-bodied microorganisms for billions of years. 
 
	Microbes also coexist with precipitating minerals in
evaporating lakes like Mono Lake in California, another site being
studied by Farmer. 
 
	Spring deposits on lake bottoms often form at lower
temperatures that do not deteriorate the organic material as much as a
high temperature spring.  Microbes trapped in these deposits can be
preserved for hundreds of millions of years, he said. 
 
	Lakes can also evaporate, leaving salt that entraps the cell
walls and extracellular material of microbes.  However, salt tends to
dissolve easily.  If a surface water cycle is active, its crustal
residence time is short, Farmer said. 
 
	Farmer presented his research at the Geological Society
Meeting of America in San Bernardino, Calif.  Farmer and his
colleagues recently compiled a catalog that includes Mars exobiology
sites.  NASA will publish the catalog later this year. 

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 6:35:45 GMT
% From: Ron Baalke <BAALKE@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
% To: rocks-and-fossils@world.std.com
% Subject: NASA Develops Plan to Search for Martian Fossils
% Sender: rocks-and-fossils-approval@world.std.com
% Reply-To: rocks-and-fossils@world.std.com

Article: 4004
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.local.florida,clari.tw.space
Subject: NASA To Mull Life On Mars
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 94 17:02:42 PDT
 
	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- NASA researchers go underground on
Earth this week to search for clues to the possibility of life on
Mars.
	Their journey through the dark, humid, precipitous passageways
of Lechuguilla Cave in Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico
will be sort of like a space mission: isolated, risky,
team-dependent.
	``It's kind of an inner trip to outer space,'' said NASA
engineer Larry Lemke. ``We're going in the opposite direction to
get to outer space.''
	NASA planetary scientist Chris McKay and microbiologist Penny
Boston, who consults for NASA from Boulder, Colo., want to see if
the microorganisms living inside Lechuguilla can shed any light on
the kind of life that might exist or might have existed on Mars.
	``We know Mars is very dry. We know it's very cold, and we think
in order to get away from the dry and cold, you'd have to go
underground,'' McKay said late last week. ``The proof that there
was water on Mars (billions of years ago) is a good indication
there was life as well.''
	What makes Lechuguilla so intriguing to McKay and Boston is that
bacteria in the cave derive energy from sulfur and iron, believed
to be two main ingredients of Martian soil. It's also in pristine
condition; except for the entranceway, it was unexplored until
1986.
	Lemke is more interested in the technology aspect: how to
develop robots to collect and study the microorganisms in
Lechuguilla if it proves to be an exobiology gold mine and,
ultimately, look for life on Mars.
	They and eight other scientists and cavers plan to enter
Lechuguilla on Monday for a one-day orientation. They'll go back in
Tuesday and, if all goes well, emerge five days later with samples
of bacteria scraped from rocks and scooped from pools.
	The expedition will be led by Larry Mallory, a soil biochemist
at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and frequent visitor
to Lechuguilla.
	About all that's been found in Lechuguilla's more than 70 miles
of passageways, besides bacteria, fungi and rock, are a few bat
skeletons and the remains of a 25,000-year-old giant ground sloth
and a 45,000-year-old ring-tailed cat.
	Access is restricted by the National Park Service because of its
scientific value and dangerous terrain.
	A 90-foot drop at the entrance is followed by crawlway, walkway
and then a 150-foot vertical drop. There's also a 270-foot drop,
although Mallory doubts he'll subject the group to that.
	Mallory plans to go down about 1,000 feet. The cave, with a
known depth of 1,593 feet, is the deepest in the United States.
	Each person will be lugging a 50-pound pack filled with test
equipment, food, bedding and all body waste. Miner's helmets will
provide light. There will be no communication with the outside.
	McKay isn't easily intimidated; he's used to ``unhappy places.''
His microbial searches have taken him to Antarctica, Siberia and
the Gobi Desert, but never a cave -- until now.
	``I haven't found a good reason for doing one in Tahiti and the
Cayman Islands,'' McKay joked, ``but maybe we will.''

RE: <<< Note 276.228 >>>

Boy, they better be darn careful in that cave. It's an unspoiled, unbelievably
spectacular place. I can all too easily imagine them damaging it. As a former
caver, it makes me shudder.
						-- Tom

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.local.texas,clari.tw.space,clari.tw.science
Subject: Mars Clues Deep Under Earth
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 16:00:14 PDT
 
	EL PASO, Texas (AP) -- Researchers trying to learn if there is
life on Mars went into the Earth for clues, studying how organisms
can thrive isolated from organic matter miles underground in the
nation's deepest cave.
	Five scientists, including three from NASA, spent nearly a week
in New Mexico's Lechuguilla Cave, collecting bacteria that live in
an environment the scientists say mimics Martian characteristics.
	``This is the first time where we have had them (the organisms)
in an accessible deep underground environment. On Mars, if life has
survived it has to be deep underground,'' Chris McKay, a NASA
planetary scientist, said Monday in a telephone interview from
Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico.
	Researchers want to study how the organisms can exist in
Lechuguilla, which is located in a wilderness area of the sprawling
park about 180 miles northeast of El Paso. The cave has been
surveyed to a length of more than 70 miles and a depth of 1,593
feet.
	Lechuguilla, which is formed in calcium carbonate with gypsum
deposits, is isolated and there aren't any animals or streams to
bring in organic matter as there would be in other caves, McKay
said.
	``So there are no sources of energy coming into the cave,'' he
said.
	Researchers say the bacteria derive energy from sulfur and iron,
which are believed to be two main ingredients of Martian soil.
	McKay said NASA researchers became interested in exploring
whether there is life under the surface of Mars after learning
about microorganisms like those in Lechuguilla Cave.
	``People said if there's life underground on Earth, why not
underground life on Mars,'' he said.
	Kimberley Cunningham of the United States Geological Service
identified the first fungi and microbes found at the cave's Sulfur
Shores deep point in 1990.
	More than 30 microbiology testing sites are now established in
the cave, said Cunningham, a research geologist who worked with the
NASA scientists.
	Samples taken during the five-day exploration, which ended
Saturday, will be analyzed at the USGS laboratory in Denver, a
NASA-contracted lab in Boulder, Colo., and the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst.
	The analyses will probably take up to a month. After that the
research team will plan another trip to Lechuguilla, McKay said.

Article: 59232
From: moersch@aphrodite.tn.cornell.edu (Jeffrey E. Moersch)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: FUTURE MARS MISSIONS SERIOUSLY THREATENED IN CONGRESS
Date: 20 May 94 17:05:01
Organization: /home/astrosun/moersch/.organization
 
     It would appear that nearly the entire U.S. program of planned
Mars exploration is at a serious risk of being axed by Congress in the
budget negotiations that are going on *right now*.  The missions
affected include both spacecraft that were to recover the Mars
Observer science (to be launched in '96 and '98), as well as others in
later launch windows.
 
     Below I've attached a copy of a letter that is being circulated
around the planetary science community outlining the problem and what
might be done to change the way things are going - I figured it would
be of direct interest to many of the folks who read these groups, too.
 
Jeff Moersch
Astronomy and Space Sciences
Cornell University
 
---------------------
Greetings: I am writing to you concerning the Mars Surveyor program
and its status in the Congressional budget process. Mars Surveyor is a
new program to send a series of low-cost orbiter and lander missions
to Mars. It is the replacement for both Mars Observer and MESUR in
NASA's plans for Mars exploration. 
 
Mars Surveyor was included for a new start in fiscal year 1995 in the
President's budget submission to Congress. Its status in the Congress,
however, is uncertain. In the Senate, there appears to be some
support. The Senate appropriations committee with NASA oversight has
not yet receieved its budget allocation, however, so substantial
doubts remain. In the House, the situation is still more difficult.
There the budget allocation has been made, and it is clear that some
significant cuts will be made in the NASA budget on the House side. In
fact, the chairman of the House authorization committee with NASA
oversight recently introduced a bill eliminating Mars Surveyor from
the budget. However, the House appropriations subcommittee has not yet
generated its mark-up of the budget, so there is still some room for
maneuvering. If Mars Surveyor were to be approved by one
appropriations subcommittee but not the other, it would go to
conference committee later this summer for resolution. 
 
It is extremely important at this stage in the budget cycle that
supporters of space science programs make their support known on
Capitol Hill.  The House mark-up of the budget is expected on June
6th, so any communications with members of that subcommittee should
take place well before then. The Senate mark-up will probably be a few
weeks later. 
 
