Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:12:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:49:28 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17538; Sat, 16 Jul 88 19:06:46 PDT id AA17538; Sat, 16 Jul 88 19:06:46 PDT Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 19:06:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807170206.AA17538@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #277 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 277 Today's Topics: Re: NASA news - Mars mission project Man-rated Pegasus Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Mir elements Re: Fusion Power spacecraft drive Re: News on Shuttle oxidizer Re: -- Pegasus launch vehicle SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN SPACE ADDENDUM TO SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLIHMENTS ADDENDUM TO SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS SURVEY REQUEST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jun 88 14:00:34 GMT From: killer!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: NASA news - Mars mission project In article ... khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) writes: > The scenarios identify: > * recreation/scientific activities > The Mars Mission course demonstrates NASA's continued > commitment to improving the level of science literacy in the > nation's schools... It also demonstrates NASA's priorities for scientific activities. Nuff said. -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today?) da Silva. -- U Mail to ...!uunet!sugar!peter, flames to /dev/null. -- "A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds". ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 88 17:05:58 GMT From: cae780!ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@hplabs.hp.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Man-rated Pegasus In article <1988Jun17.053132.5314@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >[Hmmm... 900 pounds, 42 inches. Kind of tight, and the upper-stage >accelerations look uncomfortably high, but I bet you could man-rate it >if you really tried.] For those who want to get into space in the worst way -- That would be (almost!) the worst way. (Especially if I tried to cram my bulk into the thing -- those accelerations standing up??) Well, it's a little better than the Celestis method. :-) -- "When you strip all the technospeak away, they're claiming that it can't be done because it hasn't been done yet, and therefore, we ought not even try doing it, because it can't be done. That's Luddite Logic if I ever heard it." -- Tom Clancy on SDI. Mike Van Pelt vanpelt%unisv@ubvax.ub.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 88 05:55:12 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! > ...some idea of how useful a 600-900 pound (still no metric!) payload is? It's not big enough for most recent payloads, which have tended heavily toward the pile-everything-into-one-huge-lump school of design. However, many people feel that this tendency has gone much too far, and that there would be many benefits from going back to small single-mission satellites for a lot of jobs. 600-900 lbs is lots for *one* scientific experiment plus support equipment, and is enough to be useful for things like communications and espionage if you are willing to design the equipment to fit. Personally, I suspect you could make money on even smaller payloads if you offered cheap, frequent, short-notice, low-hassle launches. > Would such a delivery system be useful for making small emergency > shipments to a permanent space station... Yes, assuming a solution to the unmanned-rendezvous-and-docking issue. (The OMV now under development might suffice.) -- Man is the best computer we can | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 88 20:03:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements The following are Mir elements, epoch date 16 June 1988. Mir has likely been maneuvered with the return of the visiting crew, so these elements are not to be taken as gospel. Moreover, I suspect that there was a maneuver of some sort taking place over the period of the observations, as the B* and mean motion acceleration for Mir itself seem a trifle high, while those of the other objects are negative. A regression line for the mean motions of the four objects at the epoch times yields a comparable figure, though. Mir 1 16609U 88168.13128141 0.00167019 11837-2 0 2587 2 16609 51.6173 72.7048 0004233 65.4999 294.7332 15.72897577133666 Kvant 1 17845U 88167.87723404 -.00007076 -48913-4 0 4524 2 17845 51.6182 74.0065 0004510 71.9423 288.8139 15.72840560 69897 Soyuz TM-4 1 18699U 88167.94080028 -.00007087 -48913-4 0 1785 2 18699 51.6195 73.6766 0004606 59.3092 301.6177 15.72875297 28009 Soyuz TM-5 1 19204U 88167.75013351 -.00007058 -48913-4 0 183 2 19204 51.6146 74.6578 0004027 51.1780 309.4049 15.72776079 1295 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 258 Epoch: 88168.13128141 Inclination: 51.6173 degrees RA of node: 72.7048 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004233 Argument of perigee: 65.4999 degrees Mean anomaly: 294.7332 degrees Mean motion: 15.72897577 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00167019 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 13366 Semimajor axis: 6728.72 km Apogee height*: 353.40 km Perigee height*: 347.71 km Satellite: Kvant Catalog id 17845 Element set 452 Epoch: 88167.87723404 Inclination: 51.6182 degrees RA of node: 74.0065 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004510 Argument of perigee: 71.9423 degrees Mean anomaly: 288.8139 degrees Mean motion: 15.72840560 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: -0.00007076 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 6989 Semimajor axis: 6728.88 km Apogee height*: 353.75 km Perigee height*: 347.68 km Satellite: Soyuz TM-4 Catalog id 18699 Element set 178 Epoch: 88167.94080028 Inclination: 51.6195 degrees RA of node: 73.6766 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004606 Argument of perigee: 59.3092 degrees Mean anomaly: 301.6177 degrees Mean motion: 15.72875297 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: -0.00007087 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 2800 Semimajor axis: 6728.78 km Apogee height*: 353.72 km Perigee height*: 347.52 km Satellite: Soyuz TM-5 Catalog id 19204 Element set 18 Epoch: 88167.75013351 Inclination: 51.6146 degrees RA of node: 74.6578 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004027 Argument of perigee: 51.1780 degrees Mean anomaly: 309.4049 degrees Mean motion: 15.72776079 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: -0.00007058 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 129 Semimajor axis: 6729.06 km Apogee height*: 353.61 km Perigee height*: 348.19 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 04:30:58 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Fusion Power spacecraft drive In article <8806172004.AA00415@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: >To tie this to Space, there is a bit of discussion of research into >fusion-powered spacedrives. At the time of writing, it seems there was a >still-classified paper in the Livermore archives that worked out quite a >lot of the problems and presented a feasable design for such a craft. If you're thinking about the paper I'm thinking about, it isn't classified. The author just doesn't