Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.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 ; Sat, 11 Mar 89 05:16:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 05:16:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #287 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 287 Today's Topics: Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st. Condensed CANOPUS, January 1989 Pegasus 3rd stage static test firing Solar flare and Mir Re: Solar flare and Mir looking for a simulator Re: Babies born in space. Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology Rats in Space (was Re: arf!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Mar 89 13:22:38 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st. In article <6083@leadsv.UUCP>, pat@leadsv.UUCP (Pat Wimmer) writes: > [. . . discussion of SR-71 alternative missions . . .] > Put yourself in the perspective of the Soviet Union. You know > you cannot knock down the plane with conventional weapons. > . . . Is this true? Why? On television (the show Wings, I think) I saw stuff about old ABM type missiles that could take out incoming ICBMs (assuming single warhead, no decoys, etc.) Why shouldn't they be able to take out something doing a measly Mach 3 or 4? This brings to mind a question I asked a while back that no one answered but which still intrigues me. If/when an aerospace plane is developed with orbital, sub-orbital ballistic, and hypersonic air capabilities, the line between recon satellites and recon airplane overflights will be changed to a continuum. I assume that the Russians and Americans would shoot down any airplane overflight but we allow satellites to pass overhead. Where could the new line be drawn? Have there been any official policy pronouncements on the issue? jim symon@cs.unc.edu {decvax uunet}!mcnc!unc!symon ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 89 23:31:44 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS, January 1989 Here, at last, is the condensed CANOPUS for January 1989. There are 12 articles, 4 given in condensed form and 8 by title only. The NASA FY-1990 budget request will be posted separately. CANOPUS is copyright American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, but distribution is encouraged. See full copyright information at end. Contents of this posting: NASA'S OFFICE OF EXPLORATION RELEASES ANNUAL REPORT - can890101.txt - 12/19/88 SHUTTLE-C MOCKUP IS STARTED - can890102.txt - 12/20/88 SPACE SHUTTLE STATUS - can890103.txt - 12/21/88 NASA/USBI SIGN BOOSTER CONTRACT EXTENSION - can890108.txt - 12/29/88 NASA'S OFFICE OF EXPLORATION RELEASES ANNUAL REPORT - can890101.txt - 12/19/88 The report was described by the past and current assistant administrators for exploration, John Aaron (now a special assistant to the director of Johnson Space Center) and Frank Martin, respectively. The latest Code Z report focuses on manned missions to the Moon and Mars. Notably absent are the robotic exploration of the solar system and the Mission to Planet Earth outlined in Ride's original report. Aaron said these were not examined because they are being implemented at various levels. A number of planetary missions are being developed or proposed, and the Earth mission will be developed as the Earth Observing System. According to NASA, a "major conclusions in the report is that independent of what type of future exploration course is chosen, the United States must now lay the foundation by beginning a modest but vital effort in detailed research, technology development and concentrated studies in addition to a sustained commitment to the current ongoing NASA programs. By pursuing a modest near-term investment of resources in the 1990s in long lead technologies and capabilities, the U.S. will preserve the ability to pursue a wide range of opportunities at the turn of the century." SHUTTLE-C MOCKUP IS STARTED - can890102.txt - 12/20/88 A full-scale Engineering Development Unit for the Shuttle-C program is being assembled at Marshall Space Flight Center using leftovers from the early days of the Shuttle program. SPACE SHUTTLE STATUS - can890103.txt - 12/21/88 Processing of the three Space Shuttle orbiters is proceeding normally, according to NASA reports. Two minor propulsion problems have been reported. A small crack has been found in the bearing of a Space Shuttle main engine flown early this month on STS-27, but the impact on the planned STS-29 launch in February is uncertain, according to NASA. A small nick has been found in an O-ring of an STS-27 booster, but it caused no problem in the mission, NASA stated in announcing that disassembly of the STS-27 solid rocket boosters at Cape Canaveral has been completed and the post-flight assessment team members are returning to their respective organizations. The overall condition of the boosters is excellent. While disassembling the