I have attached two documents to this note. One is a list of all the
members of both the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees that
have responsibility for the NASA budget. It gives office addresses,
fax numbers, and telephone numbers. For regular mail, it is adequate
to use: 
 
Honorable _____                     Honorable _____
United States Senate                United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510-1103           Washington, DC 20515-1101
 
The other document is a writeup generated at JPL and edited by me that
describes some key characteristics of the Mars Surveyor program. It
does not dwell on Mars science, since I assume that most recipients of
this note are already familiar with the important scientific problems
at Mars that can be addressed by this program. 
 
If you choose to contact Congressional representatives regarding Mars
Surveyor, both of these documents may be helpful to you.  Along with
appropriations subcommittee members, it is also always helpful to
contact your own local representatives. 
 
One suggestion I would like to make: Mars Surveyor is, in a real
sense, in competition with other portions of the NASA budget.
Experience has shown that it is productive to promote programs in
which you are interested, but counter-productive to do so at the
expense of other programs. It will help to say good things about Mars
Surveyor, but it will not help to say bad things about other parts of
the NASA budget. 
 
I am distributing this message widely to members of the planetary
science community. Please feel free to forward it to your colleagues. 
 
Thank you,
 
Steve Squyres
squyres@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE FOR VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
 
MAJORITY MEMBERS
 
Louis Stokes (Chair)       Jim Chapman                Esteban Torres
2365 Rayburn House         2417 Rayburn House         1740 Longworth House
Washington, DC  20515      Washington, DC  20515      Washington, DC  20515
ph: 202-225-7032           ph: 202-225-3035           ph: 202-225-5256
fax: 202-225-1339          fax: 202-225-7265          fax: 202-225-9711
 
 
Allan Mollohan             Marcy Kaptur               Ray Thornton
2242 Rayburn House         2104 Rayburn House         1214 Longworth House
Washington, DC  20515      Washington, DC  20515      Washington, DC  20515
ph: 202-225-4172           ph: 202-225-4146           ph: 202-225-2506
fax: 202-225-7564          fax: 202-225-7711          fax: 202-225-9273
 
 
MINORITY MEMBERS
 
Jerry Lewis
(Ranking Minority Member)  Dean Gallo                 Tom DeLay
2312 Rayburn House         2447 Rayburn House         407 Cannon House
Washington, DC  20515      Washington, DC  20515      Washington, DC  20515
ph: 202-225-5861           ph: 202-225-5034           ph: 202-225-5951
fax: 202-225-6498          fax: 202-225-0658          fax: 202-225-5241
 
 
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE FOR VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
 
MAJORITY:
 
Barbara Mikulski (Chair)   J. Bennett Johnston        Frank Lautenberg
709 Hart Senate            136 Hart Senate            506 Hart Senate
Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510
ph: 202-224-4654           ph: 202-224-5824           ph: 202-224-4744
fax: 202-224-8858          fax: 202-224-2952          fax: 202-224-9707
 
 
J. Robert Kerrey           Dianne Feinstein           Patrick Leahy
303 Hart Senate            331 Hart Senate            433 Russell Senate
Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510
ph: 202-224-6551           ph: 202-224-3841           ph: 202-224-4242
fax: 202-224-7645          fax: 202-228-3954          fax: NONE
 
 
MINORTIY MEMBERS
 
Phil Gramm                 Alfonse D'Amato            Don Nickles 
(Ranking Minority Member)  520 Hart Senate            133 Hart Senate
370 Russell Senate         Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510
Washington, DC  20510      ph: 202-224-6542           ph: 202-224-5754
ph: 202-224-2934           fax: 202-224-5871          fax: 202-224-5754
fax: 202-228-2856
 
 
Christopher (Kit) Bond     Conrad Burns
293 Russell Senate         183 Dirksen Senate
Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510
ph: 202-224-5721           ph: 202-224-2644
fax: 202-224-8149          fax: 202-224-8594
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
MARS SURVEYOR
 
Mars Surveyor is an aggressive but cost constrained program to explore
Mars over the decade extending from 1997 through 2006.  Consisting of
small orbiters and landers built by industry and launched to Mars at
26-month intervals from 1996 through 2005, the Surveyor Program will
conduct investigations designed to address the mysteries surrounding
the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. It will acquire much
of the data that would have been returned by Mars Observer, and also
replaces the Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR) mission in NASA's
plans. The cost of Mars Surveyor is quite modest compared to these
other missions: $120-150 million per year, including all flight
systems, launch costs, mission operations, and data analysis. 
 
The first mission in the Mars Surveyor Program, designated the Mars
Global Surveyor (MGS), is scheduled for launch in November 1996 aboard
a Delta launch vehicle and is designed to accomplish many of the
objectives of the original Mars Observer mission as well as provide a
data relay capability for future surface missions.  The 1996 MGS
mission is followed with two launches during the 1998 opportunity: a
small orbiter approximately one-half the size of MGS with the goal of
carrying the balance of the Mars Observer payload; and a small lander
derived from, but smaller than the 1996 Mars Pathfinder lander. Both
1998 spacecraft are planned for launch aboard a new launch vehicle,
designated the "Med-Lite", which provides approximately one-half the
performance of a Delta for approximately one-half the cost. 
 
Additional landers and orbiters are planned for launch during the
2001, 2003, and 2005 Mars launch opportunities to continue and expand
the investigations initiated by the 1996 and 1998 orbital and surface
missions.  It is envisioned that this portion of the Mars Surveyor
Program would serve as the cornerstone for an international Mars
exploration program involving many countries in a highly synergistic
and cost-effective approach to establishing a network of environmental
monitoring stations on the surface of Mars. 
 
Because of the inherent interest and excitement generated by planetary
exploration, particularly the allure of Mars, the Surveyor Program
provides an excellent vehicle for conducting a far reaching science,
mathematics, and space education program directed to grammar, middle,
and high school students. The key to Mars Surveyor educational
outreach plans is the connection of the engineering, science, and
management problems faced during the implementation of Mars missions
to the fundamental physical, as well as economic and social,
principles typically taught at various levels from kindergarten
through graduate school. Significant funds have been set aside within
the Mars Surveyor program for educational programs. 
 
Mars Surveyor also provides an opportunity for significant technology
development, infusion, and transfer.  The cost constrained nature of
Mars Surveyor mandates the development and infusion of technologies
which provide either significant reductions in the size and weight of
spacecraft or increased autonomy of spacecraft in carrying out their
exploration and science missions.  Small spacecraft can be launched by
smaller, cheaper launch vehicles.  Highly autonomous spacecraft reduce
operations costs by requiring a much smaller number of flight
controllers than required to monitor and command current spacecraft. 
Technologies which have potential dual use applications by commercial
enterprises will be identified and mechanisms will be established to
insure the efficient transfer of these technologies to industry. 
 
In summary, the Mars Surveyor Program exemplifies the faster, better,
cheaper philosophy critical to the successful re-invention of NASA and
other government agencies.  Faster - the maximum development cycle for
any mission in the Surveyor suite is less than 3 years.  Better -
multiple launches of small spacecraft and the prospects of
international cooperation provide for a high science return from a
program that is not reliant on the success of any single component or
mission.  Cheaper - total annual costs for the Surveyor Program are
capped at less than $150M. 

Article: 3680
From: moersch@aphrodite.tn.cornell.edu (Jeffrey E. Moersch)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: News on Mars Surveyor
Date: 10 Jun 94 12:10:05
Organization: Cornell University Department of Astronomy
 
Word from Washington this morning is that the House VA, HUD, and IA
Appropriations Subcommittee has decided to include full funding to
Mars Surveyor.  I'm told that the letters and phone calls of support
for MGS are what made the difference!  Amazing.  AXAF and Cassini are
also in there in full, as is the Station.  Necessary savings are to
come primarily from reductions in the Shuttle flight rate and NASA
staffing levels.  
 
To give you all a calibrator for what constitutes a large response on
an issue like this, one House staffer on the Science, Space, and
Technology Subcommittee (not the appropriations subcommittee) said she
was amazed at the amount of letters their office had received - they
got a grand total of ten.  It seems that on a low-budget item like
Surveyor, anything more than half a dozen letters is considered a big
response.  The power of net-prompted letter-writing campaigns becomes
immediately apparent.
 