want copies spread about until it is published. He gave a presentation on it at the monthly meeting of the National Space Society. In some respects it builds on the Daedalus design, but this isn't just a concept, this is a detailed design. One of the more interesting features is that the ship is shaped like a hollow cone, and flys blunt end first. The entire structure of the ship, especially including living spaces, is built in the neutron shadow of the shielding for the magnetic nozzle coils. Neat idea. -- Mike Van Pelt vanpelt%unisv@ubvax.ub.com The electronic networks, of course, have always been the terrorist's most reliable ally, for they have never failed to bend over backwards to give him what he craves: extravagant publicity. -- Petr Beckmann ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 06:18:06 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: News on Shuttle oxidizer In article <1476@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > This may seem a very strange suggestion to some people, but why > don't they buy the chemical on the international market? I am > sure there must be other chemical plants capable of supplying > what is needed until the new US production capacity is built. > Bob. The grains of ammonium perchlorate must be of a specific size and shape to give the appropriate burn rate when used in solid motor. The entire design of the motor depends on the burn rate (affects pressures, thrust levels, etc.). Probably alternate suppliers can't provide the right grain types, or, alternately, they can, but the paperwork to CERTIFY that they meet the government specifications would probably take longer than rebuilding the burnt down factory. Another reason the government would give for not using foreign suppliers is the dependance that would create for military programs (the Trident and MX missiles, and military satellites launched on the Titan, Delta, and Shuttle all require solid motors with ammonium perchlorate). Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 06:06:25 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: -- Pegasus launch vehicle In article <3361@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > For the benefit of us interested-but-ignorant observers, can you give > me some idea of how useful a 600-900 pound (still no metric!) payload is? > Would such a delivery system be useful for making small emergency > shipments to a permanent space station ("Houston, we, uh, seem to have loaded > our camera wrong and wasted all our film; think you could Pegasus up another > few rolls before this comet goes out of range?"). Sounds like putting one of > these up might be a lot faster than waiting for the next scheduled shuttle. > -- Funny you should ask. One trade study going on right now at Boeing's space station effort is looking into ELV's for station resupply. (We have the Logistics Elements part of the job, among others) The current station design quantizes most of the interior hardware into 'double racks', which are large enough to hold two 19 inch standard rack-mountable pieces of equipment side by side. Hence the double rack is 42" wide. It is about 74-80 in high and 30-40 in deep. The rack estimated weights run from about 400 pounds to 1800 pounds, with a mean ofa little over 1000 pounds. The racks are all designed be removed as units. It would be really convenient to have a one-rack capacity launch vehicle (about 2000 lb), but even 900 lb will come in very handy: "Houston, we just lost the number 4 air revitalizer, could you send up a spare, NOW!!??" (no smiley face) With a solid rocket, presumably you could treat it like a big missile, and not have to spend more than a few hours prepping it for launch. Then the airplane can cruise to get under the Station's orbital path as soon as possible, making a <12 hour response time possible. Compare to the 90 day wait if a problem crops up the day after an Orbiter goes home. Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 15:26 EST From: Subject: SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN SPACE For reasons which are to detailed to go into here, I would like to conduct a survey on the net regarding what each of you feels are/will be the most significant achievements relating to mankind's efforts to explore and develop space. I am interested not only in those accomplishments directly related to space, but any development in any discipline which has contibuted to these efforts. Responses should however, be restricted to a time period beginning around 1900 A.D. and extending as far into the future as you like. Projections for the future should be based on some logical extrapolation of current technology or theory (no science fiction please) and if highly speculative, the development path from current science should be described. Last of all, (naturally) responses should be E-mailed to me personally rather than put on the net. After I have received and analyzed the responses, it is my intent to put the results of the survey (i.e. the accomplishments that are generally felt by the majority to be the most significant) on the net. Maybe we'll even get one of two good topics of serious concern to space out of it, rather than some of the political and linguistic drivel (Flame expected) like "manned vs. femmed" or what "CBS should be doing" that seems to have permeated the net in the last couple of months. Your responses will be greatly appreciated. Rick R. Johnson RJOHNSON@CEBAF1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 15:28 EST From: Subject: ADDENDUM TO SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLIHMENTS I just realized after my first couple of responses to my "Significant Achievements In Space" survey, that I was perhaps not absolutely clear in my request for responses. What I am interested in in addition to the mention of the accomplishments themselves, are the dates that you think they were/will be completed. For those of you that have already responded, I would appreciate a follow up on your responses containing this information. Also, although the accomplishments in the future are of prime importance, please include info on the past accomplishments, since part of my interest is to see how familiar everyone is with these past accomplishments, and which ones you all feel have been the most important. Sorry about the vagueness, and thanks once again. Rick R. Johnson RJOHNSON@6414 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 15:29 EST From: Subject: ADDENDUM TO SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS SURVEY REQUEST I just realized after my first couple of responses to my "Significant Achievements In Space" survey, that I was perhaps not absolutely clear in my request for responses. What I am interested in in addition to the mention of the accomplishments themselves, are the dates that you think they were/will be completed. For those of you that have already responded, I would appreciate a follow up on your responses containing this information. Also, although the accomplishments in the future are of prime importance, please include info on the past accomplishments, since part of my interest is to see how familiar everyone is with these past accomplishments, and which ones you all feel have been the most important. Sorry about the vagueness, and thanks once again. Rick R. Johnson RJOHNSON@6414 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #277 *******************