nozzle of the lefthand SRB, the inspectors did note a small nick in the "wiper O-ring." This would have occurred during assembly of the nozzle into the rest of the solid rocket motor, according to Royce Mitchell, SRM Project Manager at Marshall Space Flight Center. "The nick did not interfere with the O-ring's function during nozzle assembly, which is to wipe the joint adhesive, a polysulfide material, ahead of it and protect the primary O-ring from contamination," Mitchell said. No degradation in performance resulted, and the joints performed as intended, he added. NASA/USBI SIGN BOOSTER CONTRACT EXTENSION - can890108.txt - 12/29/88 NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., and USBI Co., a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., Hartford, Conn., have finalized the restructuring of USBI's Space Shuttle solid rocket booster assembly and refurbishment contract. The new contract significantly increases the scope of work. The extension, effective Sept. 30, 1989, through Sept. 30, 1994, adds $1 billion to the total contract value for the assembly and refurbishment of Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters. This brings the total contract value to $1.6 billion. ----------------END OF CONDENSED CANOPUS----------------------------- This posting represents my own condensation of CANOPUS. For clarity, I have not shown ellipses (...), even when the condensation is drastic. New or significantly rephrased material is in {braces} and is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of my own opinion. The unabridged CANOPUS is available via e-mail from me at any of the addresses below. Other articles, not posted: PLANETARY RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS RELEASED - can890104.txt - 12/29/88 NASA LAUNCH SCHEDULE IN CANOPUS - CAN890105.TXT - 1/3/89 {available in on-line CANOPUS} SHUTTLE-C USER'S WORKSHOP PLANNED - can890106.txt - 1/3/89 SPACE STATION FREEDOM POWER SYSTEMS TESTING FACILITY TO OPEN - can890107.txt - 1/3/89 {at NASA Lewis} TANNER NAMED DIRECTOR SPACE STATION FREEDOM PROGRAM - can890109.txt - 1/3/89 {E. Ray Tanner, formerly at Marshall} NASA SEEKS NEW STARTS FOR TWO PLANETARY MISSIONS - can890110.txt - 1/9/89 {NASA budget request, to be posted separately} SHUTTLE NOTES - can890111.txt - 1/17/89, mod 1/20/89 NASA REDEFINES SPACE CREWS; PICKS IML-1 PAYLOAD SPECIALISTS - can890112.txt - 1/17/89 Copyright information: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 89 20:56:59 GMT From: mailrus!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Pegasus 3rd stage static test firing Today, March 6, 1989, the 3rd stage of Pegasus was successfully tested in a static firing. This is the only static test that will be conducted on the 3rd stage. My understanding is that a stage will only be tested once unless the first test is a failure. Bob P. P.S. Hopefully this will get to you before you read about it in Aviation Leak. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 89 14:27:42 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) Subject: Solar flare and Mir I heard on NPR last night that the largest solar flare in 5 years happened a couple days ago. The electrons from the flare are due to reach Earth in about 12 hours (6 PM EST). This made me wonder whether the Mir cosmonauts are in danger, and if so, what precautions they can take. It seems like the biggest problem they'd have would be X-rays from the electrons striking Mir's hull. Comments? - Steve (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 89 17:11:41 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bonin@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Marc Bonin) Subject: Re: Solar flare and Mir In article , masticol@paul.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: > > I heard on NPR last night that the largest solar flare in 5 years > happened a couple days ago. The electrons from the flare are due to > reach Earth in about 12 hours (6 PM EST). > > This made me wonder whether the Mir cosmonauts are in danger, and if > so, what precautions they can take. They are still below the Van Allen radiation belts, which ought to help. If they were on an interplanetary flight they might have more of a problem. See James Michener's 'Space' for a fictional treatment of this. Of course, they can always jump into their Soyuz and be back on earth in an hour, although not necessarily at the most ideal landing site :-) Marc Bonin University of Texas at Austin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 89 09:58:13 EST From: Eric Harnden Subject: looking for a simulator First, my apologies to the Usenet people. I had assumed that when I sent a memo to space-request, it would be gated by an administrator, as opposed to simply distributed into the net as by space. Also, my thanks to the responses on the question of digest operation. What I really want