The news from the House is very good, but it's only the first step.
The Senate appropriations subcommittee will make their markup in
approximately one month.  If we can get Surveyor in the Senate markup,
it will be in this year's buget.  If Surveyor doesn't get included in
the Senate's version of the budget, its fate will be determined when
the House and Senate meet in conference to settle the differences in
their budgets.  In any case, the important thing to do now is to send
letters of support for Surveyor to the members of the Senate
Subcommittee.  At the bottom of this post, I've included the addresses
and phone numbers of these Senators.  I also have information posted
several weeks ago that describes the Mars Surveyor program.  Anyone
who hasn't seen this yet and would like to should send me e-mail so I
can forward it.
 
I hope everyone is as encouraged as I am by this news!
 
Jeff Moersch
Astronomy and Space Sciences
Cornell University
moersch@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
 
-------------------
 
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE FOR VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
 
MAJORITY:
 
Barbara Mikulski (Chair)   J. Bennett Johnston        Frank Lautenberg
709 Hart Senate            136 Hart Senate            506 Hart Senate
Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510
ph: 202-224-4654           ph: 202-224-5824           ph: 202-224-4744
fax: 202-224-8858          fax: 202-224-2952          fax: 202-224-9707
 
J. Robert Kerrey           Dianne Feinstein           Patrick Leahy
303 Hart Senate            331 Hart Senate            433 Russell Senate
Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510
ph: 202-224-6551           ph: 202-224-3841           ph: 202-224-4242
fax: 202-224-7645          fax: 202-228-3954          fax: NONE
 
MINORTIY MEMBERS
 
Phil Gramm                 Alfonse D'Amato            Don Nickles 
(Ranking Minority Member)  520 Hart Senate            133 Hart Senate
370 Russell Senate         Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510
Washington, DC  20510      ph: 202-224-6542           ph: 202-224-5754
ph: 202-224-2934           fax: 202-224-5871          fax: 202-224-5754
fax: 202-228-2856
 
Christopher (Kit) Bond     Conrad Burns
293 Russell Senate         183 Dirksen Senate
Washington, DC  20510      Washington, DC  20510
ph: 202-224-5721           ph: 202-224-2644
fax: 202-224-8149          fax: 202-224-8594
 

Article: 2775
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Mars (WAS: OK, what's the skinny today about Cassini & AXAF?)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 14:24:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
In article <1994Jun18.193725.13518@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI
(Marcus Lindroos INF) writes: 

>In fact, you don't need lots of new, fancy technology to go to Mars. The
>Russians could land cosmonauts on Phobos in five years using existing systems 
>(Energia, Mir, Salyut tug, Soyuz/L3, Block-D/Proton) if they only had the 
>money for it. 
 
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I recently (at ISDC '94) had the
privilege to chum around with Owen Maynard for several days. He was
the chief of systems engineering on the Apollo spacecraft program at
NASA for the latter half of the 1960s. He also was part of the early
Space Task Group at Langley. His group spent a year or so, around
1960/61, doing system level studies of various types of manned space
missions. They were anticipating being asked by the President to
undertake some sort of grand space exploration effort to upstage the
Russians. One of theis system studies, worked out in a fair bit of
detail, was the Apollo program---the components of the spacecraft that
flew were very close to the sketches made by Maynard and company in
the early 1960s. 
 
Here's the part that makes me want to weep. Another of their system
studies was a manned Mars mission. Again, they put together a
system-level design, using the same technology that went into Apollo,
of a large, spinning Mars transfer vehicle, along with Mars landers,
etc. It was all designed to be launched on Saturn V launchers. The
Mars transfer vehicle used a NERVA engine for propulsion. Maynard
brought the blueprints for this design to the ISDC (his name is on the
patent for the design), along with a commercial plastic model of it
that he discovered in a toy store (to his surprise---nobody had asked
him if they could build a model of it!). 
 
If Kennedy had decided to go to Mars instead of the Moon, the Space
Task Group had a design as good as the then-Apollo design, ready to
go. The crash-priority of the goal would have allowed NERVA to be
developed. The Mars transfer vehicle design was rather like what the
Stanford group's design sounds like---it would have been used in LEO
as a space station for a year or more before launching to Mars, to do
life sciences experiments and shake down the spacecraft. 
 
Oh, for what might have been!
 
(BTW, there was an entire issue of one of the AIAA journals devoted to
this design, sometime in the early 1960s I believe. I'd be interested
in looking it up and having a group of latter-day space enthusiasts
review it, with an eye to how well it stands up given lessons learned
since then, as well as possible improvements that could be made due to
advances in technology since then---of course, it'd also have to be
redesigned to make up for the lack of NERVA...) 
-- 
 
     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu

Article: 2776
From: tfrielin@catfish.bbc.peachnet.edu (Thomas J. Frieling)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Mars (WAS: OK, what's the skinny today about Cassini & AXAF?)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 11:43:15
Organization: Bainbridge College
 
In article <Crp9CG.Dv7@zoo.toronto.edu> kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu
(Kieran A. Carroll) writes: 

>From: kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll)
>Subject: Re: Mars (WAS: OK, what's the skinny today about Cassini & AXAF?)
>Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 14:24:15 GMT
 
>(BTW, there was an entire issue of one of the AIAA journals devoted
>to this design, sometime in the early 1960s I believe. I'd be
>interested in looking it up and having a group of latter-day
>space enthusiasts review it, with an eye to how well it stands up
>given lessons learned since then, as well as possible improvements
>that could be made due to advances in technology since then---of
>course, it'd also have to be redesigned to make up for the lack
>of NERVA...)
 
I think the issue to which you refer is the November 1965 issue of
Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA's forerunner of today's Aerospace
America). At any rate, Werhner von Braun's article, "The Next 20 years
of Interplanetary Exploration" details how Saturn/Apollo technology
could have supported Mars missions. Of particular interest is his
proposal to reuse (via on-orbit refueling) the Saturn V S-II stage
for the escape stage for sending large payloads to Mars and Venus. 
 
I think it all holds up quite well and in a more perfect world we
would be using Saturn V/First Lunar Outpost technologies for returning
to the Moon instead of wasting more time going around in circles on
Shuttles and space stations. 

    The USA has had for a long time, everything it needs to open
    up Human solar system exploration (i.e. Station, Moon, Asteroid,
    Mars missions/bases) except the williness to pay the bill.
    
    We have known that for a long long time, these Saturn V - NERVA 
    Mars mission plans just highlight that.
    
    Unhappily our governament thinks that the  *Glory*  of it all,
    spin-offs, and the enlargement of the human spirit/activities
    don't justify the multi-Billion costs involved !!! ... at least
    not during their term at the helm, afterwards they don't care.
    
    A worlwide program with shared costs might fare better, costwise
    but organization wise...governaments lack the maturity to do it.
    
    Gil

In my humble, but slightly bitter opinion:

"The government" is us.  Yes there are civil servants and elected
representatives, and yes they don't always do just what we want.  But when a
large number of people care about a situation, the government acts sort of in
accordance with their wishes.  Take Somalia, for example.  Many people felt that
we should help them.  We did.  Look at Bosnia.  Somalia turned out to be such a
debacle that many people want to stay out of such situations.  We are doing that.

Anyway, my point is that if many vocal people are not willing to pay more taxes
to support good schools, they certainly don't want to pay more taxes to send a
few tens of people to Mars.

Me, I stand willing to pay more for both.  But I'm a minority.

Burns

From:	US4RMC::"Admin@ccmail.Jpl.Nasa.Gov" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  8-JUL-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	JPL/Mars Global Surveyor mission fact sheet

FACT SHEET: MARS GLOBAL SURVEYOR

     Mars Global Surveyor will be a polar-orbiting spacecraft at Mars
designed to provide global maps of surface topography, distribution of
minerals and monitoring of global weather. 

     Launched with a Delta II expendable vehicle from Cape Canaveral,
Fla., in November 1996, the spacecraft will cruise 10 months to Mars,
where it will be initially inserted into an elliptical capture orbit. 
During the following four months, thruster firings and aerobraking
techniques will be used to reach the nearly circular mapping orbit
over the Martian polar caps.  Aerobraking, a technique which uses the
forces of atmospheric drag to slow the spacecraft into its final
mapping orbit, will provide a means of minimizing the amount of fuel
required to reach the low Mars orbit.  Mapping operations are expected
to begin in late January 1998. 