now, though, is a program or group of programs to simulate various aspects of orbital and/or celestial mechanics. Even a non- game space shuttle simulator would be interesting. I have IBM/CMS, AT&T UNIX, Macintosh, and IBM PC available as platforms, and compilers for C, Pascal, and LISP for most of them, so any source would probably be of some use. Yes, I can run FORTRAN, but would certainly prefer not to. Anything out there in the public domain? Eric Harnden (Ronin) EHARNDEN@AUVM ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 89 17:10:07 GMT From: silver!compton@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Dave Compton) Subject: Re: Babies born in space. In article <1989Mar5.011120.24045@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: :In article <8Y42Wly00XokQ3qUUv@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: :>What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space, :>who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few :>years in space ? : :Nobody knows. For a guess, development before birth would probably be :nearly normal, since the fetus is pretty much weightless (floating in :fluid). Details might differ, perhaps important ones. Afterwards, it's :impossible to say. You are correct in saying that it is impossible to say exactly what will happen, but we can make some logical guesses. Psychologically, I don't think there will be much harm. The adaptability shown by the young(of humans and other mammals) will let them cope with the situation. Physically, there is a high probability that there could be major problems with the development of a functional muscular system. Most of you probably know that the Russians have had problems with muscle degeneration in cosmonauts. It would be interesting to see what would happen to young animals. dave -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | compton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu | These are only my opinions, | | iuvax!silver!compton@iuvax | but I'm an opinionated person! | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 89 13:19:24 GMT From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir > I find it interesting in the middle of the manned vs unmanned debat here >the Soviets maintain a continously crewed space station while sending at >the same time their most complicated interplanetary mission to Mars. Maybe >we should learn a bit from their style of space operations. Yes. What, in particular, should we learn from the observation that even with a launcher 4 or 5 times cheaper than the shuttle (Proton), they have a space station only a fraction the size of Skylab? Perhaps that NASA's priorities are seriously skewed? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 89 21:33:21 GMT From: att!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (54317-T.EBERSOLE) Subject: Re: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology In article <1014@ur-cc.UUCP>, powi@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Peter Owings) writes: > > I just can't believe that someone still takes astrology serious > enough to study it... > > Peter.. About ten years ago, I read in some magazine (how's that for citing accurate references?) that the USofA supported about 25000 astrologers at an average salary of something like 60000$/year and about 2500 professional astronomers at about 30000$/year. I doubt that we're doing any better now. Anyone have any accurate ideas on current number of astronomers and average salaries? I know their average salary, at least that component due to astronomy, but how many amateur astronomers are there in this country, and elsewhere? Tim Ebersole mtuxo!tee -- Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 89 16:50:58 GMT From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu Subject: Rats in Space (was Re: arf!) From: dietz In article <1989Mar7.030756.5859@utzoo.uucp> you write: >>Why is it not possible to launch pregnant rats (for example) in an >>unmanned returnable capsule? > >If all you're interested in is birth and the period immediately before >and after, this should work. I don't think anybody's built an automatic >life-support system that can keep rats alive and healthy for long periods >in space, which is what you'd really like. (To judge by the Spacelab >experience, we don't know how to keep *anything* alive and healthy up >there if it isn't smart enough to use the Shuttle toilet...) The question about rats was in response to someone claiming that a space station is necessary to study *fetal* development. One should be able to rig up a pregnant rat so that food/water are supplied by tubes and the rat is immobilized in a harness that sucks away waste products. Indeed, didn't the Soviets orbit a biosatellite just recently (the one in which a monkey got an arm free)? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #287 *******************