     The spacecraft will circle Mars once every two hours, maintaining
a "sun synchronous" orbit that will put the sun at a standard angle
above the horizon in each image and allow the mid-afternoon lighting
to cast shadows in such a way that surface features will stand out. 
The spacecraft will carry a portion of the Mars Observer instrument
payload and will use these instruments to acquire data of Mars for a
full Martian year, the equivalent of about two Earth years. The
spacecraft will then be used as a data relay station for signals from
U.S. and international landers and low-altitude probes for an
additional three years. 

     Mars Global Surveyor is the first mission of a new, decade-long
program of robotic exploration of Mars, called the Mars Surveyor
program.  This will be an aggressive series of orbiters and landers to
be launched every 26 months, as Mars moves into alignment with Earth. 
The program will be affordable, costing about $100 million per year;
engaging to the public, providing fresh new global and close-up images
of Mars; and have high scientific value obtained with the development
of leading-edge space technologies. 

     International participation, collaboration and coordination will
enhance all missions of the program. Landers in future years -- 1998,
2001, 2003 and 2005 -- will capitalize on the experience of the Mars
Pathfinder lander mission to be launched in 1996.  Small orbiters
launched in the 1998 and 2003 opportunities will carry other
instruments from the Mars Observer payload and will serve as data
relay stations for international missions of the future. 

     The Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft will be acquired from
industry through a competitive procurement.  The science payload will
be provided as government-furnished equipment that was built to
duplicate the instruments flown on Mars Observer.  The payload
includes the Mars orbital camera, thermal emission spectrometer,
ultra-stable oscillator, laser altimeter, magnetometer/electron
reflectometer and Mars relay system. 

     The Jet Propulsion Laboratory will manage the project for NASA's
Solar System Exploration Division and will provide the mission design,
navigation, and conduct mission operations.  Tracking and data
acquisition will be provided by a 34-meter subnetwork of the worldwide
Deep Space Network. 

     Project costs for the Mars Global Surveyor through 30 days after
launch will be approximately $155 million. 


From:	US4RMC::"Admin@ccmail.Jpl.Nasa.Gov" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  8-JUL-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	JPL/Mars Global Surveyor contractor selected

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

Contact: Diane Ainsworth

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                           July 8, 1994

     Development of the Mars Global Surveyor -- the first in a series
of low-cost spacecraft to explore the Martian environment -- will
begin this month, leading up to a November 1996 launch and America's
return to the red planet. 

     NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Director Dr. Edward C. Stone today
announced the selection of the contractor, Martin Marietta Technologies 
Inc. of Denver, Colo., to build the light-weight orbiter after a rapid, 
industry-wide competition. 

     "Martin Marietta Technologies Inc. has a successful record of
developing unique planetary spacecraft, including the highly
successful Magellan Venus radar mapping mission and the Viking Mars
landers," Stone said. 

     "This is the beginning of a new era in the exploration of the
Martian environment and a new way of conducting business with our
partners in industry," he said.  "We are now on the way to building a
viable, state-of-the-art spacecraft that will be ready for launch by
November 1996 and assure us of many scientifically important results."

     The Mars Global Surveyor will be readied for launch from Cape
Canaveral, Fla., in just 28 months, beginning NASA's decade-long plan
to launch orbiters and landers to Mars every 26 months through the
year 2005.  The rigorous timeline -- trimmed from an average five
years or more in the past -- reflects NASA's new policy of
streamlining the development and deployment of new planetary missions.

     Performance objectives for the new orbiter called for a low mass,
polar-orbiting spacecraft that could carry all but two of the eight
science instruments that were on board the Mars Observer spacecraft
when it was lost on Aug. 21, 1993. Project costs through 30 days after
launch have been capped at $155 million. 

     The Mars Global Surveyor will provide high-resolution, global
maps of the Martian surface, profile the planet's atmosphere and study
the nature of the magnetic field.  The orbiter will be small enough to
be launched on a Delta expendable launch vehicle and will spend 10
months in transit to Mars before entering a polar orbit around the
planet in September 1997. 

     The Jet Propulsion Laboratory will manage the Mars Global
Surveyor mission for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. 

                            #####

7/8/94 DEA
#9437

From:	US4RMC::"Admin@ccmail.Jpl.Nasa.Gov" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  8-JUL-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	JPL/Mars Global Surveyor innovations fact sheet

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

              MARS GLOBAL SURVEYOR INNOVATIONS

     Mars Global Surveyor demonstrates NASA's new approach
to streamlining the development, deployment and on-orbit
costs of new spaceflight missions. Features of the Mars
Global Surveyor project include:

     * Fast-track in development; costs constrained to $100
million or less per year.

     * Uniform mapping capability, obtained with low-
altitude, sun-synchronous orbit.

     * Moderate, five-year mission lifetime.

     * International collaboration with French-supplied data
relay system that will relay information from Russian as
well as future U.S. spacecraft on Mars' surface.

     * Utilizes existing infrastructure and hardware to
achieve rapid launch readiness.

     * Initiates NASA's decade-long exploration of Mars by
both orbiters and landers.


PROJECT MANAGEMENT

     * Capped, cost-driven management approach; project
management staff significantly reduced.

     * Fast-track schedule with built-in performance
measurement to assure on-time readiness for launch in just
28 months. (On average, planetary spacecraft development in
the recent past has taken about 66 months or five-and-a-half years.)

     * Shared launch vehicle engineering and launch site
support personnel with Mars Pathfinder mission to minimize
personnel and costs.

     * Colocation of JPL project personnel at spacecraft
contractor's facility.


INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION/PROCUREMENT INNOVATIONS

     * Full industry participation.  Twelve Phase A
contracts awarded, four to small businesses, in less than
one week using streamlined approach.

     * Rapid request-for-proposal preparation.  Request-for-
proposal prepared, distributed and reviewed by integrated
project team using electronic network.

     * Draft request-for-proposal provided to industry 10
days following NASA go-ahead.

     * All industry comments addressed at industry briefing.

     * Evaluation approach design to maximize mission return
within capped budget.

     * Simple, innovative fee approach that warrants on-
orbit performance and rewards cost control.

     * Contractor selection and contract award completed in
eight weeks, compared with an average five to six months on
similar procurements in the past.


SPACECRAFT IMPLEMENTATION

     * JPL maintains Mars Observer-pioneered on-orbit
performance award for spacecraft contractor.

     * JPL and spacecraft contractor personnel will team to
share in development activities.

     * Spacecraft contractor will use inherited elements and
new technology to minimize schedule risk and provide
adequate margins for completion of sublevel system tasks.

     * Contractually required documentation of task completion 
and developmental progress will be reduced significantly.


SCIENCE IMPLEMENTATION

     * Internationally accepted science objectives.

     * Principal science investigators will manage their
hardware and science investigations to assigned cost caps.

     * Preserve existing operations infrastructure by
maintaining remote science operations sites.  Remote science
instrument command, analysis and data processing reduces travel costs.

     * Merge science hardware and science investigation management.

     * Immediate availability of science data to science teams 
through use of the Mars Observer-pioneered project database.


FLIGHT OPERATIONS

     * Use existing ground data system.

     * Combine ground data system testing and flight operations training.

     * Flight operations system redesigned to:

        -- Eliminate a layer of management;

        -- Provide a centralized command tracking database;

        -- Ensure electronic document distribution;

        -- Establish a seamless uplink process whereby
           commands are generated by a single team;

        --Establish a single downlink team for performance assessment.


SMALL AND MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

     Small and minority-owned businesses participating in
the Mars Global Surveyor mission will represent 33.3 percent
of the prime contractor's hardware and software procurement.

     Technologies that will be provided by small and
minority-owned businesses include:

     * Solid state recorders

     * Propulsion valves

     * Solar panels

     * Gimbal actuators

     * Central clock

     * Testing

     * High technology material


EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH

     Mars Global Surveyor will participate in a vigorous
educational outreach program to promote excellence in
America's educational system and help expand U.S. scientific
and technological competence.

     The focus of these educational outreach efforts will
support science, mathematics and space mission development
curricula at the kindergarten through 12th grade levels,
provide educational enrichment for teachers and a better
public understanding of science.


     Core Thrusts

     * To establish national partnerships for the
dissemination of educational resources to national teacher
associations, educational advocacy groups and aerospace
industry educational associations.

     * To establish a science education model that will link
students to the Mars Surveyor program through parallel
projects that will allow them to interact with program
managers, engineers and scientists.

     * To establish partnerships with faculty at centers of
higher education, using a science education model project
for teacher enhancement.

     * To establish regional science centers for teacher
enhancement, student instruction and dissemination of
resource materials at the home institutions of the Mars
Surveyor program's principal investigators.


     Educational Products

     * New science lesson plans on Mars exploration, to be
incorporated into standard science course curricula.

     * An online database on Mars exploration for schools,
libraries, museums and planetariums.

     * Educational television programs for national broadcast.

     *  Speakers, facility tours and mission reference materials.


     Support for Educational Technology Utilization

     * Near real-time distribution of images and other science data
from Mars may be used as source material for the classroom. 

     * Use of television, video tape, online public access computer
sites such as Spacelink and JPL's image library, CD-ROMs and Internet
as primary means of distributing information. 

                          #####

From:	US4RMC::"Admin@ccmail.Jpl.Nasa.Gov" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  6-AUG-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	JPL/Mars program manager named

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

Contact: Diane Ainsworth

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                           August 5, 1994

     Donna Shirley, an aerospace engineer who is developing
the first rover to explore the surface of Mars, has been
named program manager of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's
newly formed Office of Mars Exploration.

     Shirley's appointment, announced by JPL Director Dr.
Edward C. Stone, became effective Aug. 1.  Shirley will
continue at the same time to oversee the development of the
Pathfinder Microrover Flight Experiment, a small rover that
will fly aboard the Mars Pathfinder lander to the red planet
in November 1996.

     With more than 30 years of experience in aerospace and
civil engineering, Shirley first joined JPL in 1966 as an
aerodynamicist in the former Engineering Mechanics Division.
Over the years, she held progressively more responsible
positions in systems  analysis for flight projects, terrestrial 
applications of space technology and for the development of 
automation, robotics and mobile surface vehicles.

     Among her accomplishments, Shirley served as leader of
a 1979 advanced study to design an orbiter and probe to
explore Saturn and its moon Titan.  The study evolved into
the Cassini mission, now scheduled for launch in 1997.

     She led JPL's early work on the space station in the
1980s and developed concepts for automated mobile vehicles
to be used on planetary surfaces, with an emphasis on the
moon and Mars.

     The office she will now manage -- JPL's Office of Mars
Exploration -- was established in July in response to NASA's
initiative to scale back the cost and development time of
space flight missions and to begin a sustained program of
Mars exploration over the next decade.

     The office will manage both the Mars Pathfinder and
Mars Global Surveyor missions, as well as all planned future
U.S. and international missions to Mars, following a
"concept-to-completion" philosophy in which missions are
carried out from inception to flight under the same program
management.

     Originally from Wynnewood, Okla., Shirley received a
bachelor of arts degree in professional writing in 1963 from
the University of Oklahoma in Norman, and in 1965, was
awarded that university's bachelor of science degree in
aerospace engineering.  She earned a master's degree in
aerospace engineering in 1968 from the University of
Southern California and later completed NASA's senior
executive certificate program.

     Shirely is a recipient of several NASA Group
Achievement awards, including those for her work on the 1973
Mariner mission to Venus and Mercury and for her
participation on the 1985 Space Station Task Force.

     A past president of the California Institute of
Technology's Management Association, Shirley resides in La
Canada Flintridge with her daughter Laura.

                         #####

8/5/94 DEA
#9443

Article: 5106
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.space.policy
Subject: ViSIT, EMPIRE & ALPHA to Venus, Mars & Jupiter...
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 20:03:51 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: ABO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY, FINLAND
 
/INTRODUCTION\ - a crewed interplanetary space station loosely based on 
Mir/Alpha, using the unique October 1997 Venus launch window to swing by 
Venus, Mars and (possibly) Jupiter in 1998-2008. The orbit will permit four 
Earth encounters at 2-3 year intervals, making it possible to ferry 
astronauts, supplies and new equipment between the station and Earth, 
gradually expanding the facility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned space probes such as Mariner 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1-2 and 
Galileo have demonstrated how valuable the gravity assist or "sling-shot" 
technique can be. The spacecraft swings by a planet to pick up speed/change 
direction. The planet's gravitational field does all the work and no 
costly engine burns are needed.
---
In 1984, John Niehoff proposed that a manned "ski lift" between Earth and 
Mars be set up. An interplanetary space station cycling between the two 
planets could use their gravitational influence to provide much of the 
necessary power. Mars-bound astronauts could now use much smaller 
(Apollo size) spacecraft since they would live in the interplanetary 
space station's roomy modules. The mini-landers (carrying people and 
supplies but only cramped crew quarters) are launched from low Earth orbit 
to meet the station as it sweeps high above the Earth. Approaching Mars 
several months later, the crew enter the mini-landers and separate from 
the space station, which remains in its Earth/Mars-crossing heliocentric orbit.
---
At least four ViSIT (=Versatile Station for Interplanetary Transport) 
stations will have to be put into orbit to provide Martian colonists with 
an efficient interplanetary "escalator". We don't have the funds for it 
now, but a single "technology demonstrator" platform based on the hapless 
Freedom/Alpha station would have been possible a few years ago. But now, 
after five redesigns and $11 billion spent, it is much too late to change 
the International Space Station. Sigh...
 
DUAL VENUS/MARS FLYBY MISSIONS
------------------------------
The October/November 1997 Venus launch window is unique because it will 
permit successive swingbys of both Venus (February 1998), Earth (January 1999) 
and Mars (June 1999). The spacecraft will automatically return to Earth in 
January 2001. The Galileo space probe used a similar trajectory in 1989-92 as 
the required delta-V from low Earth orbit is only about 3.9km/s. Usually, 
the second Earth encounter does not permit a Mars flyby. The only near-term 
(1970-2020) exceptions appear to be the September 1979 and 1997 launch 
windows. We could go to Mars directly as well, every 25 months. But the 
required delta-V would be higher (4.4-4.5km/s) and the opportunity to visit 
Venus would be lost as Mars isn't massive enough to redirect a rapidly 
moving spacecraft.
 
MISSION TASKS & REQUIREMENTS:
----------------------------
"Deep Space Alpha" would be mankind's first permanent space outpost. The 
crew would be completely cut off from all Earth assistance for long periods 
of time (1.5-2 years initially). Consequently, the astronauts would have 
to survive on their own using equipment and supplies carried on board. 
Furthermore, "Deep Space Alpha" could only be expanded or repaired when 
passing near the Earth every two or three years. This is rather dangerous
but unfortunately we cannot afford a "dress rehearsal" mission in Earth 
orbit anymore (=the current International Space Station). We have to develop
the technology for interplanetary flight *NOW*.
---
For these reasons, the Station would likely have to be based on dependable, 
autonomous "building blocks" much like Russia's Mir station. Each module 
would have its own RCS, docking & guidance, and life support system to 
reduce the risk of fatal equipment breakdown. They would generally be 
compatible with Mir hardware, but reinforced thermal/radiation protection, 
deep space attitude & trajectory control and communication systems would 
have to be added. The station modules could be launched into low Earth orbit 
on Proton, Shuttle or Ariane-5 rockets much like Alpha will be. In addition, 
a Russian Energia heavy-lift booster would have to lift a heavy (150-160t) 
escape rocket stage into Earth orbit. The escape rocket would dock with the 
station modules and then fire to launch the 60-80t payload from Earth orbit 
towards interplanetary space. The initial launch in 1997 would send the 
station's core modules and a crew of three on a 1.5 year mission to Venus. 
Subsequent launches (in January 1999, Jan 2001 and possibly Jan 2003, 2006) 
would send new modules and crews to "Deep Space Alpha" as the station flies 
past Earth. The previous crew, having spent 1.5-3 years on the station, would 
leave and land on Earth in a Soyuz or ESA CRV capsule.
---
Different modules could be dedicated to different tasks. Life sciences (man's 
capabilities, psychology, weightlessness, radiation) would obviously be a 
top priority but astrophysics (X-ray & other telescopes, perhaps a Skylab 
type solar observatory) would also be important. Remote sensing during the 
brief Venus & Mars flybys would add little direct information to our 
databases. However, the crew could operate telerobotic rovers by remote 
control from space. Real time control would be possible a few days before 
and after Venus/Mars encounter. Also, an unmanned sample return mission to 
Mars might be integrated with "Deep Space Alpha".
 
CLOSED LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS & AUTOMATED DOCKING
-----------------------------------------------
A crew of three would consume vast quantities of food, water and oxygen 
during a three year mission. Fortunately the Russians already have an 
efficient LSS, waste water (urine etc.) is dissolved to produce oxygen for 
the crew, and additional water for personal hygiene is produced by 
systems removing excess moisture from the habitat modules. Vegetables 
could be grown on board to test future closed loop systems where most of 
the food is produced in space as well.
---
"Deep Space Alpha" would require highly reliable rendezvous & docking 
systems as well. Any expansion module would have to be launched from low 
Earth orbit. Several accurate course corrections would be necessary to 
rendezvous with a small, rapidly moving target several hundreds of 
thousand km from Earth. If the docking does not come off, the astronauts 
could still return to Earth by firing the crew capsule's retrorockets. 
These will have to be carried in any case since the space station will 
be travelling much too fast for a safe reentry when it eventually 
returns from Mars two years later.
 
FUTURE MISSIONS TO MARS ORBIT AND JUPITER
-------------------------------------------
"Deep Space Alpha" would have some advantages compared with manned missions 
to Mars. The latter would require that expensive landers and other 
Mars-specific systems be developed. In contrast, "Deep Space Alpha" would 
be little more than a beefed-up station with a clear PURPOSE - "to boldly 
go where no man has gone before". As Carl Sagan puts it, "why test 
long-duration human spaceflight if you're not planning to go to other 
worlds?". Unlike Alpha, "Deep Space Alpha" would really be going places!
---
The versatile "plug n'play" nature of "Deep Space Alpha's" modules, being 
small interplanetary spacecraft in their own right, means they could be used 
for other purposes almost right away. Add a propulsion system (either 
aeroshells or LOX/LH2 retromotors, e.g. based on the Centaur G') and 2-3 
modules could be sent to Phobos and Deimos, for example. 
---
"Deep Space Alpha's" final, glorious mission could be a Jupiter flyby in 
March 2008 following Earth swingbys (& crew transfers-) in 2003 and 2006 and 
a second, distant Mars flyby in November 2005. The Jupiter mission would 
last six years so the space station would have to be expanded a great 
deal before that.
---
All this may sound far-fetched, but the early 16 month mission to Venus and 
2 year cruise to Mars represent realistic goals both financially and 
technologically. They were proposed back in the 1970s as part of NASA's
EMPIRE project to explore Mars & Venus without landing on either planet. We 
would no longer be going around in circles above Earth, we would be paving 
the way for future manned exploration of the solar system. Had NASA shown 
more dash and verve after the Challenger disaster, Freedom might have 
been replaced by a small moonbase or interplanetary station instead.
 
MARCU$ 
 
APPENDIX - mission plan.
 
Nov 1997 Launch (dV=4km/s)
ENERGIA LAUNCH #1:
Mir core module.................21t
Salyut propulsion module........28t
US habitat module+supplies......27t
Soyuz return capsule.............7t
-----------------------------------
                                83t

[All payloads launched into LEO on Protons, Shuttles. Energia-launched
 escape rocket to deliver the payload to Venus in November 1997]
 
Feb 1998 Venus flyby (~10,000km?)
 
Jan 1999 Earth encounter (~1,000km?)
(dV=4.5km/s)
ENERGIA LAUNCH#2
Soyuz+retromotor (dV=1.1km/s)...11t
Expansion module#1..............20t
Expansion module#2 (Salyut?)....20t
Supplies+equipment..............16t
-----------------------------------
                                66t
 
June 1999 Mars flyby (300-1000km)
 
Jan 2001 Earth swingby
(No launches, or as Energia#2)
 
(No encounters)
 
Jan 2003 Earth swingby
(dV=5.3km/s)
ESA ACRV capsule................7t  
Braking stage (dV=2km/s)........7.5t
Logistics module+supplies.......30t 
------------------------------------
                                45t 
 
Dec 2005 distant Mars flyby (several million km)
 
Jan 2006 Earth swingby
(dV=6.5km/s)
Crew return vehicle+supplies....30t
-----------------------------------
                                30t
 
Mar 2008 Jupiter flyby             
 
Earth swingby in 2012-2013 (+Venus flyby to slow down)
 

Article: 3225
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Spreadsheets & trajectory calculations (Was:Alpha to Venus,Mars...)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 17:55:31 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: ABO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY, FINLAND
 
George wondered how I calculated the trajectories of my "Deep Space Alpha"
interplanetary space station proposal. I always use a custom-made
spreadsheet for stuff like this as I am much too lazy to do a "real" C or
Pascal program. Lotus 1-2-3 (I carry an HP95LX palmtop PC with me at all times
- "the space cadet's best friend") automatically takes care of date & floating
point conversions and is quite good at simple trigonometry so why  bother
anyway?
---
Here is a description in case other people are interested (I could post an
UUENCODEd & ZIPped version of my Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet - 16Kb). The equations
for calculating the heliocentric positions and distances of the planets were
taken from Peter Duffett-Smith's "PRACTICAL ASTRONOMY WITH YOUR CALCULATOR"
(2nd edition). The user types a date (e.g. 5-Sep-1977) and the computer uses a
series of trigonometric equations and the "source table" below to calculate the
heliocentric coordinates for the eight major planets on that particular day:
 
Elements of the planetary orbits, 31-Dec-79:
-------------------------------------------------
 
        Period    Longitude    Longitude  Eccentrity         Inclination
        (years)   at epoch     of         of       Avg.dist.   of     Longitude
        Tp       (degrees)     Perihelion orbit    (AU)      orbit    ascend.no
Mercury   0.24085 231.2973     77.1442128 0.205630  0.387098 7.004357  48.09417
Venus     0.61521 355.73352   131.289579  0.006782  0.723331 3.394435  76.49975
Earth     1.00004  98.83354   102.596403  0.016718        1  -         -
Mars      1.88089 126.30783   335.690816  0.093386  1.523688 1.849801  49.40320
Jupiter  11.86224 146.966365   14.0095493 0.048465  5.202561 1.304181 100.2520
Saturn   29.45771 165.322242   92.6653974 0.055615  9.554747 2.489374 113.4888
Uranus   84.01247 228.0708551 172.736328  0.046323 19.21814  0.772989  73.87686
Neptune 164.7955  260.3578998  47.8672148 0.009002 30.10957  1.771601 131.5606
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROBE:  11.62884              342.341217 0.803432 5.129106
 
The final line (="PROBE") is where the fun begins. The user specifies the
nearest and furthest points (perihelion & aphelion) of the spacecraft's
heliocentric orbit and the longitude & date of perihelion. The program then
calculates the period, eccentrity and semi-major axis (=average distance) of
the orbit.
---
The orbital elements above are for the Voyager 1 Jupiter probe. The user
provides the following information:
 
Perihelion:         1.00821309 AU
Aphelion:                 9.25 AU
Perihelion.long.    342.3412177 degrees
Date of perihelion  05-Sep-77
 
Date, distance & longitude of perihelion are easy - just check the Earth's
position on September 5 1977 when the probe was launched. The only unknown
variable is the aphelion distance, you have to try different values here. The
correct value should put Voyager 1 where Jupiter was on March 5 1979. 
Eventually, I plan to write a "smart" macro to automatically find the 
optimal spacecraft trajectory for any given year and destination.
---
Here's what the solar system looked like when Voyager 1 was launched:
 
Date->  05-Sep-77
----------------------------------
      Longitude   Dist.       Velocity.
      (degrees)   (AU)        (km/s)
Mercur342.6389013 0.376817118 49.15
Venus 78.11099886 0.720370043 35.16
Earth 342.3412177 1.008213090 29.53
Mars  52.28548943 1.478392121 24.85
Jupite 81.5179177 5.095860629 13.32
Saturn141.4341979 9.188382858 10.01
Uranus221.9131605 18.61324156 7.011
Neptun254.8168458 30.35067960 5.384
PROBE:342.3412177 1.008213090 39.83
------------------------------------
The third column lists the heliocentric velocity. The difference between the
Earth's and Voyager's speed is (39.83-29.53)=10.3km/s. The required delta-V to
reach Jupiter from low Earth orbit is given by (EQUATION 1):
                                    
                   2             2  
SQRT ( (11.05 km/s) + (10.3 km/s) ) + 7.8km/s = 7.3km/s.
 
(7.8km/s is the spacecraft's speed in a 180km parking orbit while 11.05km/s is
the escape velocity at an altitude of 180km above the Earth's surface).
---
Next, we check the position of both planet and spacecraft 1.5 years later:
 
Date->  05-Mar-79
----------------------------------
      Longitude   Dist.       Velocity.
      (degrees)   (AU)        (km/s)
Mercur85.52840041 0.308060823 58.88
Venus 235.6544904 0.724517499 34.96
Earth 164.6975215 0.991960833 30.02
Mars  327.7938732 1.382516170 26.47
Jupite127.3102740 5.291789382 12.83
Saturn160.9391145 9.333050562 9.861
Uranus228.7220743 18.69251877 6.982
Neptun258.0362722 30.34328364 5.385
PROBE:127.1748528 5.297806944 12.72
-------------------------------------
Generally speaking, Duffett-Smith's equations seem to be quite accurate (I have
compared the results with data published in ASTRONOMY magazine and EZCosmos, a
commercial program) although gravitational perturbations etc. are not accounted
for. The results should be good enough for simple back-of-the-envelope mission
planning.
---
The probe's position is calculated using a more accurate method, solving
Kepler's equation with the aid of an iterative macro. This is necessary because
the simpler, quicker method only works with circular orbits around the Sun.
---
I could use some help with the following:
 
-GRAVITY ASSISTS: Should be possible to write a few spreadsheet cells for this
if the heliocentric velocities and positions of both planet and probe are
known. But  H O W ? BTW, the "Deep Space Alpha" flight plan I posted in the 
earlier article was loosely based on Galileo's trajectory to Jupiter. 
 
-3:D IMPROVEMENTS: Currently, I do not know how to calculate plane changes and
similar stuff... The current version works only in two dimensions so inclined
orbits like Pluto's are an impossibility.
 
-delta Vs for NON-HOHMANN ORBITS since Equation(1) above only works if the
spacecraft is "heading in the same direction" as the planet so to speak. This
means only perihelion and aphelion encounters can be calculated since I do not
know how to calculate the direction of the spacecraft's velocity vector - only
the magnitude. 
 
-HYPERBOLIC ORBITS & POSITIONS. The velocity equations break down if the probe
is travelling faster than heliocentric escape. This means that the "speed
limit" to Jupiter is about 13 months, for example (1x63240AU orbit), and that
the program can't track Voyager 1 after its Jupiter swingby.
 
Help, anyone?
 
MARCU$

From:	US1RMC::"baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov" "Ron Baalke"  4-SEP-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	Martin Marietta Named Contractor for Mars Global Surveyor

From the "JPL Universe"
July 15, 1994

Martin Marietta named contractor for Mars Global Surveyor orbiter

   Development of the Mars Global Surveyor--the first in a series of low-
cost spacecraft to explore the Martian environment--will begin this month, 
leading up to a November 1996 launch and America's return to the red planet.

   JPL Director Dr. Edward Stone has announced the selection of the 
contractor, Martin Marietta Technologies Inc. of Denver, Colo., to build the 
light-weight orbiter after a rapid, industry-wide competition.

   "Martin Marietta Technologies Inc. has a successful record of developing 
unique planetary spacecraft, including the highly successful Magellan 
Venus radar mapping mission and the Viking Mars landers," Stone said. 

   "This is the beginning of a new era in the exploration of the Martian 
environment and a new way of conducting business with our partners in 
industry," he said. "We are now on the way to building a viable, state-of-
the-art spacecraft that will be ready for launch by November 1996 and 
assure us of many scientifically important results."

   The Mars Global Surveyor will be readied for launch from Cape 
Canaveral, Fla., in just 28 months, beginning NASA's decade-long plan to 
launch orbiters and landers to Mars every 26 months through the year 
2005. The rigorous timeline--trimmed from an average five years or more
in the past--reflects NASA's new policy of streamlining the development
and deployment of new planetary missions.

   Performance objectives for the new orbiter called for a low mass, polar-
orbiting spacecraft that could carry all but two of the eight science
instruments that were on board the Mars Observer spacecraft when it was
lost on Aug. 21, 1993.

   Project costs through 30 days after launch have been capped at $155
million.

   The Mars Global Surveyor will provide high-resolution, global maps of
the Martian surface, profile the planet's atmosphere and study the nature
of the magnetic field. The orbiter will be small enough to be launched on a
Delta expendable launch vehicle and will spend 10 months in transit to
Mars before entering a polar orbit around the planet in September 1997.

   JPL will manage the Mars Global Surveyor mission for NASA's Office of
Space Science, Washington, D.C.


From:	US1RMC::"baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov" "Ron Baalke"  4-SEP-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	Mars Pathfinder's Imaging Instrument Delivered

From the "JPL Universe"
July 29, 1994

Mars Pathfinder's faster, better, cheaper imaging model delivered
By KARRE MARINO

   JPL's Mars Pathfinder project has taken delivery of the
spacecraft's imager engineering model from the University of Arizona.

   According to John Wellman, science and instruments manager for
Pathfinder, what makes the hardware and its receipt unique is that
the imager is a prime example of the "faster, better, cheaper" way
to do business.

   Acquiring an imaging system that was low in cost but high in
quality drove the process.

   "We are trying to find low-cost ways to do good planetary
exploration, which led to our working with a university team
supported by foreign contributors and an accelerated announcement-
of-opportunity process," Wellman explained.

   "We helped NASA to put out the announcement in a hurry and
received responses quickly," he added, noting that this process
generally takes more than a year, but in light of the new "faster,
better, cheaper" mandate, Pathfinder managed it in about six months.

   The University of Arizona's Peter Smith was selected as the
system's principal investigator, with contributions from a German
and Dutch firm, and Martin Marietta of Denver.

   The German contribution came from the Max Planck Institute near
Hanover--which offered a charged-coupled device as part of the
flight hardware--at no cost, with the provision that they would
have rights to participate in data analysis as part of the science team.

   The Neils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen "provided magnetic
targets that are used for evaluating the collection of windblown
dust on the Martian surface," Wellman explained. The camera itself
was built by Martin Marietta.

   Wellman pointed to another major difference in the contract
between JPL and the prime contractor, the University of Arizona:
cost caps. "We set baseline requirements in the announcement, and
the contractor had to propose to do the best possible science
within the cost. A reserve was available, but they had to manage
it." Should the reserve have been depleted, he said, the
contractor would have had to descope the experiment.

   Along with delivery of the imager came camera-control software,
several data-compression algorithms and bench-checkout equipment,
which Wellman described as "electronics that simulate the lander,
allowing us to operate the camera as if it were connected to the
real Pathfinder lander. It also collects data from the camera."

   End-to-end system tests with JPL's Flight System Testbed, he
said, are currently under way.

   Wellman pointed out another remarkable facet of the venture:
"Arizona didn't receive its funds until November 1993, and the
team delivered the imager on schedule. That's impressive for new
flight instrument delivery.

   "And the quality of the hardware is so good that we could keep
it and potentially use it for spare parts."

   He praised the timely delivery as having resulted from the
university delivering exactly what it proposed. "This worked
because the project made so few changes. We didn't want to cause
ourselves any problems." Such an attitude helps the contractor
deliver, he agreed.

   An essential factor in the initial agreement was the project's
recognizing that the "interface between the spacecraft and the
camera was important," said Wellman. "We've gone further in trying
to make the interface work smoothly."

   Such a concept is new to Pathfinder, which will realize a "more
highly integrated camera control, provided by the spacecraft's computer.

   "The camera electronics boards plug directly into the
spacecraft's integrated electronics module. That allows us to do
two things: We can use an existing commercial interface protocol
for all subsystems that talk to the central computer, and we can
share the capabilities of this more powerful computer."

   Such an approach makes possible the integration of the camera
with the central computer and the rest of the spacecraft's
subsystems in 30 minutes.

   Previous cameras, he explained, containing their own computers,
have required considerably more time to complete the integration process.

   The imager, Wellman said, is a stereo imaging system with color
capability provided by a set of selectable filters for each of the
two camera channels. This allows the system to photograph the
Martian surface after landing.

   "The 24 color filters will help the project gain--in greater
detail than possible with the Viking lander camera--insight into
the surface's mineralogy," he said.

   The stereo capability is used to understand the shape of Mars'
surface and rock formations, and will also control the rover as it
explores the red planet.

From:	US1RMC::"Admin@ccmail.Jpl.Nasa.Gov" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  8-SEP-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	JPL/Mars Pathfinder landing site

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

Contact: Franklin O'Donnell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                         September 8, 1994

     NASA has selected an ancient flood plain on Mars as the
landing site for the 1996 mission of Mars Pathfinder, one of the
first in a new generation of small, low-cost spacecraft.

     Eons ago, when water flowed on Mars, great floods inundated
the landing site, located on a rocky plain in an area known today
as Ares Vallis.  The site is 850 kilometers (527 miles) southeast
of the location of Viking Lander 1, which in 1976 became the
first spacecraft to land on Mars.  Pathfinder will be the first
to land on Mars since the twin Viking landers arrived almost 20
years ago.

     The spacecraft, scheduled to arrive at Mars on July 4, 1997,
will parachute down to Ares Vallis at the mouth of an ancient
outflow channel chosen for the variety of rock and soil samples
it may present.

     The purpose of the new Pathfinder mission is to demonstrate
an inexpensive system for cruise, entry, descent and landing on
Mars, said Project Manager Anthony Spear and Project Scientist
Dr. Matthew Golombek of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

     The lander, carrying the microrover, will aerobrake in the
upper Martian atmosphere using an aeroshell and a parachute.
Just before impact, airbags will inflate to cushion the landing.
The microrover will then roll out to examine the rocks and soil
nearby.

     Both lander and rover will carry scientific instruments and
cameras.  The lander will make atmospheric and meteorological
observations during descent and function as a weather station on
the surface, as well as a radio relay station for the rover.

     The constraints on the location have to do with engineering
considerations, Spear said. Since the spacecraft are solar-
powered, the best site is one with maximum sunshine and in July,
1997, the sun will be directly over the 15 degrees north latitude
region of the planet.

     The elevation must be as low as possible, Spear added, so
the descent parachute has sufficient time to open and slow the
lander to the correct terminal velocity.  The landing will be
within a 100- by 200-kilometer (60- by 120-mile) ellipse around
the targeted site due to uncertainties in navigation and
atmospheric entry.

     Ares Vallis, which meets the engineering constraints, was
chosen after a workshop earlier this year that involved the
invited participation of the entire scientific community
concerned with Mars.  More than 60 scientists from the United
States and Europe attended.

     The Ares Vallis site is also a "grab bag" location,
according to Golombek, set at the mouth of a large outflow
channel in which a wide variety of rocks are potentially within
the reach of the rover. Even though the exact origins of the
samples would not be known, he said, the chance of sampling a
variety of rocks in a small area could reveal a lot about Mars.

     The rocks would have been washed down from highlands at a
time when floods moved over the surface of Mars.  Several
potential sites were listed where ancient flood channels emptied
into Chryse Planitia, having cut through crustal units and ridged
plains where the water would have picked up material and
deposited it on the plain.

     Other sites that were considered included Oxia Palus, a dark
highlands region that contains highland crust and dark wind-blown
deposits; Maja Valles Fan, a delta fan which drained an outflow
channel; and the Maja Highlands, just south of  Maja Valles.  All
of the sites were studied using Viking orbiter data.

     Both the Pathfinder lander and rover have stereo imaging
systems. The rover, additionally, carries an alpha proton x-ray
spectrometer with which it will examine the composition of the
rocks.  The imaging system will reveal the mineralogy of surface
materials as well as the geologic processes and surface-
atmosphere interactions that created and modified the surface.
The instrument package will also enable scientists to determine
dust particle size and water vapor abundance in the atmosphere.

     JPL manages the Mars Pathfinder mission for NASA's Office of
Space Science, Washington, D.C.

                             #####

9/2/94 JJD
#9453

From:	US1RMC::"Admin@ccmail.Jpl.Nasa.Gov" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  8-SEP-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	JPL/Pathfinder landing site images available

Several images illustrating today's news release on the
announcement of a landing site for NASA's Mars Pathfinder mission
are available online.

The images are:

MPFSITE.GIF     Viking Orbiter view Mars Pathfinder landing site
                  P-44595
MPFLAND1.GIF    Artist's rendering landing sequence 1 of 3
                  P-41759Ac
MPFLAND2.GIF    Artist's rendering landing sequence 2 of 3
                  P-41759Bc
MPFLAND3.GIF    Artist's rendering landing sequence 3 of 3
                  P-41609
MPFROVER.GIF    Ground-based photo Mars Pathfinder rover
                  JPL-19278Ac

The images may be accessed by the public electronically by
Internet via the World Wide Web system, from JPL's home page at
the address http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ under the "News" heading; or
by anonymous file transfer protocol (FTP) to the address
jplinfo.jpl.nasa.gov in the "News" directory.  The files may also
be accessed via JPL's dialup bulletin board system at +1 (818) 354-1333.

Hardcopy prints of the image may be purchased referencing the
file number P-44542 from the vendor Newell Color Lab, 221 N.
Westmoreland Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90064, telephone (213) 380-
2980, fax (213) 739-6984.

From:	US1RMC::"ASTRO@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU" "Astronomy Discussion List" 
        22-SEP-1994 18:37:45.08
To:	Multiple recipients of list ASTRO <ASTRO@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU>
CC:	
Subj:	JPL 'Mars Weekend' at LA County Fair

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

Contact: Diane Ainsworth

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                     September 22, 1994

     The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's newest missions to Mars
-- the Mars Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor missions --
are featured in a special display at the Los Angeles County
Fair in Pomona.

     The JPL exhibit, which continues through Oct. 2,
highlights NASA's new emphasis on returning to Mars, the
subject of a decade-long program of planetary exploration.
NASA's return to the red planet gets under way in November
1996 with launch of the Mars Pathfinder and Mars Global
Surveyor spacecraft.

     This weekend, Sept. 24-25, is billed as a "Mars
Weekend" with special presentations and demonstrations of a
rover robot like one that will be sent to the red planet in
two years in the Mars Pathfinder mission.

     Donna Shirley, program manager of the Laboratory's
Office of Mars Exploration and head of the rover project,
will present an overview of  the Mars Pathfinder and Mars
Global Surveyor missions at noon and 2:30 p.m. on Sunday,
Sept. 25.

     One side of the triangular JPL exhibit boasts a large
Viking photograph of the landing site chosen for the new
Pathfinder lander.  A monitor in the center of the exhibit
is showing a multimedia presentation entitled, "Mars
Exploration Adventure: A Quick Tour of the Red Planet," and
other mission videos on a continuing basis.

     Tenth-scale models of some JPL spacecraft that have
already explored Mars -- such as the 1971 Mariner 9
spacecraft and 1976 Viking orbiters and landers -- are also
on display to give audiences a retrospective of  the Lab's
heritage in planetary exploration and its plans for the 21st
century.

     The Laboratory is also sponsoring a star-gazing program
every evening with JPL and Mt. Wilson volunteers under a
program called Telescopes in Education.  The program allows
science instructors and students to remotely operate a high-
quality 24-inch telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory from
the classroom.

     Gilbert Clark of JPL, who founded and directs the
program, has been showing children and amateur astronomers
how to operate the computer workstation at the fairgrounds.
Using the terminal, the telescope at Mt. Wilson can be
pointed at any star, nebula, cluster or galaxy in the night
sky and viewed on the computer screen.

     The Los Angeles County Fair is open from 10 a.m. to 10
p.m. during the week through Oct. 2 at the Fairplex, 1101 W.
McKinley Ave., Pomona, Calif.

     The JPL weekend exhibit will be open from 9 a.m. to 11
p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 24, and from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on
Sunday, Sept. 25.  Telescope viewing of the night sky takes
place each evening from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

     For further information, contact the JPL Public
Services Office at (818) 354-0112.

                           #####

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date:         Thu, 22 Sep 1994 20:38:22 +0000
% Reply-To: Astronomy Discussion List <ASTRO@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU>
% Sender: Astronomy Discussion List <ASTRO@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU>
% From: Ron Baalke <BAALKE@KELVIN.JPL.NASA.GOV>
% Subject:      JPL 'Mars Weekend' at LA County Fair
% X-To:         astro@gitvm1.bitnet
% To: Multiple recipients of list ASTRO <ASTRO@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU>